THE case of Mohammed Atif Siddique raises a very uncomfortableissue. The 21-year-old was, according to his lawyer, Aamer Anwar,guilty only of doing what millions of young people do every day -"looking for answers on the internet".
Mr Anwar said: "It is not a crime to be a young Muslim angry atglobal injustice." Indeed it is not, and we have to take great carethat it does not become one. It is equally important that youngMuslims, and everyone else for that matter, are convinced of anational determination that this should remain the case.
The spectre Mr Anwar raises is that of Orwellian nightmare. Heimplies his client was prosecuted for a thought crime. It goes to theheart of the balance that must be struck between collective safetyand personal liberty.
This is a very difficult area in which to form laws that aremeaningful, and protect both the public and the individual's rights.
Siddique was subject to the highest level of police surveillance.There is a huge dilemma here: if the police wait until a suspectedterrorist acts, then people may die. If they wait until explosivesare made and targets identified, what happens if they lose thesuspect they are tailing? How far down the road of a terrorist actmust a suspect get before he can rightfully be stopped? And there isthe safety of the police officers to be considered. The more concretethe threat gets, the more they are in harm's way.
The other side of the coin, however, is that people are free tothink what they will, and in a democratic society that must beprotected.
So any law in this area has to be carefully considered. Thereality is that conspiracy to commit criminal acts already exists asa crime. The internet, however, brings a new dimension as it makesinformation available to all. Can looking at terrorist websites be acrime in its own right?
In this case, Siddique had set up websites that had links on howto be a home-grown terrorist, including bomb-making advice. In anyreasonable analysis, that goes beyond thought and into action. He hadalso talked about his desire to be a suicide bomber. It would befoolish not to examine that in the light of the other evidencesurrounding his behaviour.
However, to maintain confidence in the system a very careful eyemust be kept on how these complex laws are used. As importantly, thejudge's sentence in this case will be scrutinised. Fifteen years isthe maximum sentence Siddique could face. Yet the clear differencebetween words and deeds with real impact on society should be takeninto account.
Any failure to perform that balancing act is taking a very greatrisk indeed.
Renewables industry at risk
THERE are times when a proposal is so wrong-headed that it takesthe breath away.
Such is that currently sitting on the desk of the power regulatorOfgem. Put forward by a consortium of energy companies, it says thatcharges for connection to the National Grid should rise the furtheraway from the centres of population the power sources are.
While there are existing higher costs for connection depending onlocation, the new charge would add cost for electricity lost intransmission, thus penalising distance further.
On the face of it, there might be some sense in this, keepingpower source and community closer together creates an efficientservice. However the proposal collapses entirely when renewableenergy is concerned.
Put simply, the nature of wind and wave energy means companieshave to site their schemes where they can best generate power. Thisis usually quite a distance from centres of population.
More starkly, the nascent Scottish renewables industry in thenorth could be killed stone-dead. The implications for our fightagainst climate change are clear, as is the potential for new jobsand economic wellbeing.
The First Minister meets Ofgem later this week. We trust commonsense will prevail.
Plainly, Jane's a TV gem
DIXON of Dock Green must be spinning in his grave. The idea that asenior copper - in fact, any copper - could be an alcoholic, driveunder the influence, have blackouts and (great heavens to Murgatroyd)affairs and an abortion, was unthinkable in those simpler, black-and-white TV days. But Prime Suspect's DS Jane Tennison does all that andstill functions as a brilliant, believable detective. And she's awoman, succeeding in a male-dominated world that is openly hostile toher very existence, let alone advancement.
When the writer Lynda La Plante conceived the character (playedbrilliantly by that national treasure, Helen Mirren) more than 15years ago, she based her on one of only a handful of senior femaleofficers at the Met. TV had never seen her like before and isunlikely to again, and Mirren's performance has endeared her toBritish audiences from the outset.
So it's little wonder that Americans have taken her to theirhearts. In their world of cardboard TV characters, Tennison, with allher failings, is a living, breathing woman. Every line etched onMirren's world-weary face emphasises that fact. And if she worepolice-issue boots, there would be no-one in America fit to lacethem.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий