ForumGarden

Most Britons Would Sacrifice Liberties for Better Security

By Patrick Goodenough

CNSNews.com International Editor

August 23, 2005



(CNSNews.com) - Almost three-quarters of respondents in a new British poll say they would be willing to give up some civil liberties to improve security against terrorist attacks.



The startling finding will boost Prime Minister Tony Blair and his plans to introduce in the fall tough new legislation aimed at combating Islamist terrorism in the aftermath of the July bombings in London.



Fifty-two people died and hundreds were injured when four terrorists detonated explosives on the capital's subways and a bus on July 7, killing themselves in the process. A failed attempt a fortnight later to carry out more bombings added to public anxiety.



Blair's proposals -- including creating a new offense of inciting terrorism, strengthening authorities' ability to deport or bar entry to radical clerics, banning extremist groups and shutting down mosques linked to extremism -- have drawn criticism from civil liberties campaigners, opposition parties and Muslim organizations.



An ICM poll for The Guardian newspaper asked: "Do you think it is right or wrong to lose some civil liberties to improve our security against terrorist attacks?" Seventy-three percent of respondents were in favor of the trade-off, while 17 percent rejected it.



Although respondents identifying themselves as Conservatives were more willing to lose some liberties in exchange for security -- 79 percent -- the numbers were also high for Labor (72) and Liberal Democrat supporters (70).



On specific proposals, 62 percent supported the deportation of foreigners who spread radical Islamist views "even if it means sending them back to countries that use torture." Only 19 percent were opposed.



Forty-five percent were in favor of banning groups that promote radical Islamist views "even if they don't advocate violence." Thirty-one percent were opposed.



Respondents were also asked about a proposal -- by police chiefs, not the government -- to extend the period police can hold a terror suspect without charge from the present 14 days to three months. Only 19 percent opposed the move, while 68 percent supported it.



Government ministers have expressed hope that British judges will weight security considerations against individual suspects' rights when acting in terror-related cases, and Blair warned that he may amend human rights legislation if necessary.



The polling organization put the issue to respondents, and 52 percent agreed that "the government's measures are agreed by parliament, and judges should not be able to overturn them."



Forty percent felt "judges should protect our civil liberty and should continue to overturn anti-terrorism measures if they feel it is right to do so."



By way of comparison, Gallup polls for USA Today/CNN in recent years have found a growing minority of Americans feel the USA Patriot Act -- introduced after 9/11 to enhance the federal government's ability to investigate and pre-empt terrorism -- goes too far in restricting liberties, from 22 percent in Aug. 2003 to 30 percent last May.



More than 60 percent continue to support the Act, saying it is "about right" or does not go far enough.



In a new poll of New York City registered voters released last Friday by Quinnipiac University, 55 percent of respondents said government security measures should not violate basic civil liberties. Thirty-eight percent disagreed.



Pollsters found a shift had occurred since a similar survey a month earlier, when the result was 64-30.

I do wish this coutry would stop ***** footing around and put its own people before what everyone else thinks, but I don't think merely shunting people around the globe isn't the answer. Simply 'sending people back where they came from' isn't exactly doing much for world peace now is it? It's merely moving the problem around.

Get rid - as far as im concerned why should hate mongers be allowed to roam freely spouting death and distruction to all and sundry and still walk free and claim benifits. if they are wanted by a country that has the death penalty tuff sh** they commited the crime so they should face the penalty not hide for years at our expence . they should be stipped of benifits straight away and deported in the middle of the night without warning not pandered to and given air time. im sick of every body else coming first its about time the uk put its real born and bred citizens first and foremost not change our laws to pander to the scum that seem to do what ever they please . i personally dont think the muslim community have done enough - they have been aware of these people for years and all they have done is segregate themselfs and then complain they are being victimised and excluded - well im sorry this has been a long time coming - get rid !!!!!!!!!!

I think i can safely say that 100% of Brits would vote for a safer country,

what the article does'nt say is what liberties we would be losing.

pantsonfire321@aol.com wrote: Get rid - as far as im concerned why should hate mongers be allowed to roam freely spouting death and distruction to all and sundry and still walk free and claim benifits. if they are wanted by a country that has the death penalty tuff sh** they commited the crime so they should face the penalty not hide for years at our expence . they should be stipped of benifits straight away and deported in the middle of the night without warning not pandered to and given air time. im sick of every body else coming first its about time the uk put its real born and bred citizens first and foremost not change our laws to pander to the scum that seem to do what ever they please . i personally dont think the muslim community have done enough - they have been aware of these people for years and all they have done is segregate themselfs and then complain they are being victimised and excluded - well im sorry this has been a long time coming - get rid !!!!!!!!!!


ABSOLUTELY 100% AGREE !!!



Bez

Bit mixed, like most of my compatriots I don't see why we should allow extremists of any kind to advocate violence as a means to an end. The law to deport them has always been there the govt has pussyfooted around especially with those who are not UK citizens. Being tolerant is one thing letting them take the **** is another. It's not so much giving up our liberties as stopping them being abused.

On the other hand if badly drafted it could cause all sorts of problems. One danger is that telling a religious joke could be interpreted as inciting religious hatred-we have a long tradition of taking the mickey out of religon will telling a joke about the pope be an offence? This kind of law will extend to sectarianism etc, and to the likes of the bnp. Will singing the sash at old firm matches now come under legislation about inciting religious violence or stopping it be seen as curbing the free expression of loyalty to the protestant cause?

We also need to end the law of blasphemy-there has been talk of extending it to islam which is ridiculous, as an offence blasphemy has no place in a secular society.

More serious was the attempt by the home secretary to hold people without trial-extending the period to gather evidence fair enough but authorised by a judge not the home secretary. We were the first country to have habeous corpus laws whose intention was and is to curb the power of the authoriries to just tuck away thosethey don't like. Our courts and jury system are there as check against auhority any attempt to diminish that shuld be watched with concern. curbing the judges would be a bigger threat toour civil liberties and TB has shown himself more than willing to bypass parliament. Bear in mind he is not a president and his office does not give him the same kind of power ruling with a cartel of advisers is very unbritish and indemocratic.

I am ambivalent about the house of lords but a politically appointed supreme court and giving gov the right to sack judges leaves it even more open to abuse. TB's implied threat to curb the power of the courts is serious.

On the other hand you notice how quickly the bombers were identified? That was due to the prevalence of ctv cameras everywhere in our main city streets which is something we are`used to and don't bother about any more as the benefits are seen to outweigh the lose of privacy. Similarly we accept having bags checked going in to public buildings or now on to the underground if necessary. I have read articles -which I would put a link to but I can't remember the source, by american commentators pointing out that americans resist such this us as being an infringement on civil liberties, here if you don't want your bag checked no one will give you any sympathy. The IRA inured us to such things better a bit of inconvenience at the door than a bomb in a waste bin.

Probably our most important liberty is the right to call TB and his cronies lying two faced hypocritical power mad bastards without being called unpatriotic or being ordered to shut up.

Exactly. You've dealt with the IRA, we haven't. Our tune changed after 9/11. Now, because we haven't been attacked we are slowly turning back to..hey, this isn't how it's supposed to be". (not all of us, but many) It's difficult when you know you aren't doing anything wrong to be checked, checked and rechecked. But. It's necessary in these times, IMO. Most of us go along with the inconveniences but we do also watch for abuses. Which you guys will too.

Sucks, doesn't it?

Not in the slightest, to quote Ben Franklin: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both".

Exactly how will the likes of ID cards, for instance, stop suicide bombers? Does anybody really think that, stopped by the police, a terrorist or indeed any criminal will say "it's a fair cop guv, you've got me fair and square, would you like me to fall down the stairs by myself now?", hand over their ID card and meekly turn themselves in? I doubt it. On the specific ID card question, given "New" Labour's fixation with Public Private Partnerships you're likely to see a bunch of clowns like Capita being responsible for holding your details. Confident? Thought not.

Free speech... Difficult one. I wonder whether for instance the proposed laws would bar Pat Robinson from entering the country (he advocated the assassination of Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected president of Venezuela). Personally I think what we need is a more responsible and high minded media (okay, fat chance but leave me in cloud cuckoo land for a short time...) If what these people said was deconstructed and seen for what it is then perhaps the perceived impact of it would be lessened.

Remember, the IRA like every terrorist organisation in history was brought down not by armed force, not by curtailing the liberties of people the government claimed to represent but by compromise, negotiation and the mutual will for a settlement. Would this apply to Al Qaeda? Possibly not at the moment, although getting troops out of Iraq, possibly looking into whether an Arab force could take their place would be a start.

I'm not claiming to have the answers, anyone who does is deluded or a better liar than I am. Any victory that we may or may not win by adopting draconian measures would in my view be a pyhrric one.

gmc wrote: Bit mixed, like most of my compatriots I don't see why we should allow extremists of any kind to advocate violence as a means to an end. The law to deport them has always been there the govt has pussyfooted around especially with those who are not UK citizens. Being tolerant is one thing letting them take the **** is another. It's not so much giving up our liberties as stopping them being abused.



On the other hand if badly drafted it could cause all sorts of problems. One danger is that telling a religious joke could be interpreted as inciting religious hatred-we have a long tradition of taking the mickey out of religon will telling a joke about the pope be an offence? This kind of law will extend to sectarianism etc, and to the likes of the bnp. Will singing the sash at old firm matches now come under legislation about inciting religious violence or stopping it be seen as curbing the free expression of loyalty to the protestant cause?



We also need to end the law of blasphemy-there has been talk of extending it to islam which is ridiculous, as an offence blasphemy has no place in a secular society.



More serious was the attempt by the home secretary to hold people without trial-extending the period to gather evidence fair enough but authorised by a judge not the home secretary. We were the first country to have habeous corpus laws whose intention was and is to curb the power of the authoriries to just tuck away thosethey don't like. Our courts and jury system are there as check against auhority any attempt to diminish that shuld be watched with concern. curbing the judges would be a bigger threat toour civil liberties and TB has shown himself more than willing to bypass parliament. Bear in mind he is not a president and his office does not give him the same kind of power ruling with a cartel of advisers is very unbritish and indemocratic.



I am ambivalent about the house of lords but a politically appointed supreme court and giving gov the right to sack judges leaves it even more open to abuse. TB's implied threat to curb the power of the courts is serious.



On the other hand you notice how quickly the bombers were identified? That was due to the prevalence of ctv cameras everywhere in our main city streets which is something we are`used to and don't bother about any more as the benefits are seen to outweigh the lose of privacy. Similarly we accept having bags checked going in to public buildings or now on to the underground if necessary. I have read articles -which I would put a link to but I can't remember the source, by american commentators pointing out that americans resist such this us as being an infringement on civil liberties, here if you don't want your bag checked no one will give you any sympathy. The IRA inured us to such things better a bit of inconvenience at the door than a bomb in a waste bin.



Probably our most important liberty is the right to call TB and his cronies lying two faced hypocritical power mad bastards without being called unpatriotic or being ordered to shut up.Agree

Tough one this, I would leave it up to the legal experts to decide precisley what is possible, but I would err on the side of liberty myself. That said its difficult to argue against taking some form of legislative measures to stop people promoting hatred and violence. That should be done on an EU as well as national level if its to have any real impact though. The wider issue of Al Queda and the whole fundamentalist movement is troubling, its hard to see how any accomodation can be made with their worldview, I don't thinks its comparable to the situation with the IRA as that movement has relatively limited political aims, which whether you agree with them or not, are at least rational. The islamic fundamentalists by comparison seem to want things that we cannot accept, their philosophy seems nihilist and from my perspective irrational. So what to do? To be honest I don't know, but I will say one thing, the war in Iraq has not helped matters in the least. I can't understand what Blair's motive is for getting the British people caught up in that quagmire.