Confronted with domestic terrorism, Tony Blair drafted legislation undermining the liberal core of the British political system while dodging root causes, writes Doaa El-Bey In an attempt to change the rules of the game of confronting terrorism, British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government published a draft anti-terrorism bill in October. Labour as well as opposition MPs, Muslim groups and human rights organisations regard it as violating human and citizens' rights and failing to tackle root causes. Debate over the bill arose after the July bombings appeared linked to Blair's government having dragged Britain into the war on Iraq. Blair, however, did not listen, blaming terrorism on "extremism" rather than his own foreign policy. He moved swiftly to convince parliament and the people that an anti- terrorism bill would protect Britain from further attacks. The 7 July bombings on three London underground stations and a London bus left 56 dead, including the four "home grown" suicide bombers. A failed copycat attack two weeks later left no casualties. The most controversial point in the bill was extending the period of detention without charge for terrorist suspects from 14 to 90 days. Police claimed that they needed more time to deal with such cases, examine the evidence and contact overseas intelligence agencies if need be. However, in what was described as the hardest blow to Blair, the extension proposal was defeated in the House of Commons. Members of Blair's own Labour Party joined the two main opposition parties in rejecting the proposal because they regarded it as a grave threat to civil liberties. They feared that, if implemented, it would likely worsen the situation, increasing the potential of recruiting angry and frustrated young Muslims into organisations that adopt political violence as a means of protest. Although there were clear signs that the extension proposal would be rejected, Blair refused to compromise on the 90-day extension period. While offering limited concessions -- like allowing a judge to review each detention case every 7 days -- Blair's concessions were not enough, and the bill was rejected. In addition, the government refused earlier this month to listen to the calls of the Conservative Party, the Muslim Council of Britain and other organisations about holding an independent public inquiry into the July bombings, on the pretext that it would be time consuming, and would distract the government's attention from potential future threats. The government's rejection, however, only fuelled questions about potential links between home grown and international terrorism, and how officials might prevent such attacks from happening again. The anti-terrorism bill had other shortcomings that led to its rejection in the Commons. Its outlawing of "direct and indirect encouragement of terrorism" was described as "vague". The government explained that an offence would be committed if a person issuing a statement either knows or believes, or has reasonable ground for believing, that it could induce people to commit an act of terrorism. How police would assess the level of intent was left unexplained. That point in the bill was regarded as a curtailment to the right of peaceful protest. Some human rights and Muslim groups regarded it as a possible tool in the hands of the government to control Muslim clerics who preach in mosques. Another of the bill's shortcomings involves banning the dissemination of publications that can be of use to terrorists. Again, the bill did not provide a clear definition of terrorist publications, and how such a ban might be enforced in the age of the internet. Arguably, the only positive thing that Blair's government decided to do recently was drop a proposal for new police powers to shut what they regard as extremist mosques. Such powers would only have widened the gap between Muslim and non-Muslim communities, and had a negative impact on British society, boosting extremism in the name of the defence of free speech. That proposal, also part of the anti-terrorism bill, would have given police powers to temporarily close places of worship disapproved of by authorities. The government said that it responded to consultations on the proposal with major political and religious groups. Most of them rejected the proposal, saying that terrorists could just as likely be indoctrinated outside mosques. While 2005 was a difficult year for Blair, he has thus far survived the defeat of the anti-terrorism bill. There are, nonetheless, clear signs that he is losing his grip, evident in his failure to push through reform proposals in health and education, as well as the challenge of having to face a new and strong Tory leader, David Cameron. For Blair, 2006 is clearly going to be even more difficult.
