Support 100 years of independent journalism.

21 June 2007

Stepping on human rights

Winning hearts and minds requires a new approach to terrorism, says Ben Ward

By Ben Ward

The Human Rights Act is one of the Labour Government’s most enlightened achievements. Its purpose, according to Tony Blair, was to “bring rights home,” allowing people to assert their rights in the UK rather than taking the arduous path to European Court in Strasbourg.

The adoption of the Act reflected Britain’s long-standing commitment to promoting human rights around the world and the leading role the UK played in establishing the international human rights system.

But when it comes to combating terrorism, Blair’s government has repeatedly undermined the rights the act was intended to bring home, as a new briefing paper from Human Rights Watch shows here.

Since the September 11 attacks, the government has adopted counterterrorism polices that have undermined human rights, alienated communities whose cooperation is vital to combating terrorism and sent a dangerous signal to other countries that torture is sometimes acceptable.

Little more than a month after 9/11, the government pushed a new law through parliament allowing foreign terrorism suspects to be detained indefinitely without charge. After the Law Lords ruled in December 2004 that the policy was unlawful, the government brought in control orders, restricting the liberty, movement and association of British and foreign suspects.

Sign up for The New Statesman’s newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. A weekly round-up of The New Statesman's climate, environment and sustainability content. A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A weekly dig into the New Statesman’s archive of over 100 years of stellar and influential journalism, sent each Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

All based on evidence well below what is required to convict someone of a crime. Since, the courts have found almost half the orders in breach of human rights.

The government also ramped up its efforts to circumvent the global ban on torture, deporting foreign suspects to places where they face the risk of mistreatment. It has done this by seeking promises from Jordan, Libya, and other countries with terrible records of torture, that the suspects would be humanely treated on return.

But overwhelming evidence, including from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, indicates that such assurances are utterly worthless. Why on earth should a government which routinely flouts its obligations under international law bother to honour a non-binding bilateral agreement with the UK?

The government is seeking to persuade the European Court of Human Rights to overturn long-standing case law by allowing an exception to the total ban on returns to ill-treatment. And until the Law Lords ruled otherwise in December 2005, it asserted that it had the legal right to use evidence obtained under torture- as long as the UK was not involved.

Following the July 2005 attacks, the government tried to extend the time suspects can be detained before they are charged with a crime from 14 to 90 days. Parliament eventually accepted a 28 day period, the longest in the EU.

In a discussion paper published last week, the government signalled it intends to try again to get 90 days, which is equivalent to the average time served in a six-month prison sentence. This is despite the absence of any evidence that this is needed to investigate crimes.

These measures not only violate human rights law, they are also counterproductive. The July 2005 attacks underscored that Britain faces a home-grown terrorist threat. That is why preventing radicalization and recruitment has rightly become a central plank of the government’s security strategy.

But winking at torture in the Middle East and North Africa, and locking up suspects (almost of all them Muslim men) without charge have damaged Britain’s image at home and abroad. The measures have also undermined confidence in the police and security services, jeopardizing tip-offs and other cooperation that is crucial to successfully policing terrorism.

Gordon Brown recently acknowledged that the government needs to “win the battle of hearts and minds” if it is to prevail against terrorism. Winning this battle depends on the new Prime Minister adopting a new approach to countering terrorism, based on policing and the criminal justice system.

This approach should uphold rather than undermine human rights, thus reaffirming that our fundamental values are stronger than those who wish to harm us.

Topics in this article: