Unveiling proposals for sweeping new anti-terrorist measures, Blair leads Britain away from the halcyon days of liberalism, writes Ahmed Reda in London The rules of the game are really changing in Britain, as Prime Minister Tony Blair eloquently put it. The Blair government is to introduce a new package of anti-terrorism measures, proposals that include stripping citizenship from naturalised Britons "engaged in extremism" and establishing -- principally for the Muslim community in Britain -- a commission to advise on how better to integrate into society "those parts of the community presently inadequately integrated". The sweeping 12-point plan includes, along with the closure of places of worship used as centres "for fomenting extremism", in consultation with Muslim leaders, "drawing up a list of those not suitable to preach who will be excluded from Britain". Going further, Blair promises not only to hunt down individuals but also to ban websites, weblogs and bookshops seen as inciting terrorism and hatred. The current 14- day period during which police can hold terror suspects without charge is to be examined, with a determination made as to whether it can be lengthened. Police have asked for 90 days, which some human rights groups deem excessive. Noting that current applicants have only to "attend a citizenship ceremony, swear allegiance to the country and have a rudimentary grasp of the English language", Blair vows to review the requirements for obtaining British citizenship to ensure they are "adequate". Present requirements have been widely criticised for their leniency, making it easy, it is alleged, for troublemakers to become citizens and even receive welfare benefits. The new proposals -- some of which seem to have been waiting in the wings, being ready to be enacted immediately, with others slated for debate in parliament -- were expected, especially after the radical change in police rules of engagement that allow officers discretion to "shoot to kill". The announced proposals also come in response to growing public sentiment that Britain has allowed itself to become a breeding ground for extremist Muslims from around the world, putting not only Britain but also other nations at risk. The prime minister stressed that he was not trying to undermine "legitimate political debate", and was not targeting Britain's Muslim community in general, but only those "actively engaged" in inciting violence. He denounced as "appalling rubbish" suggestions that bombings were legitimate expressions of Muslim anger at the policies of Britain and the United States in Iraq and other parts of the Muslim world. Blair's drastic change of heart follows intelligence reports warning that Britain faces a full-blown Islamist insurgency sustained by thousands of young Muslim men with military training now resident in the UK. The reports, released by US intelligence authorities and published in The Independent, suggest there are more than 100,000 people in Britain from "completely militarised" regions, including Somalia and its neighbours in the Horn of Africa, and Afghanistan and territories bordering that country. "Every one of them knows how to use an AK-47," a source familiar with the security reports said. "About 10 per cent can strip and reassemble such a weapon blindfolded, and probably a similar proportion has some knowledge of how to use military explosives. That adds up to tens of thousands of men." The announcement of the new proposals drew minimal criticism from opposition parties who, though in consultation with Blair over the plans, were apparently taken by surprise by the detail. Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy told BBC Radio, "there's quite a lot that came out yesterday which is the first any of us have heard of some of these initiatives." Michael Howard, leader of the main opposition Conservatives, said his party broadly supported the proposals but comments from ministers suggested some details had not been thought through. The current atmosphere clearly indicates that Blair's plans would pass through parliament and enjoy significant political support. As for the public, almost all were shocked at the 7/7 bombings, with many seeing the new plans as a positive step after a period of perceived laxity. Accurate or not, Blair's plans have clearly been designed to increase his government's popularity among Britons, delivering a clear message that New Labour can ensure security just as the Republicans claim to in the US. Analogy to the US Patriot Act is not unwarranted. Muslim community leaders and MPs have already questioned the proposals saying they would seriously curtail free speech rights in specifically addressing verbal attacks against government policies. Some critics say that Blair would use the proposed measures to silence dissenters of Britain's role in the war on Iraq, treating opposition as an incitement to violence. That Blair indicated he would amend existing human rights laws in line with his proposals only underlines the suspicions of sceptics. Human rights groups say that any amendments will not go unchallenged, implying that legal means will be invoked to prevent what they regard as serious infringements on human rights. Human rights activists also argue that deporting certain undesirable figures from the UK would result, in many instances, in their death in their home countries. The British government, according to European Union human rights regulations, cannot deport individuals to countries where they might face torture, inhumane treatment or death. Critics expressed fear that Blair's proposals would place the UK outside the European Union law. Blair, for his part, said he was confident that Britain could get assurances from foreign governments that deportees would be treated humanely. Among Britain's media, some fear the new proposals will jeopardise Britain's multi- cultural system while others question the legality of changing human rights laws and the alleged security dividend to be gained from the proposals. The general mood, however, is alarmingly conducive. In the abstract, the question of security versus rights is difficult to answer. Following the 7/7 attacks in London, many are looking to the government to act first and think later. Will new measures protect society or drive extremists underground? How will the government apply the new measures and according to which criteria? Such questions are being muffled. Sadly, nothing will be more pleasing to the perpetrators of the 7/7 attacks than to see British civil rights rendered bankrupt, collateral damage of a campaign that aims to make Western governments and people pay a dear price for policies pursued abroad. How greater the satisfaction must be when the agent of this collective and permanent damage is a frightened government supported by a frightened public.
