Better rough justice than another 9/11

Better rough justice than another 9/11

24 Nov 2005

In the face of terrorism, should we abandon some of our hard-won freedoms? The rules of the game are changing, but should they? Are these new measures necessary to improve our defence or do they in fact represent the real threat to society? The panel, chaired by Richard Lindley, share their views on civil liberties in the wake of 9/11.

Arguing in favour of the motion are The Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP and Alasdair Palmer.

Charles Clarke opens the debate by stating that he is not in favour of having ‘rough justice’, but he sees the necessity of having a justice system able to defend our society from the threats posed by terrorism. Terrorism, in fact, wants to undermine our freedoms, to attack democracy and break up society. Are we prepared to limit our liberties and privacy in order to gain intelligence to combat terrorism more successfully? If it is human lives that are at risk, then maybe we should.

Alasdair Palmer continues by stating that the choice is not between rough, smooth or perfect justice, but only between varying degrees of rough justice. Because it is some people’s nature to be bad, it is necessary to have a justice system sufficiently capable of establishing order and peace, and the Police should be supported with any tool that could help to prevent any possible loss of human life.

Arguing against the motion are Sir Jeremy Greenstock and Edward Fitzgerald QC.

Jeremy Greenstock starts by posing two questions: first, ‘Does the nature of modern terrorism present an exceptional threat to the fabric of our society?’, and second, ‘Do the measures that the Government wish to take against that threat risk the fabric of our society?’. It would be wrong to let fear obscure the values on which our society is based and rough justice can easily turn into injustice and lose popular consensus.

Edward Fitzgerald QC concludes the debate by giving the Guantanamo example: presumption of innocence is the base principle of British and international law and this principle must be protected. Rough justice is not the answer because it doesn’t work and undermines democracy, the rule of law and basic human rights – the very values we are trying to protect in the face of terrorist attacks.

First vote: 214 For, 283 Against, 212 Don't know.

Final vote: 287 For, 357 Against, 73 Don't know.

The motion is defeated by 70 votes.

BUY THE DVD