The non-negotiables in any democratic society must be the prohibition on torture, the right to dissent, the right to privacy, freedom of speech, no detention without charge and being innocent until proven guilty. If we slowly dismantle these freedoms in the name of combating radical Islamists then we will eventually end up with a state that may well resemble one they would happily set up.

The proposed 42 days pre-charge detention is the equivalent of being locked up in prison for a three-month jail sentence (with release after half the time served) without any knowledge of why you are languishing there.

Only once you are charged can you begin defending yourself. So you are as good as guilty for this period before you can prove your innocence. The impact this has on the individual and the family can only be imagined. This is surely wrong. The fact that it will also act as a recruiting sergeant for extremism should be a secondary point in proving how counter-productive the strategy is: the primary point must be that it is an affront to our basic civil liberties in a democracy.

And all of this, not because we have a current threat level that justifies this response, but in case we might do in the future. Well there's quite a lot that might happen in the future and equally there's quite a lot that might not happen.

Since we don't have the benefit of a crystal ball, that shouldn't be how we legislate. The same logic would justify speculatively detaining people without charge indefinitely until some evidence cropped up that would allow them to be charged or released. Ministers justify the extension by using the scenario of three 9/11s happening simultaneously and asking whether the police would cope. That scenario is highly improbable, but not impossible. But there is already a provision in the existing law to allow for extension beyond 28 days with tighter judicial oversight in those "exceptional circumstances". All that is happening now is that those "exceptional circumstances" are being made less exceptional by watering down judicial oversight. That makes us all less safe.

Even 28 days is more than enough time for the police to find sufficient evidence that will stand up in court. If they can't meet that evidential standard then either their suspicions are groundless or they can continue to closely monitor the suspect and re-arrest him if new evidence comes to light.

Can the police be trusted with more powers? Well, ask Rizwaan Sabir, the student at Nottingham University. He was arrested for doing his homework (he was doing a PhD on radical Islamist groups). The police held him for almost a week before they released him without charge. The more time we give the police to detain without charge the less pressure there is on them to release innocent people quickly. We know the adage that work expands to fill the time available.

And what of all this new money being poured into promoting moderate Muslims. Well it's obviously far better than promoting extremist Muslims, but it does seem like a conveniently-timed carrot to coincide with the stick. A far better counter-terrorism strategy would be for the police to build up trust with grassroot communities to improve the intelligence upon which arrests and successful prosecutions can be made. Bringing in draconian legislation is worse than a lazy shortcut: it disengages the very communities whose help the police most need.

While these anti-terrorism laws will, for now, be used predominantly against those within Muslim communities, there should be no doubt that they will be available for use against us all for years, and possibly decades, to come. The "war on terror" is a war without end. Should we declare victory any time soon (and who will decide when that is?) it will take much effort for these laws to be reversed.

Source: Comment Is Free

---