Britain,
Remember after 9/11, when we passed the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001? Section 23 allowed us to detain any foreigner, without trial, if we suspected them of terrorism and they could not be deported. We justified this derogation by claiming "terrorism is a threat to the life of the nation".
In 2004, a case on behalf of nine foreigners who were held at Belmarsh prison for nearly three years was brought before the House of Lords. English Judge, Lord Hoffman, remarkably chastised our Home Office.
He said: "Such a power in any form is not compatible with our constitution. The real threat to the life of the nation... comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. This is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory."
Detaining foreigners without trial was thus held to be incompatible with fundamental human rights. As a result, section 23 was later repealed.
11 years on, we once more face a threat to the life of our nation. Our current government's proposed Counter-Terrorism & Security Bill provides for an array of draconian measures. Among them, the power to seize passports and exclude on a temporary basis, a legal obligation to "monitor for extremism", as well as the establishment of "de-Radicalisation panels" by local authorities.
The power "to deprive a person of citizenship" already exists under the Immigration Act 2014, and is qualified by "the Secretary of State [being] satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good". On the other hand, seizure of passports and temporary exclusions under the proposed Bill are simply qualified by "suspicion". This is an unsafe threshold; it is both subjectively low and easily met by reference to circumstantial evidence.
Moreover, through the obligation to monitor for extremism, we would impose a legal duty on our public services to report anyone "at risk" of being "drawn into terrorism". "Terrorism" is of course redefined to encompass a vague ideological and political landscape, rather than any association with violence. This obligation includes our universities, schools, GPs, prisons, and even nurseries.
If we were to consider, say, the general public's lack of expertise in discerning "radicalisation", the concept of these reports becomes largely arbitrary. The duty itself is arguably unenforceable in practice.
Nevertheless, to enshrine this anathema in law is counterproductive. It is inappropriate, if not dangerous, to deliberately engender an atmosphere of racial profiling, animosity, and mistrust in environments which traditionally thrive on social cohesion.
The Education Act 1986, section 43 ensures freedom of expression in universities and colleges. Our children should admire their teachers, not view them as spies. We spend millions on rehabilitation programmes; it only follows that prisoners should be able to speak freely for any prospect of improvement. And doctors- our doctors- should prioritise every patient's health, rather than be distracted by issues of ideology.
Perhaps the most alarming part of this Bill is the uncanny resemblance of "de-Radicalisation panels" to the treatment of homosexuals in pre-1960s Britain. A time when "others" would be forced to undergo "Conversion Therapy", predominantly resulting in incurable psychological and physical ailments. The unfettered discretion implied by this provision is also cause for serious concern: it makes no mention of due process, judicial oversight, legal representation, or the presence of parents in the case of a child.
The Bill has overall been described as unnecessary, disregarding of civil liberties, and infringing on the right to privacy.
Perhaps the most common way we justify legislation of this kind to ourselves is through the idea that "extremists are living among us". This is amplified by relentless right-wing media rhetoric of an imminent, unknown terrorist attack brewing.
Such fear mongering feeds into the polarisation of foreigners and propagates a necessity for extreme measures against "them". This polarisation is translated into hostility which gnaws at the edge of fundamental human rights.
However, if we were to take a simple glance at most "high profile" terrorist attacks within the past decade, a theme in conflict with this notion of "imminent" and "unknown" becomes apparent.
The Charlie Hebdo Paris gunmen had been on a terror watch list "for years". The Sydney gunman had many previous criminal convictions. Michael Adebolajo, one of Lee Rigby's killers, had been known and tracked by intelligence agencies since 2006. The Boston Marathon bomber was put on the main US terrorism watch list for more than a year before his crime. Even as far back as 9/11, all those allegedly involved were known to authorities beforehand.
This unveils two realities.
First, your Muslim neighbour will not wake up one morning and decide he is a terrorist. Every single perpetrator of these crimes was a known-to-be threat. Crimes have no religion. They are simply crimes, committed by criminals, motivated by a criminal mind-set.
Secondly and therefore, this legislative proposal is pointless. It creates thought crimes, where real crimes have been the glaring indicators. The security powers already at hand are evidently more than enough to identify dangerous individuals.
Hence, it is only fair to deal with them specifically, rather than shifting towards brutal authoritarianism where the liberty of innocents means as much as the guilt of criminals.
Instead of exporting freedom and democracy to Middle Eastern countries, it seems we are importing totalitarianism and repression from them.
Lord Hoffman truly put it best. We, Britain, must not give terrorists this victory.
At time of writing, the Bill has passed Parliament and is now in its last stage of examination by the Lords.
To resolve an injustice, we must not commit a greater injustice. Especially against ourselves.