The Abuse of Fear
by Aisha Gawad
The United Kingdom dealt with a string of failed terrorist attacks this month, leaving Britons to ask the terrifying question: "What if?" What if the car bombs planted in one of London's trendy nightclub districts actually detonated? What if the two men who drove into Glasgow Airport in Scotland succeeded in blowing themselves up and taking innocent bystanders with them? These attempts failed and British investigators were quick to arrest many who might be involved, but this doesn't exactly comfort the people of the U.K. Before this most recent string of incidents, the fear inside of them, and inside of Americans too, of an impending terrorist attack had probably subsided to a dull anxiety-troublesome but not consuming. Now, Brits, left with the dreaded "what if" question, realize just how susceptible they are to another attack. What is perhaps not as immediately obvious is how their increased fear at this time makes them vulnerable to those looking to push political agendas in the name of 'security.'
Americans might smile and nod their heads at this all too familiar idea. Paralyzed with fear after the September 11 attacks, we found ourselves confronted with all sorts of new policies and legislation aimed at protecting our country. We allowed ourselves to be taken advantage of and lied to, and look where we are now: in the midst of two dangerous wars with a rapidly deteriorating international reputation and humiliating human rights violations.
Britain seems to have mainly escaped such a sticky situation, despite beefing up its own national security efforts after the July 2005 London train bombing. It has succeeded more than its American ally in reacting to a new and unpredictable threat, while for the most part, still respecting civil liberties and human rights. But if a right-wing, anti-immigration think tank were to have its way, the U.K. would start to look more and more like the U.S. Who cares about human rights when you have a country to protect, right?
This is essentially the message of Migrationwatch UK, which issued a report this week arguing that Britain needs to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) because this agreement essentially allows terrorists to thrive among them. Migrationwatch says the ECHR encourages terrorists, because if convicted, they most likely will not be deported back to their home countries. The problem? Article 3 of the Convention, which prohibits deportation to a country where there is a risk of torture upon arrival. Migrationwatch also scoffs at the ruling to ban indefinite detention by the Law Lords in 2004. So if Britain allows former convicts to be deported, knowing full well they'll be tortured or killed, and if it allows suspects to be detained indefinitely in legal limbo, then the country will be safe against terrorism? I'm having trouble making the connection.
However absurd Migrationwatch's idea might seem, it's actually not that far-fetched; it happened in the United States. Take a look at the CIA's extraordinary rendition program and its secret prisons. And remember Guantanamo, where the U.S. holds "enemy combatants" without charging or trying them; the very mammoth prison that former Prime Minister Tony Blair publicly condemned. And is America safer after blatantly shoving aside human rights law and abusing its own citizens' rights with the Patriot Act? Has the terrorist threat subsided, or do we now fumble through an even more elusive web of hatred at home and abroad?
In a press release, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch UK, says: "We now face a terrorist threat of a completely different order from past threats. We are told that there are literally thousands of suspects some of whom are prepared to mount suicidal attacks against entirely civilian targets. The ECHR renders foreign terrorists safe from deportation and, in effect, provides them with a meal ticket for life. It was drawn up 50 years ago in entirely different circumstances. We must now pull out of it and write our own laws to protect human rights for the majority."
Green is playing upon the fresh fears of his countrymen to push his own anti-immigrant agenda. Migrationwatch is using the threat of terrorism to frighten people into seeing the immigrant and the terrorist as one in the same. But he is right about one thing: we are living through a struggle unlike any we've ever seen before, and this struggle requires new methods and changing tactics. What does not change, however, is the idea of universal human rights for all people, whether an immigrant or an enemy combatant. Change the way we govern, the way we communicate, our military and intelligence tactics, but do not change the value we place on every human life.
Sources:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6766363,00.html
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressreleases/pressreleases.asp#156
