The Tragedy of the UK Terror Bill

FrontPage Magazine ^ | 11/10/05 | Carol Gould

[mojito]

It is vitally important for those outside the United Kingdom to understand both the implications and the complexities of the defeat by Tony Blair’s government of the gravely important Anti-Terror Bill in Parliament today. What is crucial for the world to know is that 72 percent of the British public in various polls this week said they wanted the 90 day rule passed.

Shockingly, Parliament – including many opposition Conservatives – defied the British people and voted against the Bill at a time when ordinary citizens are fearful of further Jihadist attacks and of a nationwide Intifada akin to the one unfolding across the Channel in France.

Tony Blair has been defeated in the Commons live on national television on a major Bill for the first time in his Prime Ministership. The Bill provided police and security services 90 days to process and interrogate terror suspects in the UK. Defeat of the bill effectively means that police have only 28 days to process and begin unraveling terror plots and plotters. More significantly, it is a defeat of Tony Blair by a House full of MPs who seem to think they can overrule the wishes of the British public because of their anger at Britain's Iraq commitment.

Even more significantly, those outside Britain will not know how the BBC handled today's tragic vote. The barely-disguised glee amongst television anchors and commentators was breathtaking even by West-bashing BBC standards. After the vote, the BBC wheeled in an endless stream of Muslim leaders, mosque activists, human rights activists and ultra-Left-wing MPs (in the UK, ultra-Left means to the Left of Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky), but not one ordinary Briton was interviewed. Not one MP who voted for the Bill was interviewed.

The dreaded "Sir" Iqbal Sacranie – who was an activist years ago in the Fatwa against Rushdie and publicly refuses to criticize suicide bombers and who wants Holocaust Memorial Day removed – was on air for what seemed an eternity and his joy could barely be contained. The BBC set up a mobile studio outside the main mosque in Bradford and kept repeatedly interviewing two young men who were clearly ecstatic that the anti-Terror Bill had been defeated. On various street corners, microphones were thrust in front of Muslims who were numb with happiness that the Bill – and "Bush's puppy dog Blair" – had been quashed.

Despite my ability to change minds and inform the public as a journalist, I feel powerless and helpless as a British voter. Seventy percent of us – registered British voters – wanted the House of Commons to approve the Bill and lock up suspected terrorists in our midst for a minimum of ninety days, but our elected representatives chose to cave in to the relentless browbeating we receive every day from Islamic radicals who are given endless media exposure, not to mention my fellow journalists who write daily diatribes against the United States, Israel and Blair’s attachment to the American war on terror.

During the debate today in the Commons, a member of the Loyal Opposition shouted at the Prime Minister, "Are we to live in a police state?" Blair was nonplussed and visibly shaken. His anger could barely be controlled. There we were: a member of the House repeating the refrain of every media outlet in Britain that – despite July 7th – Britain risks becoming a ‘police state’ or a ‘fascist state like the USA’ if we crack down on home-grown terrorists. Instead, we must wheel out every permutation of Islamic spokesperson to tell us how evil our culture is and how Britain has become a lapdog to Washington Zionist neocons. We must, they shout, not listen to the police and security services but let terrorists go back out onto the streets after twenty-eight days in custody.

One BBC reporter breathlessly expressed her view that this vote "will be a supreme embarrassment" for Prime Minister Blair. How is it embarrassing, if the majority of British voters, watching a bloody Intifada exploding in the rest of Europe and having seen fifty-two of our own blown up on July 7th, want the 90 day rule adopted? The BBC and the Left-wing media, who now dominate Great Britain, inform us that Blair is ‘embarrassed’ when in fact the general public is dismayed and alarmed that he could be defeated on such a pragmatic position. The fact that every Muslim activist interviewed on television tonight is filled with happiness indicates that the United Kingdom is headed for a sorry future. If anything, Europe needed a Patriot Act long ago.

Imagine if the French Intifada happens here in the UK and the already-overburdened police are saddled with processing hundreds of suspects with a 28-day limit?

It is a dark day for Europe indeed.

[mojito]

A story that deserved much more coverage (how often do we need to repeat that?) but received almost none from the MSM (or should I just call them the collaborators with Islamofascism?)

[agere_contra]

I am ashamed of the Conservatives: in fact the whole damn Commons. And particularly bitter about the BBC. Bunch of To$$ers.

[Canard]

What a shockingly poorly written piece.

First to Mojito complaining about lack of coverage in the media, it was all over the press for days, not sure what you're talking about.

The author seems to desire rule by opinion poll. Fine if that's the case, but don't complain when the things that the majority of the country answer 'yes' to on a whim don't mesh with your own agenda. The author derides Iqbal Sacranie without thinking it relevant to note his close ties to Tony Blair himself.

The author (who laughably refers to herself as a journalist), in her rush to press her own agenda, makes no note of the fact that what Parliament did was to give to British police a period of custody without charge that no other western police force has (or apparantly feels the need to request).

The author makes no attempt to even set out what might be the justifications underpinning the need for ninety days (maybe because very few justifications were actually attempted by Blair, other than 'vote with me or I'll blame you next time there's a terrorist attack'). There is no evidence that this proposed measure would have prevented any previous attacks (certainly not the July ones). There is no evidence of any cases where the police have had to release people that they needed to keep in custody (even under the previous 14 day limit). The MPs rightly voted against a proposal that vastly increased police powers to hold people in a trade off for no obvious advantage at all.


"Imagine if the French Intifada happens here in the UK and the already-overburdened police are saddled with processing hundreds of suspects with a 28-day limit?"

This is ludicrous. We've had riots in the UK before. We didn't need to hold people for ninety days before charging them with offences they may have committed. Why would we now? I wonder whether this 'journalist' has any grasp of the issues involved here?

[mojito]

Firstly, there was almost no coverage of this story in the United States. Secondly, I found the interest in the piece to be in the detailed description of the reaction of the BBC to the defeat of a bill that ostensibly was designed for the security of the country. What I find curious, as a more or less disinterested observer, is the alliance between left and right that coalesced to defeat this measure; an alliance born originally of opposition to the Iraq War, and the war against Islamic terror. Both sides have their reasons, to be sure, for being "soft" on Islamofascism, reasons that often masquerade under a variety of pretenses and equivocations: this time around, saving the UK from becoming a "police state" like America seems to have been the rallying cry. Nonetheless, the cancer remains, it grows unhindered, and takes heart when its enemies prefer to see the police as a threat to the sanctity of "human rights," rather than acknowledge where the real dangers to life and liberty can be found.

[Canard]

"I found the interest in the piece to be in the detailed description of the reaction of the BBC to the defeat of a bill that ostensibly was designed for the security of the country"

Yes, but you are basing that view on the account of this 'journalist' which seems violently skewed by the authors own worldview and limited in it's reliance on anything so mundane as actual facts. For instance, the BBC are criticised here:

"One BBC reporter breathlessly expressed her view that this vote "will be a supreme embarrassment" for Prime Minister Blair"

That's barely even a 'view', it's a statement of the blindingly bleeding obvious! Of course it was an embarrassment for Blair, of course it was a blow to his authority over his own party. I'd be suprised if you could find one media account that didn't note this fact.

"What I find curious, as a more or less disinterested observer, is the alliance between left and right that coalesced to defeat this measure; an alliance born originally of opposition to the Iraq War, and the war against Islamic terror."

You're fairly wrong in terms of fact here. There is no alliance born of opposition to the war on terror - British involvement in operations in Afghanistan was supported by all the major parties, moonbats aside. There is no alliance born of opposition to the Iraq war - the war was and continues to be supported more widely in the Conservative party than Blair's own party with a few exceptions.

"this time around, saving the UK from becoming a "police state" like America seems to have been the rallying cry"

No it wasn't. Again this appears to be an invention of the author of the piece you posted. If you reread the piece again, you will find this is solely supported by mention of an unnamed MP shouting "Are we to live in a police state?" during the debate. The author then gratuitously adds 'like the USA' herself, although this was not actually in the quote she gives. Again, twisting a bare version of the facts to fit her own agenda.

Once again, this is one of the most biased pieces of supposed journalism I've ever seen.

[Winniesboy]

The article is utter nonsense. The Bill was not lost, it was passed. Included in the Bill are some 30 far-reaching new anti-terorism provisions, in addition to the 90-day detention period, which had all-party support and were not opposed. The 90-day clause alone was lost for a very old-fashioned mix of political causes familiar in most legislatures in most democracies: inept management of Commons business by the government, opposition and some Labour MPs oppportunistically seizing the change to wound a weakened Blair, and genuine puzzlement about the period (not the principle) of the 90-day provision. What the debate did NOT indicate was any lack of seriousness about the terrorist threat: quite the contrary, in fact. As for the BBC's 'glee', the Westminster-obssessed BBC always wets itself when a government loses a vote about anything - it did exactly the same with the Tories, and would do so whatever the issue. The article completely misreads the nature of pollitical debate in this country.

[defenderSD]

What's wrong with the new media in Great Britain? It's even worse than our loony leftist media.

[defenderSD]

"The 90-day clause alone was lost for a very old-fashioned mix of political causes familiar in most legislatures in most democracies: inept management of Commons business by the government, opposition and some Labour MPs oppportunistically seizing the change to wound a weakened Blair, and genuine puzzlement about the period (not the principle) of the 90-day provision."

Huh? The 90-day clause would never have lose in America. How could this clause lose when 70% of the population supports it? A 90-day detention of terror suspects doesn't turn your country into a police state, as long as this power isn't abused by the police. I'm concerned that more innocent people will die in Britain because suspects will have to be released after 28 days. This vote has the stench of excessive foreign influence on it.

[steve-b]

a member of the Loyal Opposition shouted at the Prime Minister, "Are we to live in a police state?" Blair was nonplussed and visibly shaken. His anger could barely be controlled.

Yep, just like Mary Mapes was nonplussed and visibly shaken when she got caught passing off crude forgeries.

People who get busted for peddling BS tend to have that reaction.

[steve-b]

A 90-day detention of terror suspects doesn't turn your country into a police state, as long as this power isn't abused by the police.

Letting your teenaged daughter go out all night chaperoned by Bill Clinton wouldn't harm her reputation, as long as this position wasn't abused by him.

What color is the sky on your planet?

[defenderSD]

That's why we must have a free and unbaised news media to report on any real abuses of power and make sure those responsible are removed from the police force and prosectued. It would be easier and better if we didn't need these laws. Terrorism creates all kinds of very difficult problems. Believe it or not, being blown up and killed on a bus is even worse than being detained for 90 days.

[steve-b]

That's why we must have a free and unbaised news media to report on any real abuses of power

"I say, where's Bentley? He was supposed to hand in that story for tomorrow's edition."

"Nobody's seen him for the last few days. Odd, eh what?"

[Killing Time]

I believe the equivalent provision under US anti terror law is just seven days. In France an investigative magistrate can have a terror suspect held for four years without charge. I can live with 28 days - since when weren't the Police going to bid high?

But the politics are interesting. It is Blair's first defeat, that is notable and it is true that the BBC's coverage was neauseating. I think that they hate Blair more than they did Thatcher, if that's possible.

[Canard]

"Huh? The 90-day clause would never have lose in America"

Presumably you'll be implementing it soon then? Or is there some reason why we need this and you don't?

[Cedar]

"72 percent of the British public in various polls this week said they wanted the 90 day rule passed."

This is the real story. If the 72 percent figure is truly representative of the British people, then obviously government has a mind of its own, and the people be dam***!

[moatilliatta]

Various polls at the time showed that the British public were opposed to Britain going into Iraq. I guess this columnist must think that parliament should have listened to public opinion and stayed out of the war. Or are parliamentarians only allowed to exercise their judgement when the outcome suits a particular agenda?