A threat to civil liberties
After toning down measures some described as “draconian”, the government recently published its revised draft of the Civil Contingencies Bill. Despite having addressed “potentially dangerous flaws” identified during scrutiny of the Bill, concerns remain.
The legislation is the result of a review of emergency planning in response to the extensive flooding of the UK in December 2000. The plans were included in the Queen’s Speech last November, when their more controversial purpose was revealed. The Queen spoke of a need to meet national and local challenges, identifying these trials as “threat[s] of international terrorism.”
On the one hand, the legislation appears extremely sensible. If passed by Parliament, it would repeal the UK’s current emergency procedures. Given that they apply to the possibility of an attack from the former Soviet Union, it is right that in this post-September 11th world, as some like to describe it, there be a review of the law.
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said he was in “no doubt” about the need for the Bill. A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers claimed the measures were necessary for “proper protection”. Furthermore, even if terrorism is not considered it is commendable to have a far-reaching emergency strategy in place.
However, fears about the vagueness of the Bill’s language, and the implications for abuses of civil liberties are equally valid. The measures will give ministers wide-ranging powers. Its scope grants the government power to by-pass Parliament and enact temporary legislation to deal with emergencies. This, fear civil liberties activists, is a step too far.
The majority of opposition to the Bill lies in the definition of emergencies. Barry Hugill of human rights group Liberty believes that the Bill gives the government “a blank cheque to define anything it wants as a civil emergency.”
As seen elsewhere, increasing government power has the effect of diminishing civil liberties. In America, the USA PATRIOT Act (2001) which aims to “intercept and obstruct” terrorism, gives the government unprecedented freedom to collect information with little regard for civil liberties. When governments can adopt semi-dictatorial tendencies, the fragile protection surrounding our human rights takes a battering.
Amid the alarm expressed by civil liberties organisations, the government announced that it is unlikely that powers would be used to alter the Human Rights Act (HRA). But Article 5 of this legislation has already been suspended to pass anti-terror legislation. The Bill’s proposal to grant government power to stop public gatherings is a direct threat to the democratic right to peaceful protest. Many fear that this power will be abused in the interests of government.
Despite being praised for the removal of the clause which applied the proposed powers to events which threatened “administrative or economic stability”, the Bill remains worrisome. Vital to individuals such as Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, is “absolute clarity”. To prepare for such eventualities in itself does not appear to evoke much disapproval, but the methods chosen by the government remain controversial.
Loading ...