Proceeding contribution from Lord Joffe (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 25 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill 2005-06.
Terrorism Bill
But, my Lords, it is chilling to note how closely our terrorism laws follow the pattern of the South African ones. In 2000, there was detention for seven days; in 2002—only two years later—seven days was extended to 14 days detention. In 2005—only three years later—detention for 90 days was proposed but was reduced in another place to 28 days. But for the reduction from 90 to 28 days, the trend line, if maintained, would have resulted in indefinite detention by about 2012. The initial 90-days legislation in South Africa met with considerable opposition in the South African Parliament. However, as the government, the police and the white population as a whole became attuned to the concept of detention without trial, subsequent legislation went through with almost no opposition. Helen Suzman—who ironically was appointed an honorary Dame of the British Empire because of her opposition to the laws eroding human rights—was the single MP who opposed the legislation. Fortunately, unlike in South Africa, there is still great opposition in our Parliament to 90 days and to 60 days The lesson that should be learnt from the South African experience is that legislation that erodes human rights should be addressed with the greatest care and deliberation. Where there is doubt—as there clearly is about the length of detention—such doubt should be resolved. We should err in favour of the law as it exists, remembering that the procedural safeguards in our law have been built up over centuries precisely because there can be no confidence in the operation of justice if those safeguards are not observed. It is correct to say that there may be risks in not going from 14 to 60 days or 90 days just as it could be argued that there may be risks in not immediately going to indefinite detention. But risks must be taken in defence of human rights and the rule of law, as is being demonstrated by the risks to which we are putting our Armed Forces in Iraq, in order to introduce democracy and the rule of law into that divided country. If there has to be a further erosion of human rights to protect the public, I would support an arbitrary 28 days rather than an arbitrary 60 or 90 days.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 677 c1225-6
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Civil liberties Codes of practice Detainees Companies Assets Human rights Genocide National security Police Powers Nuclear weapons Police custody Terrorism Training
- Legislation
- Terrorism Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 09:31:20 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_294647
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_294647
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_294647