LONDON: In the post-September 11 world the United Kingdom is faced with a task to strike a difficult balance between national security, public protection and individual rights. The government has taken a number steps for what it calls protect the Great Britain from terrorist attacks and guard its democracy. One of these steps is the introduction of anti-terror law which has sparked a heated debate. Many non-British Muslim inhabitants of the United Kingdom fear the passage of the Anti-Terror Bill would deprive some of them of their civil rights.

Under this new legislation, suspects can be held for six months in high-security jails until their case is reviewed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, headed by a Supreme Court judge. The case could then be reviewed every six months, which means suspects can be kept in jails for a very long period of time.

The introduction of detention without trial, previously used during the Gulf War, against Northern Ireland terror suspects and German citizens during the Second World War. The bill had a long and difficult journey to finally become a law. The main pressure was from the civil liberty groups who strongly opposed it. The government had to bow down to the pressure and had to ditch some key elements of the bill. The Home Secretary David Blunkett agreed to drop proposals making incitement to religious hatred a criminal offence, which Downing Street now suggests will not be reintroduced separately.

The anti-racist provision had been introduced by Blunkett following pressure from Muslim groups who had seen a rise in the number of attacks on Muslims in Britain following the Sept 11 attacks in the United States. The government also offered another concession, limiting new powers in the bill for the police and security services to look through confidential records. Civil rights group Liberty welcomed the concessions, especially the removal of the religious hatred clause, but said the act still contained “alarmingly repressive measures”.

The government using the new terror law for the first time arrested several foreign nationals on Dec 19 in London, and across the country. The government says the powers will be used against relatively small numbers and one possible suspect could include Abu Qatada, regarded as Osama bin Laden’s “European ambassador”, who was arrested in February but released without charge.

The 40-year-old Abu Qatada is a Palestinian national from west London was sentenced to life imprisonment in Jordan for masterminding bomb and grenade attacks in 1994. Spanish investigators are seeking to question him over his alleged role in the planning of the Sept 11 attacks. Even those who favour the law accept the fact that there are concerns about civil liberties but they say people have to lose some rights if the national security is to be kept intact and democracy protected.

The government says the most basic human right is the right to life, and protecting the lives of its citizens is the first job of the state. But many members of the one million-plus Muslim community of Britain feel under the new law many “innocent people” could be detained “as in the case of America where hundreds of Muslims mostly Pakistanis were arrested under the new sweeping powers to combat terrorism.”

But the Home Secretary David Blunkett said he was not taking advantage of the present crisis to curtail civil liberties. “I care passionately about the civil society of this country and the need to renew our democracy and communities in the face of apathy about politics,” he declared.

The prime minister’s official spokesman acknowledged that the UK now had some of the toughest anti-terrorism legislations in the world. And Tony Blair fully supporting the new law emphasised that stronger laws were needed to “fight terrorism properly”. Liberty’s campaigns director, Mark Littlewood, says: “This remains a direct attack on an ancient principle of British justice — and one we will seek to challenge in the courts.”

Amnesty International described some of the provisions as draconian, warning they would have far reaching implications for the protection of human rights. A spokesman said: “The UK is the only EU government that has derogated from its international human rights treaty obligations and it must not be allowed to undermine the European human rights framework.”

The opposition Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties argued the religious hatred provision was ill-thought out and rushed. Whatever is the point of those who oppose the new anti-terror law the government in London strongly believes, “it has taken the right step in the right direction keeping in view of the high terror risk the UK is facing being a close ally of the USA in its campaign against global terrorism.”