Hain Warns On Stop And Question Risk
Updated: 12:46, Sunday May 27, 2007
Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain has sounded a note of warning on tough new anti-terror laws becoming "the domestic equivalent of Guantanamo Bay".
He also warned that the new powers, allowing police to stop and question anyone at random, could resurrect the old 'sus' laws, which were seen as racist and blamed for many of the inner city riots of the 1980s.
Under the proposals, officers would have the right to ask people about their identities and movements and failure to comply could lead to criminal charges or a hefty fine.
Tony Blair and Home Secretary John Reid want to push the legislation through before Mr Blair stands down as PM next month, it has been reported.
Mr Hain - a candidate for Labour's deputy leadership - said he wanted to see the details of the policy before making any judgment.
"We have got to be very careful that we do not create circumstances that are the domestic equivalent of Guantanamo Bay," he said.
"Guantanamo Bay, which was an international abuse of human rights, acted as a recruiting sergeant for dissidents and alienated Muslims and alienated many other people across the world."
He added: "We cannot have a reincarnation of the old `sus' laws under which mostly black people, ethnic minorities, were stopped on sight.
"That created a really bad atmosphere and an erosion of civil liberties.
"We have got to be very clear in balancing civil liberties and protecting people's security."
A Home Office spokeswoman said: "We are considering a range of measures for the Bill and 'stop and question' is one of them."
At present, officers may stop and search individuals on "reasonable grounds for suspicion" they have committed an offence but have no rights to ask for their identity and movements.
Stronger powers to remove vehicles and paperwork for examination are also believed to be part of the package.
Jane Winter, director of British-Irish Rights Watch, told the newspaper it represented "one of the most significant moves on civil liberties since the Second World War. A sledgehammer to crack a nut."
Worrying about civil liberties is obviously important, but if another attack hits London, or America for that matter, the citizens will demand tough action and blame the government for not stopping it.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Police in the UK can already arrest for any offence. That's not to say they always do, but that's already a pretty wide power. With cameras everywhere and a government that doesn't listen to its people regarding such matters, there's not really much point in complaining about measures like this.
Yes, I would have to say that although many British politicians and personalities like to point to the U.S. and Gitmo for "civil rights abuses", the truth is that the U.K. has many laws that would be deemed unconstitutional in the U.S.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Yes, I would have to say that although many British politicians and personalities like to point to the U.S. and Gitmo for "civil rights abuses", the truth is that the U.K. has many laws that would be deemed unconstitutional in the U.S.
Hey, if such finger-pointing prevents even more of these kinds of laws being passed, I'm all for finger-pointing.
I'm all for it. I wouldn't mind if a copper asked me where I'm going or for my identity. I have nothing to hide. If it restricts terrorism then I'm all for it. What I don't get though is that liberal coming out and saying "oh don't just do it to the ethnics, blacks, asians." If it's terrorism then what are the chances of him/her being white British? It's just common sense. The threat isn't coming from white British citizens. That's like, say a black man robs the supermarket and then the police go out looking for the guy but to prevent offence or discomfort they go questioning the white guy...
Sadly, the term "terrorism" is over-used by majority of the people now-a-days. Even for the minimalist crimes, the suspects becomes a terrorist.
To me, it seems that repetition has a great effect on people through the media. On an average, I'd say, this term would be used more than 10-15 times (its just my opinion, I'm not stating facts.)
Through brain-washing, people get the idea that anyone who does any crime is a terrorist. (ie. A man goes in a store, waves his gun around and steals some magazines and leaves. What exactly is he? A terrorist or a thief?)
Of course, one would say that anyone who uses the means of 'terrorizing' people to gain his goals can be referred to as a terrorist. If that is so then even an average mom who warns her kid, that he will be sleeping in the bathroom if he did such and such act, can be called a terrorist.
Sadly, through constant repetition the word becomes a taboo that actually arises fear in people's hearts.
Sadly, the term "terrorism" is over-used by majority of the people now-a-days. Even for the minimalist crimes, the suspects becomes a terrorist.
To me, it seems that repetition has a great effect on people through the media. On an average, I'd say, this term would be used more than 10-15 times (its just my opinion, I'm not stating facts.)
Through brain-washing, people get the idea that anyone who does any crime is a terrorist. (ie. A man goes in a store, waves his gun around and steals some magazines and leaves. What exactly is he? A terrorist or a thief?)
Of course, one would say that anyone who uses the means of 'terrorizing' people to gain his goals can be referred to as a terrorist. If that is so then even an average mom who warns her kid, that he will be sleeping in the bathroom if he did such and such act, can be called a terrorist.
Sadly, through constant repetition the word becomes a taboo that actually arises fear in people's hearts.
Anyway, just my rant on the topic.
Um lol I dunno where you're from but here a thief is a thief and terrorist is a terrorist. It's always used in context.
I'm all for it. I wouldn't mind if a copper asked me where I'm going or for my identity. I have nothing to hide. If it restricts terrorism then I'm all for it. What I don't get though is that liberal coming out and saying "oh don't just do it to the ethnics, blacks, asians." If it's terrorism then what are the chances of him/her being white British? It's just common sense. The threat isn't coming from white British citizens. That's like, say a black man robs the supermarket and then the police go out looking for the guy but to prevent offence or discomfort they go questioning the white guy...
...Good example huh?
You might have nothing to hide, or so you think, but how do we know that the stuff that the executive branch learns on these searches and suchlike are going to be used only for security purposes and not to harass political opponents or to settle personal scores? Or that the powers might be used for political ends, as in to stifle peacable demonstrations about things that the Government would rather not be brought into the fore?
It's all very well there being a legal action in case of abuse of power, but isn't it best to try and prevent abuses from happening in the first place?
I also wonder how many terrorist plots are foiled for each one that succeeds. The fact that the 7 July bombings in London were the first major attack for such a long while that succeeded implied that current legislative provisions were sufficient to stop the vast majority of other ones since the IRA was at its peak.
You also say that the "threat" doesn't come from White British citizens, but wasn't Richard Reid the shoe bomber a Muslim convert who had subscribed to a radicalist interpretation which in turn led him to try and bring down a plane?
I'm all for it. I wouldn't mind if a copper asked me where I'm going or for my identity. I have nothing to hide.
Neither do I. On the other hand, you're white, presumably, and will thus not be repeatedly victimised solely for the colour of your skin. If you allow (or rather, encourage) police to racially profile, a lot of innocent people with nothing to hide will be stopped repeatedly.
If it restricts terrorism then I'm all for it. What I don't get though is that liberal coming out and saying "oh don't just do it to the ethnics, blacks, asians." If it's terrorism then what are the chances of him/her being white British? It's just common sense. The threat isn't coming from white British citizens.
You know, the vast majority (if not all) serial killers in the UK have been white males. Does that mean police should stop every single white man they see on these grounds? Would you have supported such a measure during that 'Yorkshire Ripper's' antics a few months ago? I wouldn't. I don't support racial profiling in this way, because it would cause more problems down the road. It has done in the past.
Also, if you look at the existing laws under PACE (the Police and Criminal Evidence Act), the police arguably already have sufficiently wide powers of stop and search.
That's like, say a black man robs the supermarket and then the police go out looking for the guy but to prevent offence or discomfort they go questioning the white guy...
...Good example huh?
Not really, because then you're just looking for one particular guy who definitely committed a crime, based on a description. The type of stop and search the article is describing is that process in reverse, because all the police officer needs is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or will commit an offence, not proof.
format_quote Originally Posted by First Post
Under the proposals, officers would have the right to ask people about their identities and movements and failure to comply could lead to criminal charges or a hefty fine.
Dang. I guess only white people have the right to remain silent.
Juries tend only to construe silence as guilt in the relevant circumstances. Some people, like you or I, might just value our privacy even though we have nothing to hide. In the UK, I like to think of privacy as a right, not a liberty.
I am all for it, if you got nothing to hide then you have no problem
Yes, but how do you know you've nothing to hide? How do you know that these new sus laws won't be abused to harass people based on their political views or suchlike? Qui custodies custodiet?
I am all for it, if you got nothing to hide then you have no problem
You're not a citizen of the UK. Thus, your opinion is as invalid as mine. And I live here!
At any rate, you've failed to take into account the probablity that the same, innocent, people will be stopped repeatedly based on profiling. A similar phenemenon occurs with young people driving their own fast cars, repeatedly being stopped by police because the police always assume that the car is stolen. Nothing to hide. Plenty of problems when it comes to say... driving.
Um lol I dunno where you're from but here a thief is a thief and terrorist is a terrorist. It's always used in context.
There are many innocent "alleged" thieves in Jail, Just as there are many innocent "alleged" terrorists in Jail.
Case in point. A vast number of Guantanamo detainess are innocent, haven't been charged with a crime, won't be released, and if they are sent back to their homelands, are released by their governments due to no charges are applicable.
Here, they've spent years in prison and have endured torture and torment, haven't been charged and have never been compensated nor apologised to.
In effect, the so-called "detainees" have become hostages to a rogue government.
Terrorism is a weapon for mass persuasion. Used to make the people relinquish their rights and enhance the governments ability in abusing its power.
None of these restrictive laws nor these barbaric methods have been used during the government-sponsored leftist terrorism that affected Europe in the 70's & 80's (to the best of my knowledge).
Nothing is ever what it seems, and the cry of terrorism has been utterly misused, abused and blown out of proportion...
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
This 'new' law is not really new. All they've done is rename it. Police already had that power before the world used the T word.
"At present, officers may stop and search individuals on "reasonable grounds for suspicion" they have committed an offence but have no rights to ask for their identity and movements."
They've upgraded it. They've given the police more powers. Soon they'll be allowed the right to ask for their identity and movements and "failure to comply could lead to criminal charges or a hefty fine." They can ask anytime they like whereas at this moment until that law is set in they can only stop and search on "reasonable grounds for suspicion."
"At present, officers may stop and search individuals on "reasonable grounds for suspicion" they have committed an offence but have no rights to ask for their identity and movements."
They've upgraded it. They've given the police more powers. Soon they'll be allowed the right to ask for their identity and movements and "failure to comply could lead to criminal charges or a hefty fine." They can ask anytime they like whereas at this moment until that law is set in they can only stop and search on "reasonable grounds for suspicion."
Upgrade, shmuck-grade. It's not actually new and it's not actually tough - just empowers police a little bit more.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
I am quite suprised that you say like that , as this misused, abused and blown out of proportion terrorism harms muslims mostly.
The bogus terror threats, bogus terror cases that are attributed to Muslims, the over-inflated terror threats, the "War on Terrorism," renditions, Guantanamo, invading Muslims nations under false pretenses, genralizing everything which leads to the population to conjure up that ALL Muslims are involved, sympathetic, condone, secretly abetting, or outrightly don't care about terrorism, IS what is primarily harming muslims.
There are minor incidents of terrorism that are committed by Muslims, but not in the manner that is being portrayed by the media & politicians.
There is little mention of non-Muslim terrorism.
The response to terrorism that is committed by a few Muslims, spawns much more acts of resistance that is then twisted around in the media as acts of terrorism.
No mention is made of state-sponsored or condoned terrorism, either.
We don't smell like a bed of roses, as the politicians and corporate propaganda would like to lead the people into believing.
The West needs to see how Indonesia has correctly and peacefully dealt with its terror problem...
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Re: New Tough Anti-Terrorism Law
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks