Downing Street Says » Anti Terror Legislation

Asked if there had been any further clarification since this morning regarding the "Sunset Clause", the PMOS said the Prime Minister had received sufficient clarification to come to the view that he did. That view was that in the cases where we had to derogate from the ECHR (ie house arrest), that derogation had to be reviewed automatically once a year. In the other cases, not only did people have the right of appeal against it, but also the Home Secretary had to make three-monthly reports to Parliament. There was, therefore, already a review mechanism built in. The PMOS said the bottom line was that we did believe that we did have to respond to two things. Firstly, the need that was spelt out by the police and security services, and secondly the need to address the issue spelt out by the House of Lords’ judgment.

Asked for clarification on the Prime Minister’s comments that the derogation order had to be "reviewed and renewed", the PMOS replied that the Bill required the Home Secretary to make a new order each year stipulating he believed the derogation remained necessary. Such an order would be subject to debate and affirmative resolution by both Houses. If not affirmed, any derogation would therefore lapse.

Asked if the Government was in danger of being responsible for there being no anti terrorist legislation in two weeks, the PMOS said he was not going to get into the party political aspects, for obvious reasons. In terms of the general approach, the Government was putting forward measures which it believed met the need that the police and the security services say was necessary to address. Regarding that need, what was required was something that would continue into the medium term, and not just this week or this month. Built into that was a mechanism that would keep the practices happening under review. Therefore, in terms of meeting the essential point, which was that we monitored and gave people the opportunity to debate the operation of these control orders, that was in place. The Government, therefore, felt it was meeting the need. The option the Prime Minister spelt out today was either to go down that route, or to continue with the situation where there were people detained, even though the House of Lords had ruled against it.

Asked if it was explicit, and people wanted it, why did the Government not just agree to the "Sunset Clause", the PMOS replied that a situation was needed where there was no doubt about the signal that was sent out to suspects and terrorists of the determination of this country to act. Therefore, it was not only about sending a signal to the suspects, but also of the Government’s determination and giving the authorities the certainty that the Government was going to "stick at the task" of helping them in the fight against terrorism. The Government’s view was it had to not only give the security services and the police the powers that were needed to meet the threat. It should do so in an unequivocal way.

Put to him that would it not be more unequivocal to have a consensus, the PMOS said it depended whether that consensus would meet the level of threat. It also depended on whether it met the need defined by the police and security services.

3 Comments »

I see, from Today\x92s Times, that it was the PM\x92s wife who won Shabina Begum\x92s case for her. Well done, Cherie!

The Times reports that Begum was backed by an extremist muslim group who, it appears from the web, have identical aims to al Qaeda and are banned all over the place as a terrorist group althought they claim they are merely a political group. A gentle stroll via Google looking for Hizb ut-Tahrir and Taqiuddin al-Nabhani – is rewarding, here\x92s a taster:-

<a href="http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/english.html">http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/english.html</a>

"Though the Party committed itself to be open, clear and challengingly in its da\x92wah, it restricted itself to political actions alone and did not exceed them by resorting to material actions against the rulers or against those who opposed its da\x92wah, following the example of the Messenger of Allah (saw) who restricted himself in Makkah solely to the da\x92wah and he (saw) did not carry out any material actions until he had migrated to Madinah. And when the people of the second pledge of \x91Aqabah proposed that he give them permission to fight the people of Mina with the sword, he answered them saying: "WE HAVE NOT BEEN ORDERED TO DO THAT YET.". And Allah (swt) asked him (saw) to be patient about the persecution as the Messengers of Allah before him had been, when Allah (swt) said to them\x85"

The caps replace their bolded emphasis. Subtle or what? Ordered by whom? Draw your own conclusions about this lot, several countries have – by banning them.

<a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizb-ut-tahrir.htm">http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizb-ut-tahrir.htm</a>
Comment by Mr Pooter — 3 Mar 2005 on 1:52 pm | Link
How do Mr. Pooter’s comments have anything to do with the anti terror laws? I’m sure this group is extremely right wing however this comment completely ignores the substance of the issue. I personally am deeply concerned at the new laws being introduced by the government. To justify it by pointing to an extremist group highlights how Tony Blair et al. has managed to push this affront to democracy so far through the commons. I have another terroist group who is far more active and deadly. The IRA who have commited a murder and robbed a bank or perhaps Shin Beht who are still to this day rounding up innocent palestinans (and not innocent occaisonally) and putting them to torutre. But the fact that this law has been allowed to compromise our basic freedoms and was still passed scares me. People argue that a few basic freedoms are an acceptable scarifice, well we begin to sink and lose our very moral foundation ask yourself this: WHEN WILL IT END WHEN WILL WE STOP THIS INSULT TO DEMOCRACY!
Comment by Raven Museveni — 3 Mar 2005 on 2:44 pm | Link
Raven Museveni – The conjunction amused me: the Prime Minister, planning to lock-up people (ie Muslim extremists) in their own homes without trial and and Cherie Booth’s client turns out to be "…backed by Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extremist Muslim group which is banned in Germany and the Middle East. Its aim is a world-wide Muslim state and it was banned in Egypt after fomenting an attempted coup in 1974." Times, today page 6.

One man’s terrorist….
Comment by Mr Pooter — 3 Mar 2005 on 4:14 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, March 2, 2005

Anti Terror Legislation

3 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries