UK terror plans breach Europe’s HR convention

Pakistan Daily Times
Oct. 13, 2005

British plans to deport terror suspects will clash with civil liberties enjoyed by Europeans under the European Convention on Human Rights that prohibit torture, the Council of Europe said Tuesday.

Britain has called for the 25 EU member states to look at curbing some civil liberties - including changing the rules on deporting people suspected of inciting hatred or encouraging terrorism - to protect itself from terrorism.

The British government has drawn up its own criteria following the attacks on July 7 and 21. It said it would expel suspects to African and Middle Eastern countries which give assurances they uphold human rights and do not subject suspects to torture.

Britain’s guidelines would clash with the individual civil liberties enjoyed by Europeans under the European Convention on Human Rights, a legally binding document that was drawn up in 1948 by the Council of Europe, the continent’s top human rights body.

“The prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment ... is absolute and nonnegotiable,” said Council of Europe chairman Terry Davis. “It is wrong to suggest that this ... has changed as a result of the recent terrorist threats. There cannot be any question of ‘striking the right balance’ when absolute rights are at stake.”

British Prime Minister Tony Blair defended a raft of proposed powers to help police fight terrorism Tuesday, including a controversial plan to lock up suspects for three months without charge. In a morning of grilling for the government, Home Secretary Charles Clarke was also forced to justify the need to enhance Britain’s already tough anti-terrorist legislation.

Blair, however, said the police had presented him with a “compelling” case to justifying the hardline approach.

“I’m not saying that whatever the police say, we have got to do it,” the prime minister told a monthly news conference - his first since Parliament returned from a summer break on Monday.

“If the police, charged with fighting terrorism in this country, say to me and to the Members of Parliament ‘This is why we need it,’ and that case is a good and compelling case - as I find it is - then my duty is to do it, unless someone can come forward with a very good argument why their case is unsound.” agencies