One commentator this week suggested that Mr Blair’s administration is taking its anti-terrorism policy from Samizdata. I don’t think so. A copy of The Times for March 3rd 2009 has fallen into my hands:
Terror site closed down: Police hold 17
By Daniel Tendler, Stewart O’Neill and Sean McGrory
EVERY member of an international extremist group based in Britain was under arrest last night after an extraordinary day of police operations stretching from one of the smartest parts of West London to the United States and Australia. Charges are expected to be brought soon under the Incitement to Terrorism Act 2006, though police have up to three months to question suspects. The FBI is interviewing more suspects and has raided the group’s internet provider.
While police are jubilant following a series of successful armed raids across London, and have seized large amounts of terrorist property including a number of computers, they and their colleagues are still hunting for associates of the “sinister and heavily-armed” group. The organisation, known as “Samizdata”, runs a website showing members receiving weapons training abroad and frequently carries approving statements about armed resistence to the state–even its logo shows an automatic weapon menacingly supported on radical textbooks. The website has been shut down and all visitors for the past 2 years will be questioned, say Special Branch.
Home Office sources indicate that after they are prosecuted for indirect incitement, the three foreign masterminds will be deported whether or not they are imprisoned first. They are an American man whose dual British nationality has already been stripped, an Irish American man, and a Croat woman. Exclusion Orders have been placed on a Frenchman, another American and an Australian, but most of those in custody are British, and have been involved in inciting others to threaten the state for several years, the same sources revealed. They are apparently well-funded. In addition to computers, property “worth millions” in Chelsea and in Earl’s Court has been sequestered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
The backgrounds of the plotters are seemingly middle class, and some of them have been operating apparently blameless lives in the City and other professions, while others are associated with radical oppositionist movements and anti-social behaviour for many years. Some of them are Conservative Party members, and the Leader of the Opposition has been called into urgent talks with Number 10. Police are warning the public to keep their eyes open and report friends or neighbours who may have links with this group. People who have inappropriate literature at home, or do not carry official identification or who have failed to register for Neighbourhood Watch are particularly to be regarded as suspicious say Home Office guidelines. A list of relevant publications (those banned by Orders under Part II of the Incitement to Terrorism Act 2006) is available on the Metropolitan Police website, and anyone owning or distributing these should be reported at once. Withholding such information is a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Tony Blair speaking last night said, “Extremist groups like this are a threat to our whole way of life in Europe. They want to turn the clock back to the 19th Century, when there was no welfare state, no social security, no cc-tv, drunkenness and drug-taking was permitted, and British people couldn’t even have Identity Cards. In those days, we had no idea who was in the country or what damage they were doing to themselves by selfish behaviour.”
“My Government will not hesitate to pass the further laws that are necessary to stamp out this menace for ever. We need to strike a balance between human rights and the future security of our society. It is up to all of us to be vigilant. If we are, they shall not succeed.”
Amazing post, this very point struck me this morning after reading Cherie’s husband’s “to do” list of people to deal with who disagreed with him, AKA the alleged anti-terrorism legislation!
Hell, first I didn’t notice the quoatation was from 2009 and was somewhat confused.
It’s only funny today. Tomorrow, however……
It is certainly not intended to be funny. I think the liberal constitution is in great danger in Britain, and this has been apparent for some time.
We have moved more than half-way towards the nationalist socialist (note lower case), populist-authoritarian model familiar from Russia and South America and Africa in slightly differing forms–where the ruling party and the state are indistinct, the state’s favourites are fostered with the fruits of taxation, and the best dissidents and non-conformists can hope for is to be tolerated as long as they don’t get too uppity and aren’t in danger of being heard.
I think that people across the Western World are complacent about their freedoms, and are being beguiled by particularism. “We” are alright: “they” don’t deserve fair treatment, ‘cos we already know they are bad, and it isn’t open to rational doubt. This purblind attitude is obtrusive among commentators on this blog in relation to the “War on Terror”. The piece is supposed to demonstrate what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Interesting article on the “War on Terror” by Mathias Döpfner (chief executive of the German media group Axel Springer):
Europe’s cowardice in the face of enemy fire
This is indeed an interesting article. Herr Dopfner is clearly an incisive man.
What is someone who values liberty and freedom from government interference to do when faced by an enemy that wishes to destroy all freedoms?
Do we not have to accept some infringements on our lives in this battle?
guy herbert writes:
“This purblind attitude is obtrusive among commentators on this blog in relation to the “War on Terror”.”
You may not like the attitude, Mr Herbert, but I’d suggest your choice of ‘purblind’ (with its connotations of dim-witedness) is a little insulting, let alone wrong.
I wasn’t being facetious in my comment about the Devil not being amenable to law and it is that element that gives people who otherwise might agree with the sentiments you’ve expressed, pause for thought. Whatever some on the Left might say about there being no such thing as al-Qaeda, most reasonable people, I would suggest, believe there very definitely is a threat to this country from Islamism and that some sort of action beyond what is currently possible within the law may be called for.
Now, you are undoubtedly right that authoritarians will use this emergency as an excuse try to grab us much wide-ranging power as they can get. Certainly, the sight of this government running round like scared chickens, squawking about treason charges in the hope of appearing resolute, is pretty unedifying. But the impression remains that extraordinary steps will probably have to be taken to combat the likes of Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abu Izzadeen, Abu Uzair and those others whose murderous activities they condone.
Those with long memories will recall we went through similar arguments about Northern Ireland and, somehow, we survived internment and the Diplock courts with our society not so greatly harmed. Indeed, it turned out to be other authoritarian devices that proved the greater threat.
In calling those who are at least prepared to consider exceptional measures ‘purblind’ I think you are over-egging the pudding. We’re facing a considerable problem, confronted by a unique enemy.
Common sense alone dictates that we be flexible in our response and not quite so hysterical as the Shami Chakrabartis of this world.
Har har.
I bet it won’t take until 2009.
GCooper is being a bit hard on Guy, I think. The post, while obviously satirical in one sense, contains a very serious point. Blair and others are quite capable of (mis)using a treason law to go against people they find annoying or just out of spite.
GCooper wrote: “Those with long memories will recall we went through similar arguments about Northern Ireland and, somehow, we survived internment and the Diplock courts with our society not so greatly harmed.”
The policy of internment without a proper trial on flimsy “guilt by association” grounds was an utter disaster for Northern Ireland, and helped to “radicalise” mere sympathisers (both “Unionist” and “Nationalist”) and converted many of them into active terrorist supporters or actual terrorists.
Why were none of the IRA etc. terrorists ever tried for treason, even after killing or attempting to kill members of the Royal Family or the Government or the Armed Forces ?
Johnathan writes:
“The post, while obviously satirical in one sense, contains a very serious point. Blair and others are quite capable of (mis)using a treason law to go against people they find annoying or just out of spite. ”
With respect, it wasn’t (primarily) guy herbert’s post I was commenting in – it was his response to another’s comment, which was what I quoted.
While I’m aware of the point he makes and I have much sympathy for it, I believe that stigmatising those of us who at least willing to consider tougher laws as “purblind” isn’t really playing fair.
I take it that Croatia is a rather expansionist power by 2009?
How many “enemies” of liberty (and innocent citizens) have Samizdata inspired hotheads blown up ?
None so far ?? Then Guy Herbert’s analogy is lame, and his satire misses. It reeks of a certain kind of infantilism….
Crying wolf day in, day out about imaginary abuses gets tiresome.
Deal with the concrete situation at hand. If Blair’s gov. and police have commited blatant abuses – denounce them, without inventing hypotetic (ridiculous) situations.
I’m afraid that the only thing Blair can be blamed for (in this context) is negligence in dealing with the threats to the life of British citizens. Failure to extradite terrorists responsible for crimes in other countries, failure to heed denunciacions of terrorist activity from Muslim elders alarmed at the activity at their mosques.
The great satirist Ephraim Kishon once remarked that for satire to be effective it must be anchored in reality, deal with a true element. Guy Herbert’s lacks any element of truth or reality.
GCooper: I’m not stigmatising everyone who disagrees with me as a purblind particularist.
However there goes an example:
Deal with the concrete situation at hand.
No thank you, Jacob. Your idea of a concrete situation is no more abstract than my hypothetical: some people can by magic be smelt out as “terrorists”, “we” know who they are, and they must be dealt with, because they represent contagion. It is precisely because I see the perils, and I have already seen some of the abuses, that I refuse to accept one law for “us” and one law for “them”.
My point was precisely the one you arrantly refuse to address, that giving the state power to denounce “terrorists” without exhibiting the evidence of any actual harm to others, means that there is scope for the harmless to be swept up with the harmful and a true terror to reign. Britain becoming like a Middle-Eastern despotism seems unlikely to prove a problem to the violent Islamists, but it is a problem–a concrete one–for us, and anyone else who is a more or less open dissident. Just talking about the possibilities of changing society doesn’t make you a danger to others if you are an atheist anarcho-capitalist or libertarian conservative, and no more does it if you are a Muslim.
If you want a substantive proposal, my first one would be to repeal the Terrorism Act 2000 and expunge the concept of terrorism from British law. Several people have now been charged with attempted murder, and conspiracy to murder, and conspiracy to cause explosions arising out of the July bombings. The criminal law is sufficient to deal with those who would harm others: we should not have laws that pre-emptively punish people for their beliefs.
“Britain becoming like a Middle-Eastern despotism…”
This is a ridiculous statement of a sick imagination. It is also false. You are free to rave all you wish, but you’re unattached to any tangible reality. You are not predicting a plausible future based on something that is happening, this is just idle meaningless, baseless talk.
“Just talking about the possibilities of changing society…”
Sorry, the islamists are NOT “Just talking” – they are murdering people. Maybe you are unaware of this fact. Incitement to murder and to violence are NOT legitimate, protected free speech. Neither is conspiring to commit crimes “just talking”. “Just talking” is what samizdata is all about, in sharp contrast to islamist murderes. How you can confuse or compare the two (in your little parody) is beyond my comprehension.
“we should not have laws that pre-emptively punish people for their beliefs.”
Again, I don’t know what your’e talking about, and I’m not sure you know. Nobody has been punished for his beliefs so far. If anything the government has shown too much leniency, too much tolerance, too much multiculti stupidity and apathy, and failed to prosecute and stop inciters and conspirators to commiting abhorent crimes.
“The criminal law is sufficient to deal with those who would harm others”
Maybe. I don’t know, I’m not a legal expert. If current law is sufficient, maybe the problem is lack of enforcement, incompetence and negligence on the part of the authorities. The problem is not too much oppresion as you loudly shout, but too little preventive action to protect people from a mortal threat.
Jacob writes:
“If current law is sufficient, maybe the problem is lack of enforcement, incompetence and negligence on the part of the authorities.”
I think this is where guy herbert et al are on difficult ground. The current crop of senior British judges seems to have passed through a common sense filter before elevation.
The mechanism for dispensing with their services is obscure, at best, and remains one of the genuine ‘civil liberty’ issues which the libertarian Left seems unwilling to address.
Jacob:
How you can confuse or compare the two (in your little parody) is beyond my comprehension.
I don’t. But the British government does, and so do other governments. That is my point. It is not a parody. It is an example of how such laws can be and are used.
Creating over-broad offences in order to make it easy to punish behaviour we would all agree is wrong, grants a discretionary power to the authorities that they ought never to have.
The Islamists, vile though they may be, are weak. They cannot murder and enslave millions, even though they might like to. States are a different matter.
That’s the difference between us, I think. I am not nearly as frightened of Islamists as I am of Mr Blair, because he has the power to destroy (indeed has done much to destroy already) liberal England. They don’t. I am consistantly horrified by commentators on this blog who will throw away their freedoms in order to deny them to others–and who count the freedoms of those others cheap only because those others are foreign, brown or attend a mosque, and therefore share some adventitious characteristics with known maniacs.
The state has only to whisper “terrorist” and many people appear to lose all reason and independence. I am not saying that mass-murder is to be ignored, but that it should be treated as such. Dangerous groups ought to be monitored and stopped when they do things that are a danger to others.
(I wouldn’t start from here, BTW. I have been consistent in saying for 25 years that the UK is strategically crazy to suck-up to the al-Sauds, to support the Mujeheddin against the Soviets, and the unlamented Zia ul Haq, to ignore petro-dollar missionary-diplomacy…)
What we cannot afford is for the fear of “terrorists” to pervert the rule of law, and for “terrorism” to become an irrefutable allegation that removes legal protections from the accused, or subjects him to special ill-treatment. We have seen that sort of thing before: witch, Jew, pervert, communist, revisionist, counter-revolutionary, fascist. It doesn’t matter whether the label has a real and blameless meaning, represents some genuine danger, or is an ideological fiction–it is a pretext for the destruction of safety and liberty.
GCooper:
Though Lord Falcolner has adumbrated changing our judiciary into a caste of politicised officials, and has just adjusted the system for selecting QCs, I don’t think there’s much wrong with judges–for now. But they do apply the law we have, and much of the law we have is bad (in both your terms and my terms) so I suggest you should not blame the judges. Judicial discretion is extraordinarily limited.
Guy and other Cherie-ites
Like Jacob, i am also not a lawyer and cannot make head or tail of what you say (adumbrate?, purblind particularist?).
However, I sympathise with the person who stuck up a handwritten note at the Evening Standard stall at Green Park tube last night above a picture of some mad mullah, simply saying
“Dear Tony – why are they still here?”
(one down)
“It is an example of how such laws can be and are used.”
It’s an hypotetical, theorethical … maybe they can be used so, but they aren’t. That’s what I’m saying all along – you cry wolf over something that isn’t true, though, maybe, it could, concievably, happen, but hasn’t.
“Dangerous groups ought to be monitored and stopped when they do things that are a danger to others.”
Here we agree. And I say: they must be monitored and stopped before they commit their crimes – stopped in the stage of incitement or conspiracy.
“It doesn’t matter whether the label has a real and blameless meaning, represents some genuine danger, or is an ideological fiction–it is a pretext for the destruction of safety and liberty.”
Oh yea, it does matter, it matters a lot. If it represents some genuine danger it must be dealt with. By preventing people to commit a “genuine” crime – you are not destroying safety and liberty, you are enhancing them.
Jacob:
Here we agree. And I say: they must be monitored and stopped before they commit their crimes – stopped in the stage of incitement or conspiracy.
Absolutely. Which means using intelligence to catch the right people.
Pommygranate:
Guy and other Cherie-ites
I doubt Cherie would be pleased to be associated with me. She would certainly be surprised.
Me, I’m highly amused.
One doesn’t have to be a lawyer to care about the rule of law, however.
“Which means using intelligence to catch the right people.”
Which means targeting the correct group of people for surveilance (not aussie expats…).
Which means scrutinizing carefully visa appliers, and since there isn’t infinite manpower available, you are selective in scrutinizing, and when in doubt – it is safer to deny visas than to wrongly grant them….
Such little irksome details make up the actual world we live in, below the level of good intentioned general principles.
None of which requires a change in the law granting fruther arbitrary powers to the authorities.
I’m not the one impatient with detail–Mr Blair is. Nor am I prepared to give up the irksome details of making a case against criminals. Hence the initial post.
Rather to my surprise I agree with Guy Herbert. Once government has powers it will use them. Allowing them to lock people away without trial and without telling anyone they have done it for example is a long long way down that slippery slope.
You do not defend liberty by abusing it.