Anti-Terrorsim Law Effective in Britain Despite Criticism from Churches

After a long, bitter debate in Parliament, Britain has finally passed the Anti-Terrorism Law which has been strongly resisted by churches and conservative politicians. Critics from the Churches said that while the law claimed to protect the safety of citizens, the cost of the threat to civil liberties has been grossly overlooked.

The Anti-Terrorism law provides general guidelines in dealing with terrorist suspects. The law will allow the Home Secretary to impose control orders on terrorist suspects ranging from surveillance measures through to house arrest without charge or trial.

Amendments proposed in the House of Commons would require the application to a judge for the lesser control orders, such as electronic tagging.

Once the new law is effective, the ten suspects who had been detained since 9/11 terrorist attack in 2001 without any trials will be freed. According to the Guardian newspaper, one of them is Abu Qatada, a radical Muslim cleric closely linked with Osama bin Laden.

Some people worry that the new law symbolises a victory for the terrorists. However, churches expressed concern that the system depends on the subjective judgment of government ministers without a "reasonable suspicion" that would allow a control order to be imposed.

In the recent years after the 9/11 attacks in the US, a wave of fear has arisen among European countries, especially in the UK. The British Police have tightened security measures in the cities, and street inspections have becomes more common.

Last year, ethnic minorities in London complained about discrimination from the police as they were seen to be more likely to be stopped publicly for inspections than other white citizens.

Steve Hucklesby, Secretary for International Affairs of the Methodist Church said in a statement, "The Prime Minister stated on BBC radio that there are several hundred people in this country believed to be plotting terrorist acts - a statement not apparently supported by intelligence services."

"Such statements touch a raw nerve in our post 9/11 world and there is a very real danger that undue fear could persuade us to adopt measures that will damage the good record of this country on justice and human rights."

"Terrorism must be tackled on several fronts and rigorous respect for international human rights standards are essential in this endeavour," he concluded.

The Revd Dr Hazel Sherman, Social and Political affairs Co-ordinator of the Baptist Union of Great Britain’s Faith and Unity Department, quoted by Baptist Times, "There is a question of justice - that our basic human right to live in safety may be established at the cost of the right of others to live free from fear of unjust detention. Where are the real checks and balances?"

She continued, "The threat from this proposal comes from the fact that it puts Government in the role of judge and jury. If the Government is vested in the person of the Home Secretary, or even if he is replaced by a judge, one person acting alone, both unprotected and unchallenged by judicial procedures, is susceptible to pressure from government and intelligence officers? Too easily becoming a servant of the governing body rather than a public servant of the state."

She explained the complexity of the case by using the story of David and Samuel recorded in the Book of Samuel, "The Lord does not see as man sees...There is a tension between appearance and understanding."

Currently, the Conservatives in Parliament stand on a similar viewpoint with the churches, saying the new Anti-Terrorism law would infringe on civil liberties, and demanded a so-called sunset clause guaranteeing that the law would expire a year after being passed, according to the Guardian newspaper.

Hucklesby from Methodist Church commented, "Laws such as these have major implications for our constitutional rights and warrant a wide discussion and debate beyond the confines of Parliament. Such a debate was suggested by Charles Clarke in January and it is regrettable therefore that temporary legislation is being rushed through the Commons and Lords in such a perfunctory way."

"The balance between civil liberties and effective protection from terrorism is tricky and calls for sober judgement," he said.

In fact, the existing legislation drawn up after 9/11 expires on 14th March. Therefore, the government has appeared to some as rushing the implementation of a new Anti-Terrorism law.

The Guardian reported on Saturday that Blair eventually agreed to a timetable for Parliament to review and amend the law and promised Parliament time to draft more wide-ranging legislation later in the year.