Vicar's Letter April/May 2005 - Terror Legislation
In 1799, the Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger, introduced income tax for one year only to fund the Napoleonic Wars. It was, in his own estimation, a measure repugnant to the customs and manners of a nation, since it involved peering into the private financial affairs of British subjects, which, although a similar system had been tried briefly in the sixteenth century, was a new advance in our emerging democracy. In 1803, this tax, already in its fourth year was deducted at source (ie before the income even reached the person who had earned it). In 1816, income tax legislation was repealed and all the related records destroyed, only for it to be reintroduced in 1842. It would be almost ludicrous to suggest that it will disappear again – indeed there is some political impetus towards introducing it to raise revenues at a local level.
On Friday, 11th March 2005, the British government, after a titanic parliamentary battle, enacted legislation that is, to many minds, repugnant, not just to the customs and manners of the nation, but to the whole concept of free and civil society – the terrorism bill arising from the House of Lords judgement that provision then current fell foul of human rights law. The juxtaposition of this development with the introduction of income tax is laid before you to make the point that once the Rubicon has been crossed, there is often no going back. Andrew Marr, the BBC’s political correspondent, suggested that the country had changed with the passing of the statute on Friday and probably he was right. Of course, Britain felt much the same on Saturday morning as it had twenty-four hours earlier, but the seeds of change usually need time to germinate and grow
Once people get used to an idea, gently they can begin to acquiesce in its presence and consequences. Whilst income tax was culturally controversial, at the end of the day it is just another means of raising national revenue, which is a necessary feature of any society. Executive detention without trial or even revealing the nature of the charges and evidence on which such a move is made is of quite a different order, being, potentially, the stuff of tyranny.
The justification for this programme is the increasing threat of terrorist attack in our land. Both in public and private, I have heard people with access to the requisite information for whose integrity I have the highest regard, make this assertion and I have no doubt that it is true. However, there remains the question of whether a heightened risk needs to lead to fundamental changes in what we consider to be just and civil society.
In a very real sense a mood has been created that changes our critical approach, if not impairing it. President Bush’s declaration of a “War on Terror” seemed at the time like a rhetorical flourish, but, in fact, its significance has rippled through our world ever since. The invasion of Iraq may have been a very visible consequence of it; but a more subtle effect has been a tacit acceptance that we live now in a state of emergency – a designation that justifies all sorts of measures that would be unacceptable in times of peace.
None-the-less, we must wonder not just whether the latest terrorism law is a proportionate response, but whether it could ever so be. Nobody supposes that the present administration intends anything other than the protection of the people of this land; but there are two areas, which might give us pause for thought.
First, once the principle of short circuiting the judicial process is established, human ingenuity will easily devise ways of pushing this to its furthest potential. Once popular attention has moved onto something else, scrutiny will become less intense and incremental changes in the law, slowly removing the restrictions and safeguards (such as they are) can gracefully, if discreetly, slide into force.
Secondly, we might question whether there are any elements of civil rights and freedoms which would not be sacrificed on the Altar of counter terrorism. We need to wonder what it is, at the end of the day, we are protecting, if we are prepared to sacrifice what we consider to be basic tenets of a civilized society in this way.
It is reported that these new laws enjoy popular support in the country, amongst people fearful for their safety, who see the threat simply in terms of Muslim extremism. However, terrorism comes in all nationalities, arising from any number of ideas; and who knows what the authorities of tomorrow might find threatening?
Furthermore, how shall we know when this war has come to an end? Most of the information is secret, but it is hard to imagine that there will never be a threat – or at least there will be for a long time a queue of the disgruntled waiting to make their point. We could find ourselves indefinitely living in this shadowy war – with every subsequent atrocity placing further pressure on the remaining civil liberties and tenets of justice.
At the end of the day, I cannot judge whether the Government’s measures were a necessary step; and, as ministers are fond of saying, none of us would want to be the one that blocked them the morning after some terrorist strike. However, I return to Andrew Marr’s point that Britain has changed and that is a sad reflexion on the world in which we live.
Home page: http://stmatthewsnewcastle.org.uk/