Financial Post
for September 16, 1998

Terrorism has been the main, indeed only subject of discussion in Britain for the past two weeks as indeed it has in much of the world. The killing of the three little boys in Northern Ireland, the bombing of two American embassies, the slaughter in Omagh and the cruise missile bombings in the Sudan and Afghanistan which, despite all protestations to the contrary, were acts of terrorism. One might argue that they were simply revenge to teach a lesson but they’re no less terrorism for that. Not even the President’s people are suggesting that the deaths resulting from their attacks were all terrorists but mumble about the "casualties of war"..

The Irish situation is – and I hate to use the word in such horrifying circumstances – interesting. Had the ghastly bombing in Omagh been in isolation the reaction in the United Kingdom might have been vastly different. But it wasn’t an isolated act – it was an act of Nationalist atrocity which followed, both in time and natural sequence, the cowardly killing of three young lads in July by Unionists.

This has provoked draconian legislation whereby, essentially, a person can be jailed indefinitely, for being the member of what the authorities say is a terrorist organisation, on the word of a senior police chief which may be corroborated by the fact a suspect refuses to satisfactorily answer questions. This law has all party support and, indeed, is supported by the public at large.

This is bad legislation as is most legislation passed in the heat of the moment. It is offensive from a civil liberties point of view of course. What sort of a democracy throws people in jail just on the word of a police officer? And if we are to throw out the right of a citizen to remain silent, where will that lead? But in these passionate times all that is for naught. As with the 1970 War Measures Act of Pierre Trudeau, the politicians must be seen to be doing something and all politicians know how to do is pass laws accompanied by quotable rhetoric. Forgotten are the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four and other Irishmen wrongfully convicted when all the legal safeguards were in place – this calls for breast beating legislation.

The other interesting aspect of all this is the reaction of the British press and public to the American bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. As a long time visitor and observer of the British scene I can tell you that not long ago these actions would have resulted in flag burning demonstrations in front of the American Embassy in London not by Muslims – they wouldn’t have been able to get near the place for Brits. And I would have thought that the British media would have howled at the coincidence of these bombings with the Lewinsky affair. In fact, most of the media comment has been supportive of Tony Blair who, obviously well briefed, lept to Clinton’s defence before the smoke had cleared from the targets.

The only voice of opposition came not from either of the opposition leaders, William Hague and Paddy Ashdown, but from within the governing Labour Party in the articulate but oh so stale voice of Tony Benn, whose principled eloquence actually helped the government because this is what everyone would have expected him to say.

Now we have a pretty kettle of fish indeed. Britain has a huge Muslim population which has already shown considerable fractiousness. Britain also has a huge Irish population much if which has traditionally supported the union of both Irelands under Dublin rule.

Back, thus, to the legislation above. What now will be a terrorist organization?

Terrorists are many things but they’re not fools. The IRA in Northern Ireland operated under the tolerated fiction that somehow Sinn Fein wasn’t terrorist because they were only the "political" wing. Gerry Adams was permitted to prance about preaching and indeed writing about how he wanted peace while he plotted atrocities with his IRA colleague Martin McGuinness. Are these men, who have promised, cross their hearts and hope to die, not to encourage terrorism to be exempt from designation as members of a terrorist organization? And, perhaps more touchy is the question about Muslim groups, many of which only barely disguise their anti Americanism which includes delight at hostage taking and embassies on fire. Will we see prosecutions of prominent Muslims in Britain because they cheer on the likes of Saddam Hussein? And what will be the effects? Surely it will be to create martyrs and drive underground kooks who otherwise do little actual harm.

Unquestionably we’re dealing here with very bad people. And we must find ways to deal with them. No one quarrels with that. But the problem with legislation passed in moments of unanimous passion is that it isn’t tested in the crucible of debate.

Mr Blair is being roundly cheered for his support of the American raids and his legislation against terrorism.

All it takes, however, for cheers to become jeers is the passage of a little time.