 |
|
Blair
is expected to use the Parliament Act to force the bill on the
House of Lords. (Reuters)
|
LONDON,
February 28, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – British
Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government was bracing for a hard-fought
battle in the House of Commons Monday, February 28, to push through
its controversial anti-terror bill.
Home
Secretary Charles Clarke has been warned that the Prevention of
Terrorism Bill would not get through unless the government introduced
significant changes, reported The Telegraph.
The
proposed law allows the government to place so-called control orders
on terrorism suspects on suspicion alone, imposing measures such as
electronic tagging or even a form of indefinite house arrest without
trial.
If
approved, the law would give the government powers unprecedented in
peacetime to curtail the activities of both British citizens and
foreign nationals’ suspects.
It
would replace an earlier law allowing foreign terror suspects to be
jailed without trial, which Britain's highest court of appeal struck
down late last year after ruling it contravened human rights
obligations.
Although
several Labour MPs have threatened to vote against the bill, it is
expected to win a vote in the House of Commons, steamrolled by
Labour's huge majority.
Last
week, 32 Labour MPs voted against the bill's second reading.
In
case the bill gets through the Commons, the opposition Conservative
and Liberal Democratic parties could wreck it in the unelected upper
house, the Lords, said the Manchester Online.
Scotland
on Sunday revealed that if
the anti-terror proposals are rejected by the Lords, Blair plans to
use the so-called Parliament Act to force them on to the statute book.
It
added that invoking the Parliament Act over house arrest plans would
“expose ministers to renewed controversy at a time when they are
desperately trying to rally opposition parties and their own MPs
behind them”.
Forced
to Bargain
 |
|
Clarke
would likely seek a compromise on judicial review of the house
arrest orders. (Reuters)
|
In
attempt to rescue his bill, Clarke said he would increase the role of
judges in issuing control orders putting people under house arrest, The
Telegraph said.
Opposition
mounted, the paper added, over the weekend among MPs and peers from
all parties to the controversial bill.
Clarke
is expected to give MPs more details of how he intends to issue these
orders which will control “where suspects will be allowed to live
and work and the access they can have to telephones and the
internet.”
He
will also be able to order their house arrest on the basis of
“suspicions” by the security and intelligence services that
terrorist operations are being planned.
Mark
Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said the
government appeared to be shifting on the crucial question of judicial
involvement in imposing control orders.
However,
he said that the negotiations were continuing.
Home
Office minister Carolyn Flint has insisted the government would not
change the principle that it should be the Home Secretary who approves
the control orders.
She
argued that where national security was concerned the initial judgment
should be made by a Cabinet member.
The
Telegraph said that one
option to save the bill would require Clarke to apply to a judge
within 24 hours of an order being issued, rather than the seven-day
limit envisaged in the measure.
“Ministers
are also considering whether Clarke should seek judicial approval at
the same time of imposing a house arrest order,” it added.
“Criticism”
Labour
MP Barbara Follett, once a Blair loyalist, vowed to continue the fight
against the bill.
Her
first husband was killed, allegedly by South African authorities,
while under house arrest there during the apartheid era, according to
the Manchester Online.
“I
can't sit there and let this happen,” she told Radio 4's The World
This Weekend. “It would dishonour everything I have ever stood
for.”
Shami
Chakrabarti, director of the civil liberties group Liberty, has
described the bill as “odious and unpalatable”.
Iqbal
Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Community in Britian (MCB),
said they have “consistently maintained the principles of due
process and presumption of innocence are ones we all hold dear.
“If
there is evidence that someone has or is planning to commit a criminal
offence then s/he should be charged and made to stand trial. The
current system and your amendments really do offend these basic
principles.”
Muslims
in Britain are complaining that they are maltreated
by police under the Terrorism Act for no apparent
reason other than being Muslim, citing the routine stop-and-search
operations.
Senior
British parliamentarians admitted last August that anti-terrorism laws
are being used
“disproportionately” against the Muslim minority.
Public
Support
Meanwhile,
a YouGov poll for The Telegraph shows that a majority of the
public backs the controversial bill.
The
survey shows that voters largely share Blair's view that protecting
the public against an terrorist attack such as the 9/11 or Madrid
should take priority over civil liberties.
It
further indicates that 75 percent of those polled agree that it may
sometimes be necessary to take action against people who have not yet
committed an offence but about whom the intelligence services have
evidence that they are planning an act of terrorism. Only 14 percent
disagreed.
Some
61 percent said national security and the prevention of terrorism
matter more to them than civil liberties of the suspects.
However,
33 percent said they would feel happier if the decision to impose a
control order was taken by a judge rather than a minister.
