The Progressive

The killer question for the anti-terror bill debate

The current debate about the new anti-terror bill can be boiled down to one simple question. What is worse, the possibility of an innocent suspect being held (despite all the safeguards) for 42 days or the possibility of a guilty suspect slipping through the net at the 28 day point because there is insufficient time to gather the essential evidence?

Those who oppose any extension obviously consider the infringement of liberty to be the key factor. Indeed, the campaigning group, Liberty , are currently running a highly emotional ad showing a young lad with a ball tucked under his arm looking into the distance, with the caption WHERE'S MY DADDY? The sub-text reads:

Under current anti-terror laws you can be locked up and questioned repeatedly by police for 28 days,    without being charged. The government is proposing to extend this even further. Imagine spending 42 days away from your home, your family, your life - and try explaining that to him.

To which those favouring an extension can respond by running the same ad, except the sub-text would read:

Under current anti-terror laws you can be locked up and questioned for only 28 days. Imagine a terrorist being released because there has not been enough time to make the case against him, and then blowing up this boy's Daddy and many others. Try explaining that to him.

I know which course of action is the lesser of the evils for me. How about you?

Derek Pasquill charges dropped!

Great news has just reached us that Derek Pasquill, the Foreign Office civil servant, has been cleared of breaking the Official Secrets Act. Pasquill's leaks to Martin Bright of the New Statesman (and formerly the Observer), anticipated two significant - and salutary - reversals of government policy.

The government's engagement with radical Muslim groups such the Muslim Brotherhood, and its 'ask no questions' stance towards the CIA's use of British airspace for 'extraodinarily rendering' terror suspects (often to be tortured), have both since been reversed.

That was an implicit admission that Pasquill had acted in public interest - and the pursuit of a continued prosecution was rankly hypocritical. It goes to show how far the British state still has to go before attaining the levels of openness and accountability demanded by a democratic society.

Examples from the past couple of years which spring to mind include the sudden termination of the SFO's investigation into corrupt Saudi arms deals and moves to restrict Freedom of Information.

If Gordon Brown wants to be really radical, he would do well to set about changing this culture.  Strengthening the office of the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, might be a start.

Doing their propaganda work for them

I watched the second part of Britz last night. The clear message emerging from Peter Kominsky's Channel 4 drama was:

Muslims are being persecuted in this country as well as abroad

It's no good trying to change things through our democratic system

Moderates are Uncle Toms

Suicide bombings are the only answer

And just in case the viewer didn't get it over the four and a half hours that this piece was on screen the message was spelt out right at the end in the suicide bomber's recorded video which included the words "You are not innocent while you keep electing this government and look away as they butcher Muslims all over the place".

As Hassan Butt, a former Islamic extremist, put it in an article for the Observer, "By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us".

Isn't there a law against inciting terrorism?

The fringe is buzzing with ideas

The fringe here at Manchester is buzzing with ideas and debates - probably more than usual, in fact. First last night, to a Social Market Foundation event on how politicians should respond to media scare stories about scientific developments and emerging scientific news.

David Sainsbury, the minister for science, spoke about the urgent need to move away from talking about the 'public understanding of science' towards 'the public engagement of science'. Citizens being simply passive recipients of worthy and notable conclusions drawn by a scientific elite can produce scepticism in key new developments, and can lead to people beliving - as with the Tories over BSE - that they are being lied to.

Much better to encourage people to review differing scientific opinions, and be able to understand the paramenters within which scientific debate eventually draws consensual or mainstream conclusions. He noted that science stories in newspapers are often reported in a much more sophisticated manner when dedicated science journalists cover the stories; they have the contacts to talk to the best scientists in the country. Public debate about science is less informed when non-specialist journalists attempt to cover the stories, and he pointed to the reporting of issues around MMR as an example.

Then to a joint BBC/British Council debate on global security. Neil Kinnock chaired, and invited David Triesman (Foreign Office Minister), Azza Hammoudi (British Council in Jordan) and Bridget Kendall of the BBC to discuss whether the global insecurity evident since 9/11 is here to stay. David Triesman was interesting when he pointed out that global insecurity did not start with the attacks on New York five years ago. He catalogued host of extremist-inspired bombings and attacks across the world which predate 2001. His reminder that these pre-9/11 incidents must be borne in mind when some people attempt to paint easy and incomplete schemas about the role of Britain's foreign policy was astute and needed.

Kinnock was on good form. He made the audience feel relaxed and at home, and eloquently soothed the sensitivities of several southern-hemisphere commonwealth high commissioners when one speaker inadvertently singled out Canada as 'our most important dominion'.