The London Blasts: Media Review

TWO MONTHS ON

DAY 64: 9 September 2005

The Ken Clarke Effect

THE KEN CLARKE EFFECT

CLARKE STIMULATES THE LIB DEMS

After opening the way for his former Cabinet colleague Norman Lamont to mount an attack on Tony Blair's Iraq policy (and to go further, calling for withdrawal from Iraq), Ken Clarke's Conservative leadership challenge has now prodded the Liberal Democrats to venture away from the cross-party consensus on the other major issue relating to 7/7: civil liberties.

In an interview with the Guardian, 'his first newspaper interview since the July attacks', the Liberal Democrat leader made the most tentative of attacks on the Blair 'counter-terrorism' proposals:

'He also criticised Tony Blair's claim that the terrorist threat had produced a new political climate. "When I hear phrases like that being used I really do get concerned," Mr Kennedy said.'

' "Climate by definition can change from one day to the next. You don't change your entire fundamental approach based on something as passing as that. Politicians should not be governed by something as nebulous as the climate." '

'He said that a generous interpretation of Mr Blair's comment was that it was "a loose use of the English language".'

' "The less generous interpretation is that perhaps the fundamental principles are not quite as robust as they should be," he said.'

So Charles Kennedy's assault on the Government consists of the observation that it is possible to put a negative interpretation on a phrase used by the Prime Minister - while Mr Blair was launching an initiative which would effectively incorporate torture into the British justice system.

Any more hard-hitting critique?

'The Liberal Democrat leader left open the possibility of supporting the government when the latest set of anti-terror legislation is presented to parliament after the party conference season.'

'The party has already given its support to a recent Home Office announcement clarifying the grounds on which possible terrorist sympathisers can be excluded or deported from Britain.'

'But Mr Kennedy warned that he was unhappy with the way the prime minister had treated opposition parties on the issue, despite an offer to consult them. He said that he had no contact, formal or informal, with Mr Blair since a meeting of the three main party leaders in July. He complained that the prime minister announced measures at his pre-holiday press conference without warning.'

Attack No. 2: The Prime Minister should talk to Mr Kennedy before launching his repressive policies.

Okay, how are these two criticism described by the Guardian in its headline and opening sentences?

'Kennedy breaks ranks on terror to accuse Blair'

'Charles Kennedy today breaks the cross-party consensus following the London bombings, accusing the prime minister of threatening fundamental liberties and announcing new laws in response to short-term media pressure.'

'In his first newspaper interview since the July attacks, the Liberal Democrat leader told the Guardian that the government's response was being driven by "public spin".'

It's possible Mr Kennedy did break ranks, and accuse the PM of threatening fundamental liberties, but if he did, the Guardian chose not to quote the sections of the interview where he made these moves.

Looks like 'public spin' is not confined to the Labour Party.

KEN CLARKE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES - SUMMARY

In a separate report on the same interview (the above was on page 2, below the fold; this next piece is page 10, above the fold), the Guardian reported, 'Kennedy brushes off new Tory challenge'. A classic case of 'never believe anything until it is officially denied. The Lib Dems were being outflanked by a potential Conservative leader on one of their core values - 'liberty' - and they needed to take swift (though, as it turned out, hardly very drastic action).

What did Ken Clarke say on this topic? The BBC has the full text of his 1 September launch speech (delivered without autoprompter, backdrop, podium or other accoutrements of the modern politician).

The key sentence, sharply distinguishing Clarke from the leadership of all the main parties: 'You do not beat the enemies of freedom by taking freedom away.'

Mr Clarke also castigated the US 'renditions' procedure, and British complicity in it: 'I never thought I would live in a society where the British Government has refused to deny that captured people may be flown out of British airports to some third country where they can be tortured. What kind of country have we become if we permit such outrages? Terrorism is dreadful, we need unusual powers to deal with it but to condone torture to fight terrorism is to debase our cause.' The Tory leadership contender praised the option of putting suspects on trial in this country, which is 'always the best option.'

KEN CLARKE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES - FULL TEXT

In the first part of his speech, the former Chancellor dismissed the current cross-party consensus:

'The problem of our relationship with the Muslim community both internationally and domestically is now one of the major political problems that British Governments are going to have to face for many years to come. There will be more terrorist outrages and more international crises before anyone can hope to resolve it.'

'Having made one catastrophic error in putting our troops into Iraq we must seek to avoid further mistakes at home and abroad. Of course the political parties in Britain must seek to achieve a cross-party consensus on where we go now and the present political leaders are trying to do so. I see little sign yet however that the outline consensus that appears to be emerging is of adequate substance to match the threat.'

Next, Mr Clarke set the framework, arguing that the current focus on 'preachers of hatred' is misplaced:

'The Government's response to every terrorist event is to propose new tougher anti-terrorist laws. I have always supported tough and exceptional laws against terrorism of every kind as I did when I was Home Secretary in the face of Irish terrorism.'

'However we do not lack anti-terrorist laws. I do not believe that the recent London bombs were the result of any deficiencies in our legal system. The Government is also now seeking to blame our problems on the behaviour of extremist preachers in our midst.'

'I support the expulsion of some of these vile propagandists from this country so long as the Courts can be satisfied of their guilt of the crimes they are charged with. I am very conscious of the offence that the extreme propaganda of the worst examples of radical imams can cause to the families of the innocent victims of the outrages that these people support and encourage.'

'But the public and the media should not be persuaded by the spin from Number 10 that "mad mullahs" are the most important creators of the dangers we face.'

'They are one of the symptoms of the problem rather than the cause of it. No amount of preaching in itself ever made any person turn to the barbaric practice of suicide bombing.'

'They foment and support an extreme and fanatic sense of injustice and a crazed drive for revenge that takes root in the minds of a small number of young people for other reasons.'

Mr Clarke then grossly distorts the British record in Northern Ireland as a counter to current trends, and to warn against counter-productive laws:

'At various times during the troubles in Northern Ireland Conservative Ministers were urged to lift the restraints on the security forces. We all get frustrated by the failure to catch the guilty, especially when there has been loss of life, but adopting the methods of the enemy is not the way to beat terrorism. It is also a counsel of despair. Despite criticism in some quarters, we did stick to the rule of law in Northern Ireland. We were right to do so.'

'Suspending our normal respect for human rights in the belief that somehow "political correctness" is hampering the fight against terrorism will only further alienate Muslim opinion. That does not mean avoiding necessary legal measures or putting the rights of the terrorist before the rights of his victims.'

'During my time as Home Secretary we had to take exceptional measures that required us to suspend part of the application of the European Convention on Human Rights. But whatever measures we do take to tackle terrorism, they must take account of the danger of the wrong person being arrested or even being killed. Instant legislation is to be viewed with caution too.'

'I am aware of no evidence that a bomb has gone off because of a gap in the law. Ministers in the present Government seem to reach for the legislative drafting pen as a quick response to the demand that "something must be done".'

'There are already more than 200 different terrorist offences on the UK statute book. New laws after every terrorist atrocity can feed a sense of panic. They can also encourage the terrorists because if our response is an ever-more repressive set of laws, they will know that those laws are most likely to impact on communities from which they derive sympathy.'

'Of course we need some special laws to deal with terrorism because of the uniquely terrible nature of the crimes. The judge-only courts in Northern Ireland are a good example of an extraordinary measure to deal with an exceptional problem.'

'But we must always strive to preserve the freedoms we seek to defend. You do not beat the enemies of freedom by taking freedom away. The question is not whether the police need exceptional powers but what powers they should have and under what control. We may need new powers to deal with Islamic terrorism.'

'... Parliament should be given greater opportunities to debate and scrutinise legislation in this sensitive area than it gets given in more ordinary legislative proceedings. The Government must never again seek to curtail debate and use moral blackmail to rush legislation through as it did before the election [in relation to the "control orders" legislation]. Prime Ministerial attacks on judges and their scruples in applying legislation are unhelpful and undignified.'

'Do not tell me that terrorism is dreadful and we need special measures to tackle it. Several of my Parliamentary colleagues died as a result of Irish terrorism. I was the Home Secretary who had to explain to the House of Commons why we needed to keep the Prevention of Terrorism Act on the statute book. It was my then "shadow", Tony Blair, who argued that no terrorist suspect should be detained for more than 48 hours without judicial review.'

'The sort of unusual measure that is not acceptable in a democratic society is that known in the United States as "extraordinary rendition". This is a process by which people are captured by or passed to US forces anywhere in the world and then taken to countries that have been heavily criticised for using torture.'

'It appears to be designed to get round the prohibition on torture in the USA. One of the White House lawyers who drew up the justification for this policy has compared terrorists to slave traders and pirates, people who were not fighting for any country and had no legal protection. But this is not the 17th century; it is the 21st century.'

'Some might say that what the US does, the US is responsible for. That is true but the British Government cannot evade its responsibilities in this matter. It refuses to say whether British citizens or residents have been the subject of extraordinary rendition. It will not comment on claims that British territory has been used by the US for this purpose. It does not deny having received intelligence from people who have been tortured.'

'I never thought I would live in a society where the British Government has refused to deny that captured people may be flown out of British airports to some third country where they can be tortured. What kind of country have we become if we permit such outrages? Terrorism is dreadful, we need unusual powers to deal with it but to condone torture to fight terrorism is to debase our cause. More to the point, we know that torture does not work.'

'The most powerful critics of extraordinary rendition in the United States are former FBI and CIA agents. They argue that torture does not work because the information generated is unreliable. If agreements can be reached with other countries about the prohibition of torture, then it is better that extremists are deported than detained here. That presumes that they cannot be tried within the UK; that is always the best option.'

'I do agree that the Government's 12 proposed measures all deserve careful consideration but parliament cannot simply be expected to agree to a "wish list". For example, the notion that arrested people should be able to be detained for questioning for up to three months raises profound questions. It is this kind of proposal that can be swept through parliament on a tide of anger after a terrorist outrage and then ever after be regretted. It is a serious and important proposal that deserves proper consideration.'

'The police do face exceptional difficulties when interrogating terrorist suspects. The time taken to carry out forensic tests adds to the problem. These are issues that cannot just be put to one side by reference to human rights; they must be addressed. But we should not have found out about this proposal from a press briefing; that was not the proper way to treat Parliament. I strongly opposed control orders because I do not believe that politicians should ever have the power to deprive people of their liberty.'

'When we return again to the question of detaining people in custody who cannot be charged or tried, as the Government have promised we will, then the decision to detain them should be taken by a judge. I believe that it is perfectly possible to devise a system where the judiciary would decide, on a balance of probability and not merely suspicion, whether a person was likely to be involved in terrorism or not. If the person was found likely to be involved, then they could be detained with the proviso that such detention should be regularly reviewed.'

'Such a system should only apply to non-British nationals...'

 

CONCLUSIONS

In brief, Mr Clarke is sharply to the libertarian side of the political spectrum in relation to the other leadership contenders in the Conservative Party, and in relation to both the Labour Cabinet and the Liberal Democrat leadership (who seem to be running scared from the opinion polls on this topic).

Mr Clarke is not a spokesperson for Liberty or Amnesty International, and deserves to be criticised sharply for many of the positions set out above. But his views are valuable ammunition for making a dent in the paper-thin public support for the current repressive proposals.

Unless an effort is made to break through the public acquiescence in Blair's draconian legislation, the future is grim, not only for the ten men currently detained.

JNV welcomes feedback.