Author:
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: July 20, 2005
Excerpted from an editorial in 'Times,'
July19
On the many sensible proposals put
forward by the Government yesterday to tighten up the present scrappy
laws on terrorism, its wish for consensus sends out an important
signal. Terrorism is not an area where parties should seek cheap
advantage. It is a genuine threat and must be confronted as swiftly
as can be with the widest possible agreement...
Yesterday, Charles Clarke, the Home
Secretary, briefed David Davis and Mark Oaten, his Conservative and
Liberal Democrat shadows, on the Counter-Terrorism Bill, which is
now being modified and accelerated to give the police and intelligence
agencies the powers they claim to need in dealing with terrorism.
It contains several new offences. The first, concerning ''acts preparatory
to terrorism'', is by far the most urgent. It will enable police
to intervene even if the precise details of a terrorist plot are
not known...
Less compelling is the second proposed
new offence - indirect incitement to commit terrorist acts. This
could turn on something as intangible as the tone of voice in which
someone publicly stated approval of extremism. The obvious problem
here is how to frame any tightening of the law on public provocation
in a way that would secure a safe conviction.
Thirdly, the Government wants to
criminalise the provision of training in the use of hazardous substances
for terrorist purposes. That, too, is sensible...
In addition, the Bill has a number
of clauses that close absurd loopholes in existing law that lawyers
could use to escape convictions. One introduces ''all premises''
search warrants so police do not have to specify each address in
advance. A second gives the Security Service the ability to seek
warrants authorising activities overseas. And a third extends stop-and-search
powers to ''bays and estuaries'', which were foolishly left out of
previous definitions.
Several important issues are not
tackled in this Bill. The first concerns telephone tapping. The Government
still opposes the use of taps as court evidence - insisting that
this compromises surveillance methods. This is shortsighted... The
second would extend, if necessary, the 14 days during which a terrorist
suspect can be held and questioned (with regular judicial referral).
And the third is a declaration that Britain will derogate from international
treaties to allow suspects to be deported promptly, even to countries
with dubious legal records.
