Britain struggles with how to prevent terror legally
Conservative leader warns 'judicial activism' is hindering antiterror tactics.
"Government plans to stop people actively encouraging terrorism were in disarray after the Deputy Prime Minister admitted he was
powerless to prevent radical cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed from re-entering [Britain] whenever he chooses," reports
The Independent.
Mr. Bakri, who praised the London suicide bombers as the "fabulous four," fled on Saturday to Beirut. "If there is a crime in the UK and my name has been mentioned I will be the first one to return to challenge all these allegations. There is no treason. I am not a British subject and I never committed any form of crime whatsoever," he said from Beirut. "I am going to return back in four weeks unless the Government say we are not welcome, because my family is in the UK." ...
Bakri, the so-called "Tottenham Ayatollah", sparked outrage last week by saying he would not inform police if he knew Muslim extremists were planning a bomb attack in Britain, claiming it would be "forbidden" by Islam.
The Guardian, however, reports that Bakri
will be banned from returning if he fails to come back before the end of the month.
Although the home secretary, Charles Clarke, cannot stop Mr. Bakri coming back under existing legislation, he would be able to block his entry under the plans announced last Friday to exclude or deport those who preach hate or justify violence. Mr. Clarke does not need primary legislation to implement the plan to exclude figures such as Bakri. He can introduce the change under existing immigration rules and is expected to do so swiftly once the two-week consultation period is completed.
Conservative leader Michael Howard warned Britain's judges Wednesday that "
aggressive judicial activism" could hinder the country's ability to combat terrorism, reports
The Guardian.
Echoing recent complaints from the prime minister about judicial opposition to anti-terror measures, the Conservative leader repeated his pledge to repeal Britain's Human Rights Act in order to give the government more power to deport extremist Islamist clerics. ...
Mr Howard cited the law lords' decision last year that the indefinite detention without trial of foreign terror suspects under the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act contravened the Human Rights Act, and referred to the difficulties the latter act creates for deporting extremists to countries where they may face persecution or torture.
In an opinion piece in
The Daily Telegraph, Howard writes that
judges must bow to the will of Parliament if terrorism is to be combatted effectively.
Britain faces great changes. We all have a duty to play our part in dealing with the threat of terrorism and those who foment terrorism. That includes both Government and Opposition. It should also include the judiciary. ...
Parliament must be supreme. Aggressive judicial activism will not only undermine the public's confidence in the impartiality of our judiciary, but it could also put our security at risk - and with it the freedoms the judges seek to defend. That would be a price we cannot be expected to pay.
Meanwhile, commissioner of the City of London Police, James Hart, told the
Financial Times Tuesday that a terrorist attack on the City, London's financial district, is
only a matter of time.
"If you want to hurt the government, hurt people at the same time, and you want to cause maximum disruption ... where better to hit than at the financial center?" He pointed out that the City of London had been the subject of terrorist attacks for three decades. "Look at the number of times we were hit by the IRA. I think [another attack] is a question of when rather than if."
The Times Online points out that "Mr. Hart's comments were published as the Government signed an agreement with Jordan
allowing UK courts to deport Jordanians who incite or condone acts of terrorism in preaching or writing."
Under the bilateral accord - the first of ten planned with Middle Eastern and North African countries - Jordan would have to guarantee that a deportee would not be tortured or otherwise mistreated at home and would not face the death penalty.
Another antiterror measure being considered by the British government is to have
special courts sitting in secret for pre-trial hearings in terror cases. Under the plan, security-vetted judges would consider sensitive evidence against suspects before cases could go further, reports
BBC. The civil rights group Liberty said the involvement of a judge in the special courts
could not "sanitize an unfair process." "The thought of secret hearings where once again the accused will never hear the case against them fills me with dread," said the group's director Shami Chakrabarti.
Also...
•
China grows more wary over rash of protests (
The Washington Post)
•
'Aussie' video seems authentic: Downer (
The Sydney Morning Herald)
•
To stay in the game, Hamas has to play by the rules (
The Financial Times)
•
Hurdles for high-tech efforts to track who crosses borders (
The New York Times)
•
Japan protests at China gas move (
BBC)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Matthew Clark
|
