Anti terrorism 'stop and quiz'

[ludwig]

The government's considering giving stop and quiz powers to the police in order to help the fight against terrorism.
I find this quite worrying and think it would probably end up being counter productive. What do you think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6695685.stm

[Neilzulu1]

I do agree that the police need to be more pro active regarding terrorists, but this is just another way of them delving into our lives. Surely the thousands of cctv cameras and id card scheme will be enough.

[NikkiB]

You're either a terrorist or a hater of terrorism. As a person who falls proudly into the latter category, if any Plod wants to stop and question me, I have nothing to hide at all. And I'm a bit puzzled at the claim that it may, in the words of William Hague "alienate the very people whose help we need." Surely if an individual does not approve of terrorism, how on earth could SAQ alienate them from being good and law-abiding? If I get stopped and questioned in the future, as an innocen person I am NOT going to think: "Damn them, I'm jolly well going to a training camp in the Hindu Kush."
If anyone has a problem with anti terrorist measures, surely they are terrorist-sympathisers already and their feelings are not worth a dime?

[IggyB]

In a democracy, personal liberties are rarely diminished overnight. Rather they are lost gradually, with good intentions, amid public approval. But the subtle loss of freedom is never recognised until the crisis is over and we look back in horror. And then it is too late.

This was said by the american Judge Andrew Napolitano regarding terrorism law reform - i find myself in complete agreement with him. Simply because i have nothing to hide does not mean that i should allow my government to monitor my movements, bug my phones, watch my everymore etc ... come on haven't you read 1984 NickiB?

[maxximus]

good post, nikkib.

[maxximus]

sorry, meant iggyb.

[Oneeyedvic]

Surely if an individual does not approve of terrorism, how on earth could SAQ alienate them from being good and law-abiding? I

If you are stopped on a frequent basis purely down to your skin colour and there are plenty of your peers telling you that despite you being an honest, law abiding person, there are many people in this country who will never trust you, how do you think you will feel?

If you keep on telling someone that they are not trustworthy as they are 'of Muslim appearance', can you not see how easy it would be for an imam or similar to turn them against the country?

The only place police have these powers is in Northern Ireland. And they don't have any problems over there do they?

Don't forget - The police can currently stop and search someone if they have 'reasonable suspicion'. Surely that is sufficient? Why would the police want to search someone if they weren't suspicious of them?

[Doc Spock]

I have litlle respect for the police anymore.
They are bullies and this will make them bigger bullies.
No doubt they will achieve targets by asking people"ello ello ello, wot's goin on ere then " rather than detecting crime.

[Kromovaracun]

The measures are entirely unnecessary. I don't actually have a problem with action being taken against terrorism, but this is the equivalent trying to kill a fly with a bazooka.

Measures such as these didn't work in Northern Ireland and are entirely counter-productive. What irritates me is that it seems to be the government trying to look like it's 'doing something'.

What really got my goat was an article written by Blair himself in the Sunday Times today that claimed the measures were 'better than nothing'. So, the sterling police work which has been responsible on multiple occasions of preventing terrorist attacks (and have been a good deal more effective than the anit-terror legislation) can be dismissed as 'nothing', eh?

Here is Blair's article, for those interested.

[BooldawgsMrs]

The west is at war with Islam; In times of war civil liberties go out of window.

[craigiep]

Surprise, surprise, The Muslim Council Of Great Britain are objecting to the new police measures, fearing that "young Muslim men might be disproportionately targeted". Excuse me? Which section of society has the majority of terrorism come from in recent years? That's right, from young Muslim men. Get your house in order before you have the nerve to grumble anymore. Either that or go and live somewhere else.

[craigiep]

If the Muslim community put all their energy into rounding up and handing over their bad apples instead of protecting and supporting them, this World would be a safer place and they may begin to gain some modicum of respect from the rest of society.

[ruby27]

The Bristol Riot in 1980 was considered to be due to the very poor relationship between the Police and the Community of St Paul�s and this was attributable to the way the Police were using the 'sus' law and harassing young black men. If new powers were used in a similar way it would be likely to result in young Muslim men feeling persecuted by the Police and being treated unfairly in their own country which could lead them then to be susceptible to the radical messages of some Imams. Therefore increase the chances that these young men may turn to terrorism. This doesn�t seem sensible.
BooldawgsMrs I thought we were supposed to be at war with terrorism since when has Britain been at war with Islam, given we have a population which includes Muslims isn't being at war with our self a little problematic?

[ruby27]

Craigiep. What is your evidence for such an assertion that the Muslim Community is hiding and supporting their �bad apples�?

[Kromovaracun]

The west is at war with Islam; In times of war civil liberties go out of window.

No, it's at war with al-Qaeda (and the Taliban). Far from representative of Islam as a whole (and an important distinction that people keep forgetting).

The Muslim Council Of Great Britain are objecting to the new police measures, fearing that "young Muslim men might be disproportionately targeted".

Note the 'disproportionately'. The terrorists responsible for recent attacks are in a tiny minority of Islam as a whole. To claim that breaching civil liberties is justified because of the Islamic nature of active terrorist cells is ludicrous. It's counter-productive and is a good way of scaring off the people who could help.

If the Muslim community put all their energy into rounding up and handing over their bad apples instead of protecting and supporting them

Tosh. The vast majority of Muslims globally abhor the actions of Islamic terrorist cells. Perhaps they'd feel more comfortable about coming forward if they were actively encouraged to do so rather than implementing totally disproportionate measures such as these. Plus, if fanatics were that easy to spot, there'd be no terrorist problem.

[jno]

sounds like the dear old 'sus' laws which did so much for community relations, maybe because the police only used to stop and question black people. This time, I suppose it will only be people who look Islamic.

[craigiep]

Well, of course they should be the ones stopped and questioned. Just as if it were black people, white people, whatever type of people from whose number suspects come. What is the point in focusing on other ethnic groups over matters which are known to involve a particular one? Stop coming over all PC to make yourself sound fair-minded; it's just basic common sense.

[jno]

oh yes, I was forgetting that white people never commit crimes, sorry.

[craigiep]

jno, you are going completely overboard here. Read the question and you'll see we're talking current crimes of a terrorist nature. ruby27, give me even 1 example where the Muslim community have pointed out or handed over any Muslim terrorists.

[Oneeyedvic]

craigiep - Firstly, why do you think terrorists will go around their community telling people what they are / what they plan to do? Why would their community know if they are a terrorist or not? How may murderer's families have handed them in - most of them don't know what's going on. Do you report a teenage boy who is becoming moody and aggressive - because if so, you'd have a queue a hundred miles long.

Secondly, this report is about being able to stop and search without suspicion - As I stated, police can stop & search if they are suspicious of someone.

Can you tell me why you think the police should be able to stop & search someone who they don't regard as suspicious.

Bear in mind that some forces already use the scenario that if they stop someone and they refuse to be searched that is classed as 'suspicious' behaviour.