When rights are wrong in a very uncivil war

LONDON - The Government has been forced on to the offensive after intense criticism of its record on civil liberties and a raft of new laws critics say restrict and persecute individual freedom.

Prime Minister Tony Blair dismissed former law lord Lord Steyn as "out of touch" after he accused the Government of authoritarian tendencies and creating "oppressive" immigration laws.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke was to say in a speech overnight that complaints from critics are exaggerated, and stress that Britain remains a democratic state with a free press which nevertheless needed to defend the rights of people against terrorist attack as well as their civil liberties.

Labour wants to make its record of legislation on issues such as antisocial behaviour and terrorism a central plank of its campaign for the local elections next month.

Blair has pledged a renewed crackdown on crime, including powers to seize the cash of suspected drug dealers and new restrictions on those suspected of being involved in organised crime, vowing to "harry, hassle and hound them until they give up or leave the country".

Critics have insisted that a raft of controversial Government legislation passed in Britain since 2001 was undermining civil liberties.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the pressure group Liberty, said: "This must be one of the most authoritarian Governments in living memory. The danger of its addiction to the easy fix that draconian legislation offers is leaving a terrible constitutional poverty in its wake.

"Whatever the good intentions of the Government, it is leaving broad laws which could cut away at our rights for years to come."

Clarke will face a High Court challenge today when an Algerian terror suspect will attempt to overturn moves to return him to his homeland. Amnesty International published a report highlighting a series of torture techniques used by Algeria's military intelligence service.

Amnesty's Sarah Green said: "Our areas of concern include the implementation of control orders as well as attempts to deport terror suspects to states where torture is practised, America using rendition sites around Britain and the Government's refusal to investigate this, the UK troop abuse in Iraq not being investigated and the treatment of asylum-seekers and refugees who are sent to detention centres before removal.

"It's a pretty poor record. There is a dangerous imbalance between the draconian actions the UK is taking in the name of security and its obligation to practise human rights."

Blair has faced repeated criticism from legal figures in the House of Lords who have spearheaded revolts over proposed anti-terror legislation. He said the attacks showed "how far out of touch much of the political and legal Establishment is today with the reality of people's lives".

Blair also took on the journalist Henry Porter, another critic of the Government's civil liberties record, in a series of emails published in the Observer. Blair accused him of "a mishmash of misunderstanding and gross exaggeration".

However, Roger Smith, director of the pressure group Justice, said: "Within Government, there is an unwillingness to accept that corners are being cut which erode civil liberties." 
 

Ruthless rules or essential security?

* Antisocial behaviour orders
The purpose: Introduced in 1999 to give local councils and police powers against low-level crime. About 7000 have been issued, 2000 to children.
Critics say: The Government's chief youth crime adviser Professor Rod Morgan has warned that children issued Asbos are often demonised.

* Detention without charge
The purpose: Powers to hold terrorist suspects for 28 days without charge under a new Terrorism Act came into force this month.
Critics say: Liberty groups claim it is the most draconian law of its type in Europe.

* Glorification of terrorism
The purpose: To make it a crime to say or do anything that glorifies terrorism. Governement can ban groups which publish material seeking to support terrorism.
Critics say: Civil liberty groups say the powers will stifle free speech.

* Identity cards
The purpose: Parliament approved a database and ID card system to begin in 2008-09. The voluntary scheme may become compulsory shortly afterwards.
Critics say: Both main opposition parties say ID cards will do little to cut crime and change the fundamental relationship between citizen and state.

* Stop and search law
The purpose: Allows police to stop and search people in areas seen as being at high risk from terrorism, even if they are not suspected of a crime.
Critics say: Campaigners say the law could be used to harass demonstrators.

* Control orders
The purpose: Introduced to limit the movement and communications of suspects after long-term detention of foreigners without trial was ruled illegal.
Critics say: The law is a form of house arrest of innocent people.

- INDEPENDENT