Great Britain fell into the trap that Canada did in the overheated atmosphere following 9/11: legislation designed to help in the fight against terrorism was pushed through without serious concern for its implications and consequences. One provision of the British Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allowed the government to detain foreigners suspected of terrorism indefinitely without charge or trial and without revealing the evidence against them. It sounds a lot like Canada's Security Certificates, doesn't it?
And Britain's law lords are having none of it.
Law lords back terror detainees
Detaining foreigners without trial under emergency anti-terror powers breaks European human rights legislation, law lords ruled today.A specially-convened committee of nine law lords upheld an appeal by nine foreigners who have been detained without charge or trial, most of them in Belmarsh prison, south-east London, for around three years.
The decision by the law lords, Britain's highest court, throws the government's security policies into chaos and was a blow for Charles Clarke on his first day as home secretary following the resignation of David Blunkett last night.
...
The law lords, making the ruling in the chamber of the House of Lords, described the legislation as "draconian" and "anathema" to the rule of law. One of the law lords, Lord Hoffmann of Chedworth suggested that the act itself was a bigger threat to the nation than terrorism.
...
Today the law lords ruled eight-to-one in favour of the detainees after hearing arguments that detaining people indefinitely on suspicion alone contravened democratic rights and international obligations.Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the senior lord of appeal and former lord chief justice, said that the powers under which the men were held were incompatible with European human rights laws because they "discriminate on the ground of nationality or immigration status".
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead ruled that: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law. It deprives the detained person of the protection a criminal trial is intended to afford."
The detainees remain in prison while the British government decides how to respond but this ruling will certainly make it difficult to continue holding them without trial. My favorite part is the suggestion that the act itself is "a bigger threat to the nation than terrorism."
The law lords got this one right. Contrast that with the Canadian ruling last week in favour of the government's right to hold people on Security Certificates and it makes our own judges look like they've been studying at the John Ashcroft School of Jurisprudence.
(Yes, I realize Security Certificates predate 9/11. I'm thinking of Bill C36. And what happened to that legislative review of C36 that was to happen this fall? Did anyone notice?)
Rule Britannia ! 8- 1 ! Should give our Supreme Court some pause when they confront the issue.
There's a story on the CBC site this a.m. that ends by saying: "The three federal judges who are hearing Almrei's appeal have agreed that the British ruling is significant. They're allowing both sides to make written submissions on the effect of the British ruling."
No greater detail than that, but I notice also in this a.m.'s Globe and Mail that Mr Cotler was non-defensive if ambiguous in his reactions yesterday.
And yes: where is that review?
Yup. Much better to release the terrorists back into society and allow them to blow up the government than to continue to deny them their "rights".
Do you have any idea what it is we're up against? What these people are committed to doing to us?
It's not that they're being held without evidence. It's just that you and I don't have the right to see that evidence. That these cases are being heard is evidence enough that the powers cannot be abused without checks and balances.
Would you say that the conviction of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka was illegal because we didn't have the right to view that evidence either?
If they wanted to be treated with the rights of citizens, then they have the responsibilities of citizens. Simply deporting them gives them a free ticket to carry out their terrible plans.