LONDON,
March 8, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – In a
humiliating defeat for British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government,
the House of Lords voted against the controversial anti-terror law,
inflicting a series of blows on proposals to give the Home Secretary
extensive powers over suspect terrorists.
The
Lords voted Monday, March 7, by 249 to 199 against the controversial
bill, demanding judicial oversight of the extensive powers the
government originally suggested be given to the Home Secretary, which
ranges from electronic tagging to curfews and freedom of association,
Reuters reported.
“They
have to be better than the awfulness of what is in this bill,”
Helena Kennedy, a senior lawyer and peer in Blair's Labour Party,
said.
The
proposed law allows the government to place so-called control orders
on persons it deems “terrorism suspects” on mere suspicion,
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.
Adamant
to pass the laws as they stand, Blair had rejected Conservative
proposals to put a time limit on the measures, which sparked fears it
would erode the country’s long-established human rights by targeting
people on “mere suspicions”.
“Reasonable
Grounds”
 |
|
British
Lords demand extending judicial oversight on the extensive powers
given to the Home Secretary over “suspect terrorists”.
|
Giving
the controversial bill the thumbs-down, the British Lords demanded a
higher standard of proof before any restriction of movement could be
imposed.
In
this regard, two amendments of the bill were pressed for by two
members of the Liberal Democrats Party, according to the BBC News
Online.
One
raises the standard of proof for making a control order from
“reasonable grounds” for suspicion to a requirement that a judge
must be satisfied on the “balance of probabilities” such an order
is justified.
Another
introduces a requirement for the director of public prosecutions to
deliver a statement to the court saying there was not reasonable
prospect of a successful prosecution before an order was made.
“Sunset
Clause”
“The
speed with which this legislation is going through this House and has
already gone through the Commons, I believe, is evidence enough that
we need such a clause on the face of the bill,” said Lord Kingsland,
the Shadow Lord Chancellor.
He
stressed that the opposition to the controversial legislation would
also try Tuesday to introduce what he termed a “sunset clause”,
which would see the bill lapse on November 30.
Home
Office minister Baroness Scotland, however, said the “sunset
clause” would not be an appropriate step.
“This
bill should not be seen as a very short stopgap.”
The
Government's failure to see off the opposition to the bill may force
ministers to consider further concessions or risk losing its entire
anti-terror bill.
Scotland
revealed Sunday 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”.
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.
Read
Also…
