|
|
| Liberty v. Security:Where the line should be drawn in fighting terrorism |
 PRINTABLE VERSION |
• What is justice and how serious are we with the concept of justice, both at the national and supra-national levels? Do we still have faith in the judiciary?
• Are there relativist views of justice or is justice universal? Which views are we propagating?
The question of balancing security and human rights cannot be resolved by politicians. This point must be taken seriously if we are to find a proper balance between the two competing interests in a democratic setting. The impotency of politicians to deal with the problem effectively is not unconnected to their love for power. Politicians’ exercise of power often comes in direct conflict with human rights. The tendency is to shove human rights aside in the exercise of power for a contentious ‘public interest’ cause.
The judiciary is the only organ that is well placed to examine what indeed is the public interest and when an overriding public interest could displace an individual’s claims to rights. That was exactly what the UK House of Lords did in December, 2004, when it came down heavily on the ATCSA in the Belmarsh detention cases. Fair trial cannot be compromised, neither can it be derogated from without fatally affecting the settled non- derogable rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
It is misleading to erect an anti-terrorism regime, as politicians often do, on the foundation that “the rules of the game have changed”. Human rights rules are not man made rules. They predate every constitution and every government. They are rights that accrue to individuals, by the very fact that they are human beings. The terrorist, the murderer and other offenders are also partakers in these inherent rights. The state’s right to punish offenders is not in doubt, but due process must be strictly followed. The simple rational for this framework is to ensure that an innocent person does not suffer for an offence he never committed.
Herein lays the difficulty with most governments’ anti-terrorism measures; there is little wonder why the UK government’s proposal for long detention of suspected terrorists collapsed recently at the Commons. We run the risk of punishing an innocent person in our passion to fight terrorism with ill defined laws that compromise due process.
In matters of civil liberty therefore, the rule of the game remains unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, the line between liberty and security has long been drawn: Human rights norms can only be derogated from if the principle of due process within the law is not followed. No exigency in matters of security could excuse an oversight or breach of the due process rule. Long incarceration without trial flies in the face of this rule. The only institution that can be trusted to maintain this line, between security and liberty, is the independent judiciary with appellate safeguards to cater for human errors.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Wilfred Mamah
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
