The Iron Foot In The Velvet Boot

If there were any doubts that this is one of the most scoundrelly governments we have seen they have been thoroughly assuaged by the current attempts to force a power to detain alleged terrorist suspects - without charge and without evidence - for up to 90 days, the same time served as for a 6 month prison sentence.

Initially, Home Secretary Charles Clarke - a man whose majestic girth doubtless contributes to the fact that his political turning circle is rivalled for elegance only by a supertanker - was keen to demonstrate his bona fides, seeking "cross-party consensus" on a matter of national security with which it would be inappropriate to play partisan politics. Of course, it now appears that he, not to mention Prime Minister Blair, only wanted consensus inasmuch as it meant total agreement to all his demands. When such "consensus" failed to materialise, when even the man previously considered the nation's most right-wing Home Secretary yet, Michael Howard, refused to agree, things got nasty.

With resentment simmering on the government backbenches, culminating in the threat of a first commons defeat for Mr Blair over the issue and a humiliating climbdown by Mr Clarke, things got nasty, the government decided to play dirty. Over at The Sun, editor took Rebekah Wade has taken time out from slapping her husband(1) to adorn her front pages with images of the victims of the 7th July attacks(2) and her comment pages with wailing calls to ignore the '“Human rights” champions, woolly MPs and leftie judges' bent on pissing on the memories of the dead(3). Tony Blair himself let those ever-so-sincere tears form in the corner of his eyes as he told reporters at his monthly press conference about his meetings with the July 7th victims last week. Both Blair and Clarke repeated that the police had called for a 90 day period of imprisonment, and that the majority of the public supported them. With these twin "arguments" behind them, they plan to put matters to the vote again, hoping to make the Conservative leadership look "weak on terror".

So, what of these two arguments - (a) the emotive, June 7th, "this must never happen again" argument and (b) the "this is what the police and public want" argument. To deal with (a) is straightforward: where is the evidence that 90-day detention would have prevented the attacks on the bus and tube on the 7th July? Given that the police and security services told us following the events on 7th and 21st July that the bombers and would-be bombers were unknown to them, how could they have been detained in the first place? Argument (a) is a pure appeal to the instinct for knee-jerk action and with even Michael Howard and David Davis ... Michael Howard and David Davis for goodness' sake! ... warning that 90 day detention will serve merely to stir up resentment, shouldn't the government be wary of repeating the disaster that was internment in Northern Ireland?

And then there's argument (b), that the police and public support the 90-day period. Well, the police may have some grounds for their view(4) but since when have the public been experts on the best means of identifying and preventing terrorism? And even the police view shouldn't be conclusive: as Tony Blair himself argued back in 1996 when he opposed the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act in 1996, something Michael Howard noted as can be seen from Hansard

Mr. Howard: Since the first Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act in 1974, successive Home Secretaries have come before the House to argue the case for renewal. Not one has undertaken that task without feeling both sorrow and anger that such measures are, and continue to be, necessary to protect and defend the citizens of this country from those who are prepared to engage in acts of terror--to kill and to maim by bomb and by bullet. The sadness I feel today must be at least the equal of that felt on any such occasion over the past 20 years. This is the third year in which I have asked the House to renew the Act. On each occasion, the backdrop to the debate has been different. On the first occasion, in 1994, the IRA's campaign was in full flood. Indeed, as the House may recall, I was just winding up the debate when news reached me of the mortars that had fallen on Heathrow airport less than an hour before. I appealed then to the whole House to unite with the Government so as to send a signal to those responsible for that campaign that the House was united, that it was

"determined to face them down and to make available to the police the powers that they need to fight terrorism."--[Official Report,9 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 335.]

To my regret, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield(Mr. Blair), who now leads the Opposition and was then his party's spokesman on home affairs, rejected that call. The Labour party voted against the Government and against the continuation of the powers in the Act.

And besides Mr Blair's volte face over the value of the police view, it's worth remembering most of the police and most of the public want hanging to be brought back (and remember they can justify their position on the ground that no-one that has ever been hanged has gone on to commit further offences, terrorist or otherwise). If we accept the (b) argument then we should also accept the return of hanging, notwithstanding the likely fates of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four et al and the actual fates of Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley, Mahmood Hussein Mattan &c.

This "reasoning", this blind urge to do what "The Sun Says", what the police want, what the people "demand", is the same reasoning that has seen right after right abolished. Who would have thought even 15 years ago that a Labour government would see Britons photographed up to 300 times a day by CCTV cameras, facing imprisonment without charge for up to 90 days, unable to assemble for the purposes of lawful protest without the fear of police using anti-terrorist legislation to arrest them, fearful of criticising religion, afraid to state view on the Easter Uprising or the acitivities of Nelson Mandela and Umkhonto we Sizwe for fear of "glorifying terrorism". It turns out we have not sat idly by as this government has removed our basic liberties, instead we have lapped up Mr Blair's honeyed words and applauded his every step. When, in his novel "1984", George Orwell gave O'Brien a speech about the future being "a boot stamping on a human face forever", what he omitted was that the boot would be velvet, but the foot within it would be made of iron.

(1) sadly not because "Ultimate Force" is such an appalling TV show.
(2) not 7/7. The attacks on the tube were appalling but simply do not equate to the sheer horror that was 9/11 (or even, for those of you trying to resist Americanisation of your calendars 11/9)
(3) I paraphrase, but only slightly. Examples of The Sun's measured journalism can be seen here and here.
(4) though given the findings in a recent report that many of the constabulary need supervision merely to tie their own shoelaces we perhaps shouldn't put too much weight on such a view.