How U.K. terrorists could win

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 7/31/5 | Debra J. Saunders

[SmithL]

"WHEN THEY try to intimidate us, we will not be intimidated. When they seek to change our country or our way of life by these methods, we will not be changed," British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced in the wake of the July London bombings.

With all respect to Blair, Great Britain will change. A country that once colonized corners across the globe now invites others to colonize London, and make it the most international of cities.

British laws will change. British immigration will work differently. And the British people, I think and hope, will end any romantic notions they may have had about suicide bombers.

The laws will change. No one will be happier about that than Tony Blair. In December, Parliament's Law Lords ruled that post-Sept. 11 laws that allowed detentions without trials of suspected terrorist figures -- including figures who had publicly supported acts of terror while gaming U.K. political asylum laws -- were illegal. At the time, judge Lord Hoffman wrote, "The real threat to the life of the nation ... comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these."

Last week, Blair told reporters that he didn't think "those words would be uttered now" in British jurisprudence. Expect British courts to change.

Blair is pushing anti-terror legislation that would allow authorities to detain suspects for more than 14 days. The Blair government also wants to create a new offenses -- "indirect incitement" to terrorism, preparing an attack and attending terrorist training camp.

Civil libertarians fear that free speech could be the first casualty of the incitement-to-terror measure. Where were they -- I wonder -- in 1986, when Parliament made incitement to racial hatred illegal and commenced some 40 prosecutions in the next five years?

[SmithL]

Bravo, Debra!

[rbg81]

The laws will change. No one will be happier about that than Tony Blair. In December, Parliament's Law Lords ruled that post-Sept. 11 laws that allowed detentions without trials of suspected terrorist figures -- including figures who had publicly supported acts of terror while gaming U.K. political asylum laws -- were illegal. At the time, judge Lord Hoffman wrote, "The real threat to the life of the nation ... comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these." Last week, Blair told reporters that he didn't think "those words would be uttered now" in British jurisprudence.

Good article, but think She (and Blair) are wrong on this point. If the courts operate like American courts (a big IF), they are insulated from reality. In politics, a week is a lifetime and people have short memories. Expect to fight the same battles over, and over, and over 'cause the opposition has no common sense and never learns.

[MissAmericanPie]

The only laws that should change are immigration and deportation. Lose the louts and keep civilization for civilized people.

[jordan8]

You hear it in America, too: If we curb civil liberties, the terrorists win. It's a mindless mantra.

She's right, the terrorists don't win, but we lose. And for what? Multiculturalism? The joy of having millions of Muslims living here? Democracy in Iraq? I'll say it again: multicultural political entities are rightly called empires not nations (A country that once colonized corners across the globe now invites others to colonize London . . .) and empires need police state and military methods to keep the peace. I for one am not going to jump up and down over that development.