20.12.2001
Blunkettà¢â¬â¢s new clampdown
No sooner had the ink dried after Elizabeth Windsor signed the new Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act than home secretary David Blunkett ordered the arrest of a dozen suspected à¢â¬Ëterroristsà¢â¬â¢. Under its terms they are to be held in à¢â¬Ëindefinite detentionà¢â¬â¢.
The stateà¢â¬â¢s forces of law and order now have another powerful weapon in their armoury. Blunkett, Blair and co have taken full advantage of the events of September 11 to launch a fresh assault on the rights and liberties of not only muslim fundamentalists, but potentially any opponent of the existing order. Of course, whether or not it will prevent any real terrorist outrages is arguable, to say the least. But the British government has taken the opportunity of removing a number of democratic safeguards, placing further controls on the lives of everyone living in the UK.
Britainà¢â¬â¢s home secretary has been given powers to detain without trial foreign nationals suspected of terrorism who cannot be deported because of the Human Rights Act 1998. This may be because they may well face the death penalty, torture or degrading treatment if returned to their country of origin. To deport such people would presumably be a step too far, even though Blunkett and the New Labour government have already abrogated sections of the HRA in order to place the new anti-terrorism act on the statute book. In order to à¢â¬Ëderogateà¢â¬â¢ from part of the HRA the home secretary must first declare the UK to be in a state of public emergency.
These powers of indefinite detention expire after five years unless renewed. But while they are in place, judicial review of detentions will not be permitted, though a closed special immigration appeals commission headed by a judge will be able to review cases brought to it. Decisions of this special commission are final: only points of law will be allowed to go to the court of appeal.
Detention without trial is bad enough, but the final version of the act contains pretty well everything the government wanted, despite the House of Lords whittling away at some detail. It allows future EU laws to be passed through the Commons using secondary legislation on the nod (ie, without any debate). Though this provision is only in force until June, Blunkett intends to introduce it permanently through an enabling bill in the spring, and this will also then implement the new European arrest warrant.
The police and security services, including foreign ones, can now ask public bodies such as hospitals, schools and the inland revenue to disclose information relating to terrorism or potential prosecution of a criminal offence. As a foil to deflect liberal criticism, Blunkett tried to reassure those objecting to the extension of this power (beyond measures against terrorism to those against more general crime) by stating that bodies would only be required to disclose information if the request were proportionate to the alleged offence. Of course, that is merely his rather vague and meaningless assertion and, as with all powers under this act, a different political situation faced by a different (or the same) home secretary could see them used in markedly more draconian manner than at present.
Carriers, such as airlines, will now be required to supply information about passengers and freight to law agencies. In other words, their manifests are an open book for police, immigration, and other authorities to trawl through. Banks and other financial organisations are now obliged to report cases where they think there are reasonable grounds to suspect terrorist financing, however à¢â¬Ëterroristà¢â¬â¢ is defined; it will be an offence not to do so (previously, this was largely an advisory question). As has been said before, the EU-approved definition of à¢â¬Ëterroristà¢â¬â¢ and à¢â¬Ëterrorismà¢â¬â¢, which the UK government accepts, is drawn dangerously widely. Police will be able to use à¢â¬Ëaccount monitoring ordersà¢â¬â¢ to obtain information on any bank or financial accounts for periods covering up to 90 days.
Another aspect of the new legislation is its strengthening of government agenciesà¢â¬â¢ existing snooping powers, put in place by last yearà¢â¬â¢s Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Communication services - whether phone companies or internet service providers - are now required to retain data so that it can be accessed for terrorist and criminal investigations. Dates, numbers dialled and email addressees are all to be held for a considerable time. Use of this enormous amount of data is supposedly restricted to where there is a suspicion of terrorist activity, according to yet another assurance by the current home secretary.
In addition, law agencies can now apply for assets of suspected terrorists to be frozen at the start of investigations, instead of when charged. Customs and excise and inland revenue officers are now permitted to exchange information with police and other agencies when national security is an issue. Transport, ministry of defence and nuclear sites police have had their powers widened to cover crime and terrorism outside their current jurisdictions. The role of GCHQ, the communications monitory agency, has been expanded. And the act has brought in powers to allow new terrorist taskforces to be created easily. Police are now allowed to demand the removal of face and hand coverings: so no more balaclavas on demonstrations, then.
Aiding or abetting the acquisition, use or development of chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons by foreign groups or regimes is now an offence. Regulations governing laboratories where à¢â¬Ëdangerous pathogensà¢â¬â¢ are held (which could mean every path lab, since many deal with potential fatal organisms) have been tightened. All hoaxes, such as anthrax hoaxes, which cause distress and disruption can be treated in a similar manner to bomb hoaxes, carrying a maximum penalty upon conviction of seven years in prison.
The only real concession the government made to its opponents, largely Tory and Liberal Democrat, in the House of Lords has been to remove the proposal to prosecute those stirring up religious hatred. Although there were murmurings of a bill on this issue, the matter looks likely to be dropped as totally unworkable; it was only included originally anyway as a political gesture toward those muslims who perceived themselves under threat from reactions to September 11. But even if abandoned by Blunkett, there may well be a Scottish law against fostering religious tensions: a Holyrood cross-party working party will be reporting in February on the best way of introducing a criminal offence of religious hatred in Scotland.
As for the Anti-Terrorism, Crime, and Security Act, it looks set to be with us for quite a while; after all, it will no doubt prove to be exceedingly useful to those who rule us. It is to be reviewed by a select few in two yearsà¢â¬â¢ time: elite privy councillors will look into the actà¢â¬â¢s operation and only if they raise areas of concern will it be debated by parliament. In the meantime, it will remain in place to be used far beyond its ostensible à¢â¬Ëanti-terroristà¢â¬â¢ aims (vague at best) - possibly against the working class and its organisations.
Such legislation raises grave concerns about civil liberties, which have been won in the past thanks to mass action, particularly by the working class. Yet again we see that democratic rights and freedoms have to be fought for, won and rewon under capitalism.
Jim Gilbert