BELLAVIGNA Aurélie Group 7 THE TERROR BILL IN THE UNITED KINGDOM What are the issues raised by the bill? What may be the consequences of the Parliament's rejection on Prime Minister Blair's political future? What is the effect of such laws on the state of civil liberties in Western societies today?
Steve Bell, The Guardian, November 11, 2005 In the aftermath of the London bombings, the definition of a new, reinforced legislation on terror has represented one of the top priorities for the British government and has especially been at the centre of the political debate in the last few weeks as the bill was discussed in the House of Commons in the perspective of its adoption; yet, after a rather major controversy over the project in the days preceding the vote, the Members of Parliament rather expectedly rejected the bill in a way that has been the cause for a new controversy around the political meaning of the rejection by the Labour MPs, interpreted in terms of treachery by a weakened Blair administration, as well as by a rather “controlled” part of the media, as demonstrated by the Sun and its infamous front page on the 11 November, unceremoniously headlined “TRAITORS”. Indeed, beyond the simple rejection of the measures announced in the bill (mostly on the issue of the extension of the period of time for which the police can retain a suspected terrorist from 14 to 90 days, especially in the case of an absence of charge), most saw in what is effectively Blair's first real defeat a sign that his political legitimacy might be threatened, to such an extent that some even hinted they would expect no less than a resignation as a consequence for this failure. Beyond the strictly political dimension of the debate, some have also expressed fears as to the implications of such restrictive legislations and their possible impact on civil liberties within Western societies in the near future. “Terror plan branded as ‘nonsense'”, BBC News, November 3, 2005 In this overview of the general debate during the suspense before the vote in Parliament, the central points of the bill are recalled, amongst which the creation of new offences including the acts of encouraging or glorifying terrorism, preparing terrorist attacks and attending terrorist camps; another aspect of the plan involves the possibility of suspects being prosecuted in the UK, even in the case of offences committed abroad. As a consequence, many MPs, shadow secretaries and other political actors have expressed their strong disagreement, pointing out, among other things, how this law would force a single definition of terrorism onto other countries in which such a thing as “glorifying terrorism” might not constitute a crime, leading Tory shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve to label it a piece of “dangerous nonsense”. Choosing a more controversial angle than the previous BBC article, this piece presents the rather unenthusiastic reactions from the Muslim community and even hints at a certain confusion between religious concerns and terrorist matters, which could result from the law and more specifically the clause on the “glorification” of terrorism. Rather than providing an analysis of the political consequences the adoption would have, the authors attempt to show what the impact on society and specifically the Muslim community would be, based on the conclusions by The Muslim community's police and security working group, set up by the Home office after the London bombings. What comes out of it is the appearance of a climate of fear and concern among Muslims in Britain, potentially dangerous, as one should consider how a rather aggressive foreign policy towards the Middle East may have already been a key factor in emphasising desperation and encouraging terrorist acts. Therefore, beyond the shadow of defeat, the government now has to face possible consequences in terms of radicalisation and exacerbation of the existing tensions. “Terror bill defeat”, Trevor Kavanagh, The Sun “Blair defeat MPs: Heroes or villains?”, Brian Wheeler, BBC News, November 11, 2005 Covering the same event, these two articles, although completely diverse in quality and opinion, are linked in the sense that the terminology used by the BBC in terms of “heroes” and “villains” is precisely a response to the attitude of a certain part of the British press, and especially the Sun, whose front pages after the defeat of the bill in the Commons was both outraged and outrageous: the accusation of treachery in bold capitals, the emotional angle chosen through the posting of a photograph of a blood-covered victim of the Underground bombings along with the words “Tell Tony He's Right” (even though it was later revealed in the Guardian that the gentleman in the picture was in fact opposed to the law and denounced the unfair use of his photograph in support of a cause he did not embrace “They have given me somebody else's voice - Blair's voice”, The Guardian, November 10, 2005)… In his short opinion piece, the political editor for the Sun uses a similar kind of vocabulary, with such words as “treacherous”, “betrayed”, “humiliated”, “rebels” and other such words one would not expect to stumble upon in any decent paper (although clearly the Sun would never fall into that category); moreover, there is an almost populist dimension, as Kavanagh concludes on the words of a Labour MP: “Britain is a safer place for terrorists today. All this will do is give reassurance to people planning to blow up bombs on the Underground”, after which there ensues a series of photographs and bitter statements by victims of the bombings, branded as “Losers” as a consequence of the rejection.
The article, opening on an analysis of the terror laws and the previous similar attempts within Western countries as a sign of “erosion of liberty” and political oppression, places the debate in its general context as the author offers a reading of post 9/11 as the starting point of a decline for freedom and political progress, in the United States especially, but also in Britain and France in smaller measure : indeed, through recent events, terror laws in the UK and riots on the other side of the Channel, a serious threat to liberties has been raised, putting at risk such fundamental laws as the Human Rights Act or the right of habeas corpus. Yet, despite a strong case for liberalism, the need for prevention and therefore tighter laws is accepted, only in such a way that would not increase the tensions which currently are creating the ideal climate for oppressed minorities to spawn more suicide bombers. The few articles presented in this review, although very diverse, reach a consensus in giving the place of choice in their treatment of the terror laws to the defeat the latter encountered, in a way that one might slightly regret: indeed, it somewhat results in a lack of insistence on what the relevant issues within the bill and the general policy against terrorism are as it seems to put a greater emphasis on the issues around the law, which might make the debate slightly confusing for anyone who did not have very advanced notions on UK politics and did not find a specific interest in the many MPs, secretaries and shadow secretaries mentioned throughout . Ignoring this aspect though, the coverage of the terror bill is beyond its sole contents a clear revealer of the British media's attitude towards the government and how in a time of trouble for the Blair administration (ongoing consequences of the Iraq war, dissensions within the Labour party, debates over controversial matters such as ID cards or university top-up fees…) there tends today to be a polarisation in public opinion and a propensity to conduct policy debate on the popularity front. |
