Is Tony Blair on the right track to combat terrorism in Britain?

Political observers believe Blair must think why is it that Canada and New Zealand are not in the sights of terrorists? There must be reasons for that and what the reasons might be is something that he or his senior advisers must determine before he proceeds with some of the ill-advised measures that he is contemplating as part of the law of the land (since Britain has no written constitution, parliament is all powerful topass any legislation that cannot be tested in a court, if that legislation does not conflict with the existing law).

Political observers believe the basic fault lies in the mind-set of Blair and his advisers -- that the Iraqi war has nothing to do with the London bombings.Whenever the premise is incorrect, the conclusion will also be incorrect, that is what common sense logic tells every one of us.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda's number two, finger-wagging, white-turbaned, Egyptian-born Ayman al-Zawahiri, on 4th August, in a video-tape message, on the Arabic language al-Jazeera news channel said: "As for the English people, I tell them that Prime Minister Blair has brought to you destruction in central London and he will bring more of that. Our message is clear. There is no escape for you unless you withdraw from our land."

Blair proposed on the next day, August 5, sweeping anti-terrorism plans including new powers to expel foreign nationals who "glorify jehad," to shut down mosques breeding fanaticism, and to blacklist extremist clerics, web sites, and bookshops. He even threatened to amend the provisions of the British Human Rights Act that are in conformity with the European Human Rights Convention.

Reactions to the proposed draconian measures
Liberal Democrat Leader Charles Kennedy warned the Prime Minister that the proposed crack down measures could alienate the law-abiding majority of Britain's 1.8 million Muslims and inflame tensions.

Observers believe that his measures are likely to infuriate many Muslims overseas, particularly in the Middle East region. Furthermore, they argue that it would be a green signal to authoritarian rulers in the Middle East to silence their critics on the pretext of combating "terrorists."

The leader of the main opposition Conservative party Michael Howard reportedly said: "You have got to legislate to outlaw certain language. You can't target legislation at people." Cabinet Minister Lord Falconer agreed that work was needed on details, but called for unity.

Human Rights groups and various Muslim organisations blasted the raft of new powers to combat terrorism in Britain. The Islamic Forum Europe warned that the measures could jeopardise national unity in Britain. Some Muslim organisations have supported them, because of the fear that they would be branded as extremist organisations if they don't.

The London-based human rights group, Liberty, strongly criticised the proposed measures. Its director Shami Chakrabarti said: " We are alarmed by his intention to return individuals to countries where they face torture. The fundamental values of a democracy cannot be changed because we are provoked by terrorists."

The British press is split on Blair's proposed measures. The left-leaning Guardian newspaper wrote: "The foremost objection is that these measures would have done nothing to stop the first and most deadly wave of suicide bombings. The first and best test of any legislation remains: will it work?"

London's The Independent accused Blair of engaging in "knee-jerk politics" and failing to address "the root causes of Islamic terrorism" -- while The Times and The Sun (both owned by Rupert Murdoch) welcomed the proposed measures.

What is at stake?
Terrorism laws that erode fundamental rights are more a threat to democracy than terrorists. It is a hollow victory if laws crush liberty. Terrorism threatens the lives of the British people, but they do not threaten the values that they hold dear. One fundamental fact is to remember that terrorists don't have the means to destroy Britain as a nation.

The rule of law must prevail in a country known as "mother of democracy." The rule of law means power can be exercised only within bounds. Its corollary is freedom. As long as an individual is peaceful and obey laws, that individual is free to do as he or she pleases, and those with power cannot stop that individual without lawful reason.

If Britain now degrades the institutions that they have cherished since the Magna Carta of 1215, the very institutions that terrorists want to destroy, it will herald a victory for terrorists. By adopting these extreme measures, the British people will forsake what they always sought for, what they have taken pride in, and what has in large part defined their cultural and political identity for centuries.

Conclusion
The laws, however stringent, cannot block ideas or ideology. Laws are like cobwebs, strong enough to detain only the weak, and too weak to hold the strong. Laws are couched in general language. Like a horoscope, they can mean just about anything, whatever any one wants them to mean. And therein lies the scope for abuse or misuse of laws by law-enforcing agencies.

During the Second World War, Britain was fighting with Hitler's Germany for its existence as a nation. In that war, all the values and institutions that the British people hold dear were under threat. It is well to remember that although the London bombings were horrific, they are not nation threatening.

Therefore, response from the Prime Minister should be commensurate with the level of perceived threat, not an overblown reaction, to destroy the very values that the terrorists want to annihilate from a democratic society. British conservative political theorist, orator and parliamentarian, Edmund Burke (1929-1797) perhaps said it best: "A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of statesman."

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.