A despotic act

It is unfortunate, though perhaps inevitable, that people who have lived only in conditions of liberty and democracy should have limited interest in the legal provisions that keep societies free. That much is clear from the public’s response to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. The past week saw one of the gravest parliamentary debates of modern times, on a measure which would undermine an 800-year-old principle of English law: that no man should face imprisonment without trial. And yet to judge by the opinion polls, most citizens seem to care little about the issues involved. Inasmuch as they have followed the debate at all, it is simply to absorb the glib suggestions of the Prime Minister that the only ‘civil liberty’ which matters is personal protection from a terrorist bomb.

It is quite clear that in the current climate there are few votes to be won in championing the due processes of the law, which makes it all the more impressive that, just a few weeks before a likely general election, so many parliamentarians have made a stand for genuine civil liberties: the protection of the citizen from suppressive powers of the state. As we go to press, the Prevention of Terrorism Bill is in a state of flux. A loose association of Her Majesty’s opposition, Labour rebels and Liberal Democrats has cut the government’s majority to just 14. The Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, has been forced into a series of slippery concessions which, perhaps for reasons of pride, he has felt unable to announce directly to the House of Commons. It now seems as if ministers, rather than being able to place suspects under house arrest at whim as the Bill in its original form would have allowed, will now have to apply to a judge to make such an order.