13 March 2003 Edition
Taking liberties with our liberties
Wake up and watch the erosion of civil liberties - here in Ireland, in Europe, in the western world at large. Wake up and observe the Dublin government, signatory to the Good Friday Agreement, which enshrined human rights and equality at its very core, in the lead of this assault on the rights of citizens.
A raft of legislative changes is being raced through Leinster House that represents a serious encroachment on our civil rights and liberty. More frightening still is the fact that these measures are simply bringing Ireland into line with other EU states, implementing legislation about which we have had no say whatsoever.
The list is long. Right now before the Dáil are the Freedom of Information Act; the Retention of Data Bill; the Criminal Justice Terrorist Offences Bill, all being rushed through without prior consultation or discussion, still less for TDs to consult with civil rights NGOs or the Human Rights Commission.
There is the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2002, which robbed Travellers of their very right to live in a trailer; the dawn raids and detentions last summer to catch up with people who might have overstepped their work visas; the assault on the rights of asylum seekers and their children born in this state; and the frightening increase in quasi-police bodies.
This is against the background of the laggardly implementation of commitments entered into under the Good Friday Agreement in relation to the Human Rights Commission, the ending of the Special Powers Act, police accountability. Then there are the endless tribunals of Inquiry to investigate corrupt dealings within and by the state, and the extraordinary decision by the Dublin government to despatch soldiers to 'deal with the threat' of demonstrators at Shannon Airport, all part of a combined assault on civil rights.
All this, and much more, is antithetical to the purpose of the state - the protection of human rights and civil freedom.
Civil liberties watchdog Statewatch points out that "post 11 September there has been at the EU level, and at national levels, an avalanche of new measures, new practices, new databases, new ad hoc unaccountable groups, most of which have little to do with countering terrorism but rather concern, crime in general; the targeting of refugees, asylum seekers, the resident migrant population and protests and protestors, and the creation of a 'US-EU axis' for cooperation on border controls, immigration, extradition and other legal mechanisms of 'cooperation.'"
Before Christmas 2001, the EU Council and Parliament rushed through the Framework Decisions on combating terrorism and on a European arrest warrant. The Council, in the explanatory memorandum, claimed the measures were intended to counter "radicals committing violence". It is the basis upon which the Criminal Justice Terrorist Offences Bill of just before Christmas last year was rushed into the Dáil.
This Bill, as with the initial Framework Decision, allows for the arrest and extradition, simply on one state's request, of anyone to another state: it allows for the trial of nationals in other EU states that have very different legal standards and systems; it allows for the impunity of anyone acting for the state.
Worse, the Bill introduces a highly contentious definition of 'terrorism' by providing a range of offences that include "unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from any act".
The offence includes "causing extensive damage of a government building or public facility... an infrastructure facility, including an information system... a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss."
There are millions and millions of people who, quite rightly, want governments and/or international organisation (e.g. NATO, WTO, etc.) to "perform or abstain" from many acts. Sinn Féin TDs Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, Arthur Morgan and Aengus Ó Snodaigh, all of whom spoke in the Dáil against the Bill, pointed out that this would have applied to Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and our national heroes, including, as Aengus pointed out, the Minister of Justice, Michael McDowell's very own grandfather, Eoin MacNeill.
The framework decision was complemented, at the EU level, by written procedure (a procedure to circulate and agree if no Member state objects), on 27 December 2001, to extend the definition of terrorism to include "active or passive" support for terrorist organisations.
Equally rushed was the European arrest warrant that went through all EU stages in weeks. It does away with all the checks and balances of existing extradition procedures. For a list of 32 offences, there will now be no legal test in the requested state. The requesting state simply has to say that a person is wanted for one of the listed offences and this person can be arrested - their home searched and property seized - and deported to stand trial. There is no habeas corpus, no appeal, no rights for the suspect.
The Framework Decision on combating terrorism is binding and has to be incorporated into national law across the EU (and applicant countries). The measure includes the Recommendation, proposed by the Spanish Presidency, adopted without debate by Justice and Home Affairs Ministers on 13 June 2002, for the "introduction of a standard form for exchanging information on terrorists".
The information in the Recommendation concerns "individuals with a criminal record in connection with terrorism as defined in the Framework Decision on combating terrorism". The meaning of "criminal record" can vary from state to state and could simply cover for example, people arrested for sitting down non-violently in the road.
The intent of this recommendation is clearly to deal with globalisation protestors. It speaks of "activities carried out by terrorist organisations to achieve their criminal aims at large international events and of "organised groups run by terrorist organisation for the purpose of achieving their own destabilisation and propaganda aims".
The clear intent is to deal not just with suspected terrorists, tracked by internal security agencies and special anti-terrorist squads, but to counter protests and protestors. It is the declared intent to deal with "incidents caused by violent radical groups with terrorist links, and where appropriate, prosecuting violent urban youth radicalism, increasingly used by terrorist organisation to achieve their criminal aims, at summits and other events arranged by various Community and international organisations".
The recent controversy concerning the Bill to amend the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Retention Bill, which the Dublin government are attempting to force through the Dáil without provision for adequate debate, are only further cases in point.
The Data Retention Bill dates, at EU level, from 1993, and a meeting in Quantico between the FBI and a number of EU leaders, where the long standing demand of the EU's law enforcement agencies (police, customs, immigration and internal security) for the retention of telecommunications data and their access to it was agreed.
The 1997 Directive, which blocked access to historical data covering phones, mobiles, emails, faxes and internet usage, limited their retention to, in the case of Ireland, six months. Ireland, with this Bill now before the Dáil, leads the pack on looking for retention of this data for three years - longer than any of the other member states.
Last week on a Dublin radio discussion programme, there was serious debate on whether torture is justified. Did you ever think you'd see the day? However, it is well in line with the times in the EU.
The Council of Europe has started on the process of revising the 1950 Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). One of its provisions is Article 3, which states: "No one shall be subject to torture or to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment." According to Statewatch, a number of EU governments (including the British) are considering backing a proposal to remove the words "or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
This move would, of course, be well in line with the practices in for example Spain, where there is indisputable evidence of ongoing torture - not to mention the detention of 600 people, from 40 different countries, 19 of whom have committed suicide, at Guantanamo Bay.
A raft of legislative changes is being raced through Leinster House that represents a serious encroachment on our civil rights and liberty. More frightening still is the fact that these measures are simply bringing Ireland into line with other EU states, implementing legislation about which we have had no say whatsoever.
Catalogue of Erosion of Rights
The list is long. Right now before the Dáil are the Freedom of Information Act; the Retention of Data Bill; the Criminal Justice Terrorist Offences Bill, all being rushed through without prior consultation or discussion, still less for TDs to consult with civil rights NGOs or the Human Rights Commission.
There is the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2002, which robbed Travellers of their very right to live in a trailer; the dawn raids and detentions last summer to catch up with people who might have overstepped their work visas; the assault on the rights of asylum seekers and their children born in this state; and the frightening increase in quasi-police bodies.
This is against the background of the laggardly implementation of commitments entered into under the Good Friday Agreement in relation to the Human Rights Commission, the ending of the Special Powers Act, police accountability. Then there are the endless tribunals of Inquiry to investigate corrupt dealings within and by the state, and the extraordinary decision by the Dublin government to despatch soldiers to 'deal with the threat' of demonstrators at Shannon Airport, all part of a combined assault on civil rights.
All this, and much more, is antithetical to the purpose of the state - the protection of human rights and civil freedom.
New measures
Civil liberties watchdog Statewatch points out that "post 11 September there has been at the EU level, and at national levels, an avalanche of new measures, new practices, new databases, new ad hoc unaccountable groups, most of which have little to do with countering terrorism but rather concern, crime in general; the targeting of refugees, asylum seekers, the resident migrant population and protests and protestors, and the creation of a 'US-EU axis' for cooperation on border controls, immigration, extradition and other legal mechanisms of 'cooperation.'"
Before Christmas 2001, the EU Council and Parliament rushed through the Framework Decisions on combating terrorism and on a European arrest warrant. The Council, in the explanatory memorandum, claimed the measures were intended to counter "radicals committing violence". It is the basis upon which the Criminal Justice Terrorist Offences Bill of just before Christmas last year was rushed into the Dáil.
This Bill, as with the initial Framework Decision, allows for the arrest and extradition, simply on one state's request, of anyone to another state: it allows for the trial of nationals in other EU states that have very different legal standards and systems; it allows for the impunity of anyone acting for the state.
Definition of 'terrorism'
Worse, the Bill introduces a highly contentious definition of 'terrorism' by providing a range of offences that include "unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from any act".
The offence includes "causing extensive damage of a government building or public facility... an infrastructure facility, including an information system... a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss."
There are millions and millions of people who, quite rightly, want governments and/or international organisation (e.g. NATO, WTO, etc.) to "perform or abstain" from many acts. Sinn Féin TDs Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, Arthur Morgan and Aengus Ó Snodaigh, all of whom spoke in the Dáil against the Bill, pointed out that this would have applied to Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and our national heroes, including, as Aengus pointed out, the Minister of Justice, Michael McDowell's very own grandfather, Eoin MacNeill.
The framework decision was complemented, at the EU level, by written procedure (a procedure to circulate and agree if no Member state objects), on 27 December 2001, to extend the definition of terrorism to include "active or passive" support for terrorist organisations.
Ending extradition protections
Equally rushed was the European arrest warrant that went through all EU stages in weeks. It does away with all the checks and balances of existing extradition procedures. For a list of 32 offences, there will now be no legal test in the requested state. The requesting state simply has to say that a person is wanted for one of the listed offences and this person can be arrested - their home searched and property seized - and deported to stand trial. There is no habeas corpus, no appeal, no rights for the suspect.
The Framework Decision on combating terrorism is binding and has to be incorporated into national law across the EU (and applicant countries). The measure includes the Recommendation, proposed by the Spanish Presidency, adopted without debate by Justice and Home Affairs Ministers on 13 June 2002, for the "introduction of a standard form for exchanging information on terrorists".
Moving in on protestors
The information in the Recommendation concerns "individuals with a criminal record in connection with terrorism as defined in the Framework Decision on combating terrorism". The meaning of "criminal record" can vary from state to state and could simply cover for example, people arrested for sitting down non-violently in the road.
The intent of this recommendation is clearly to deal with globalisation protestors. It speaks of "activities carried out by terrorist organisations to achieve their criminal aims at large international events and of "organised groups run by terrorist organisation for the purpose of achieving their own destabilisation and propaganda aims".
The clear intent is to deal not just with suspected terrorists, tracked by internal security agencies and special anti-terrorist squads, but to counter protests and protestors. It is the declared intent to deal with "incidents caused by violent radical groups with terrorist links, and where appropriate, prosecuting violent urban youth radicalism, increasingly used by terrorist organisation to achieve their criminal aims, at summits and other events arranged by various Community and international organisations".
Freedom of information for whom?
The recent controversy concerning the Bill to amend the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Retention Bill, which the Dublin government are attempting to force through the Dáil without provision for adequate debate, are only further cases in point.
The Data Retention Bill dates, at EU level, from 1993, and a meeting in Quantico between the FBI and a number of EU leaders, where the long standing demand of the EU's law enforcement agencies (police, customs, immigration and internal security) for the retention of telecommunications data and their access to it was agreed.
The 1997 Directive, which blocked access to historical data covering phones, mobiles, emails, faxes and internet usage, limited their retention to, in the case of Ireland, six months. Ireland, with this Bill now before the Dáil, leads the pack on looking for retention of this data for three years - longer than any of the other member states.
Protecting the torturers
Last week on a Dublin radio discussion programme, there was serious debate on whether torture is justified. Did you ever think you'd see the day? However, it is well in line with the times in the EU.
The Council of Europe has started on the process of revising the 1950 Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). One of its provisions is Article 3, which states: "No one shall be subject to torture or to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment." According to Statewatch, a number of EU governments (including the British) are considering backing a proposal to remove the words "or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
This move would, of course, be well in line with the practices in for example Spain, where there is indisputable evidence of ongoing torture - not to mention the detention of 600 people, from 40 different countries, 19 of whom have committed suicide, at Guantanamo Bay.