BISHOPS in the House of Lords have questioned whether the Counter-Terrorism Bill is workable.
The Government is seeking to extend the 28-day maximum period for detention without charge of terrorist suspects, a provision the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Revd John Gladwin, described at the Second Reading in the Upper House as “beyond the normal bounds of the way in which we operate in the protection of civil liberties”.
Bishop Gladwin questioned the purpose of the Bill, which had originally been motivated by a sense that 28 days’ detention did not give the police enough time to interview suspects. The changes introduced during the parliamentary process seemed now to suggest that the reason for the Bill was “the grave, exceptional threat of terrorism”, the Bishop suggested.
“These are not the same reasons. If the reason is a lack of police time, we need the evidence. If it is a grave and serious terrorist threat, then, as others have suggested, why is the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 not sufficient for the task?” he asked.
Two men in Chelmsford had returned to their community innocent of involvement in terrorist activity, and released without charge, after being held for 28 days, Bishop Gladwin told the Lords. He asked what it was going to be like for young people returning to their communities after seven weeks of detention.
“Those of us who work in these communities face a severe challenge now with regard to the attitudes of young people in minority groups, and their social place and sense of cohesion.” He warned: “Have we not got into a mode of thinking that the way to deal with such threats is to produce criminal-justice legislation that will turn the screws a bit harder? That argument is counterproductive, and will radicalise communities yet further.”
The Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Tim Stevens, said that the Bill risked eroding civil liberties, while failing to provide greater safety. Compelling arguments had not been forthcoming in this long debate. Although the reduction from 90 days to 56 and below represented a “victory for principled opposition”, the danger of normalising what had been seen as exceptional was acute.
“Those of us who live close to and talk regularly with the leaders of Muslim communities are acutely aware not only of their concern for their safety, and the acute need to counter terrorism effectively, but also of their deep concern that this Bill will have the opposite effect,” Bishop Stevens said. He called on the Lords to ima-
gine the consequences for the “tightly populated Muslim neighbourhoods around the major mosques of a city such as Leicester”.
Bishop Stevens reminded the Lords that the Church had been unequivocal on this issue. He concluded: “The Christian faith has no privileged insight that shortcuts the hard work of analysis and moral struggle on this issue, but the keen Christian awareness of the fallen and compromised nature of human beings serves as a perennial warning that measures taken to counter horrific evil must maintain checks and balances.
“Such checks and balances are the heart of our moral identity as a nation. We ignore or erode them at our peril.” |
back to News
previous story
|
next story 
back to top
