Today, terrorism has become almost part of our lives. People are simultaneously worried about security and individual freedom. Politicians are worried about both too. We can see the contrast between the Labour Party Manifesto and the aftermath:
“Citizens should have statutory rights to enforce their human rights in the UK courts. We will by statute incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law to bring these rights home and allow our people access to them in their national courts. The incorporation of the European Convention will establish a floor, not a ceiling, for human rights. [emphasis added] : 1997 Labour Party’s General Election Manifesto.
Erosion of Human Rights started with the fight against terrorism. There is also an added fear that erosion of human rights could be counter productive. People detained under harsh conditions, on the basis of secret accusations, which they could not refute, harassed or tortured could create a backlash in the society. But can the country risk its security in the name of freedom? If so, how far can it go without endangering itself? How much protection can security agencies offer without additional powers and how safe are these draconian powers? Which is more important, liberty or security of the nation?
Since September 11th, 2001, Government passed many laws, even though there were toughest laws in place already. Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999, Regulation Investigatory power Act, 2000, Terrorism Act 2000, Anti Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, 2001, Criminal Justice and Police Act, 2001, Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, Criminal Justice Act, 2003, Asylum and Immigration Act, 2004, and Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2005 are the various laws made for the security of citizens and properties of United Kingdom and there is no doubt that they infringe on the personal liberty of citizens.
“We are particularly