To carry this out, Westminster had to do some fancy footwork to free itself from provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, which it is supposedly bound to uphold. The convention says signatories must respect the right to a fair trial, a fundamental provision that the new repressive legislation will breach. To get around this little problem, the government has declared a "public emergency" in the context of its joining the U.S.-led war against Afghanistan. The new government powers are due to be in force by mid-December.

Detention without trial, also called internment here, has been used by the British ruling class in the past, and is hated by layers of fighters, especially those backing the Irish freedom struggle. London used internment during the 1990–1991 Gulf War and before that in its mass roundups of nationalists in the north of Ireland in the 1970s.

The new law, which has met with considerable debate in ruling-class circles, will allow the indefinite detention of foreign nationals who are suspected of "terrorism" by the authorities but who cannot be deported under asylum legislation because they would face torture or death if returned to their country of origin.

Those detained will not be informed of the evidence against them, and their cases will be reviewed only every six months. Hearings on the charges will be held without press or public present and any appeals will be restricted to points of law. The laws will allow the substance of asylum claims made by so-called "terrorist suspects" to be ignored.

The legislation also gives police extended powers to photograph and fingerprint people, and to oblige protesters to remove disguises, communications service providers to retain data such as e-mail and mobile phone logs, and airlines to hand over information about passengers and freight and to detain aircraft. Laws against incitement to racial hatred will be extended to include hatred based on religion, and new offenses will be drawn up for "carrying out a hoax involving noxious substances" and of "assisting a foreign power in developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."

In response to criticism of the proposed new measures by civil rights organizations, Blunkett dismissed opponents as living in an "airy-fairy libertarian" world. In a press briefing on the new legislation, the rights group Liberty points out that of the "more than 7,000 people detained in Britain (i.e. not including Northern Ireland) under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the vast majority have been released without charge and only a tiny fraction have ever been charged with anything remotely resembling terrorism."

The Liberty press release also refers to the arsenal of existing repressive measures principally contained in the Terrorism Act 2000, enacted by the Labour government last year, and the various Immigration Acts. The law contains provisions:

*Granting the Secretary of State the power to proscribe organizations and naming offenses relating to association with such organizations.

*Extending detention prior to charges being laid in cases the government deems related to terrorism.

*Under a broad definition of terrorism, creating offenses relating to inciting and funding terrorism.

*A procedure under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission that allows an immigration/asylum appeal to be tested by a special advocate in closed session.

When moving the legislation in the House of Commons November 19, Blunkett made a strong nationalist appeal. "This is our home. It's our country.... I am willing to take whatever critics may throw at me, as long as history does not judge that our Labour government failed to do its best to protect us against those who would destroy our lives and our democracy," he said.  
 
Tories back new law
There was some criticism of the internment aspect of the new legislation in the big-business media, with a number of Labour MPs and leaders of the Liberal Democrats opposing the measure. The Conservative Party leadership expressed some doubts but went along with the government's proposals.

Oliver Letwin, the Tories' shadow Home Secretary, said that Blunkett "believes he needs these powers now to protect us against what may be an appalling attack. To the extent that proves right, I am unwilling on my part and the part of my party, to put this country at the risk of the Home Secretary being right."

In the end, the Tories backed the law and the Liberal Democrats, the third largest party in the House of Commons, abstained. The vote on the second reading ran 458 in favor and 5 against. The third and final reading passed with 79 opposed. The measure now goes before the House of Lords.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home