London – Secret trials. Curbs on free speech. Three months in jail without being charged.
British authorities have hesitated to crack down in the past, largely because of human-rights concerns and court actions that allowed radical Islamic activists to operate freely in Britain for years – raising money, beaming satellite TV spots and running Internet sites that condemn America and support al-Qaeda.
No more.
The July bombings in London changed all that, much like the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks led to stepped-up security and curbs on civil liberties in the U.S. in the name of national security.
It says something about these anxious times in Britain that both liberals and conservatives are trying to out-tough one another to make it clear that no one will tolerate terror. But critics and Muslims are raising concerns that the balance is being skewed between the rights of individuals and the need to prevent another attack in a country where many concepts of civil rights first took hold.
“I think we are getting into some dangerous territory and that we are starting to abrogate some of the principles we use to define ourselves,” said Sonya Sceats, an expert on international human-rights law at the Chatham House research group.
Not only is Britain proposing to crack down on radical groups, close certain bookshops and deport hate-mongering clerics to countries that permit torture, Prime Minister Tony Blair signaled that he may reconsider aspects of the Human Rights Act, a law some activists had hoped would become the British equivalent of America’s Bill of Rights.
Police argue that authorities should be allowed to hold suspects without charge for as long as three months – rather than the two weeks now allowed – because terrorism requires time and expertise to combat.
Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, says U.S. and British security fears are feeding off one another.
For example, New York City implemented random searches of subway riders’ bags after the London attacks – although there was no apparent suggestion of a U.S. link, Romero said. After the Sept. 11 attacks, some U.S. officials suggested creation of a domestic spying agency like Britain’s MI5.
Romero is even more worried because Britain had been counted on to criticize, for example, U.S. detention policies at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“Now you can de-fang one of the closest critics of the Bush administration’s civil liberties policies,” he said. “Now you can point to their own policies.”
Britain and America have championed human rights around the world but could find their standing undermined, he said.
“It will certainly undercut the ability of both governments to be advocates for changes on the world scene.”
