The challenges of global terrorism and the tragic events of last summer in London have made debates around security and liberty more fraught and difficult than ever before. Commentators, judges and human rights campaigners have accused the Labour government of attacking fundamental rights and freedoms – with a raft of anti-terror and criminal justice measures that are perceived as having altered the relationship between the state and citizen. The government’s defence is that it has a duty to protect our way of life from those who seek to destroy it, even if some of the resulting legislation sets new precedents in terms of restrictions.
These discussions are vitally important – there has always been a need to balance the potential conflicts and competing interests between liberty and security, and the debate will continue. Labour’s challenge for the next decade is to reconcile these two values in a way that all communities and citizens can accept – even if the relationship between the two has a different balance than it has done in the past.
How can we achieve a consensual approach where we can each have faith in the state to protect our liberty and our security? First, governments have
to be proportionate in the response to security issues. The criticism that terrorism legislation is often hasty is valid – it can be perceived as a knee-jerk reaction that fuels people’s uncertainty and suspicions about the government’s motives. Most of us accept that the government has to respond to terrorism and extremism, but may need more time and explanation as to how the measures work and affect our citizens.
For example, the Anti-Terror Crime and Security Act 2001, which was rushed through parliament after 9/11, included a power to indefinitely detain foreign nationals. The Lords found the decision to hold 12 terror suspects in Belmarsh to be incompatible with human rights laws. Lord Hoffman denounced that the ‘the real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws like these.’
Although his language may have been over the top, the point he was making was important. How are we protecting our way of life if the laws are changed so much that it becomes unrecognisable? Is the threat to our lives now greater than it was in the past? However, if the Belmarsh detainees were to be returned home, it would be to torture or death. What options does our government have in such circumstances? The recent case of the Afghan hijackers leads to an alternative take on this dilemma – why protect the rights of non-citizens if they are a threat to our country?
It may be hard to reconcile these points of view, but this leads to my second point – we must remember that it is the legislature’s role to balance security and liberty. We have constitutional checks and balances to protect against authoritarian actions by the state. Derogations from the European convention on human rights can be legally challenged – the judiciary can ensure that the processes required by the convention are followed. As politicians, we can be sympathetic to the requests of the police and terrorism experts as to what tools and legislation they require to protect us, but these are requests and not demands. The more measures that are suggested that limit our liberty, the more the need to trust these checks and balances.
Finally, if we are to accept reductions in our rights, we need more transparency to inspire confidence that the authorities are acting in our best interests. Unfortunately, recent experience has been less than encouraging – both the intelligence and operations on the ground were poor in the case of the Stockwell shooting and the Forest Gate raids. If we are to trust the police and intelligence services, then we need to know that the intelligence is being monitored and that groups whose help is needed to defeat terrorism are not being unfairly targeted. Security is not just the responsibility for the state; it must also be the responsibility of the citizen.
The challenge Labour faces is to restore a sense of pride in our human rights provisions in the UK. Human rights need to be seen as empowering citizens, giving us a means to deal with the conflict between liberty and security. The Human Rights Act is a living document, able to evolve and adapt as circumstances change. It is based on values, rights, responsibilities, fairness and free speech, yet the public perception is negative, with the act seen as being ‘soft on terrorists’. Within the human rights framework we can foster a sense of shared ownership of the fundamental values of society. If all communities were on board, and all could agree on what was required in terms of a counter-terrorism strategy, then a new relationship between liberty and security would be possible and welcomed by all.