Robert Sharp

Pupil Barrister

Tag: Terrorism (Page 10 of 15)

Islamists in Morocco?

30 July 2008 / / 0 Comments

Writing in the Times, Amir Taheri warns of rising Islamism in North Africa, especially Morocco:

Women in jeans or mini-skirts have all but disappeared from public, along with all females who favoured the colourful dress of the Berber. One sees countless women draped in black that remind one of Hitchcock’s The Birds. … Fewer and fewer places serve alcohol, and parts of the main cities are becoming no-go areas for foreign tourists.

I was in Morocco less that two weeks ago on holiday, and this doesn’t sound like the place I visited. It was difficult, though not impossible, to get alcohol in the old Medinas, but outside the city walls it was not a problem. And I remember being surprised at seeing young, local girls in Western clothing – not hot-pants, admittedly, but certainly figure-hugging outfits, strappy tops, make-up and jeans. Likewise with the Berber outfits, of which we saw plenty. Indeed, it was the black-clad munaqqaba who stood out, because they were an unusual sight. Its true that hijabs reign, but that’s not in itself a sign of Islamic extremism.
Nor did there appear to be any no-go areas for tourists. Indeed, our favourite afternoon was in Meknes, where we cautiously wandered into the back alleys of the Medina, to escape the pungent smell of the souqs. Far from feeling threatened or harassed, we were greeted with smiles and ‘hellos’ around every corner.

A Matter of Principle?

13 June 2008 / / 8 Comments

I initially welcomed the news that David Davis had resigned in protest at Parliament’s assent to allowing pre-charge detention to be extended to 42 days. Its a travesty of a vote – anything to keep the debate alive. Most left-leaning types I spoke with were cynical about his motives, and sank into ad hominems about the man and his other policies (such as support for the death penalty), which in their view rendered anything else he did obviously suspect. However, leaning my head against the train window late last night, watching the illuminated Palace of Westminster recede, reflected in the glass, I wondered if there wasn’t too much cynicism in the world, and that for once we should take a politician at face value.
Today, however, I’m more cynical, after reading in Hansard David Davis arguing for an increase in pre-charge detention times, from 14 to 28 days:

That is why my hon. Friends made it clear in Committee that we agree with the Government that the current 14-day limit is too brief and propose its extension to 28 days. I believe that that proposal will find widespread support among Members around the House, including on the Government Benches.

(via Jennie and Matt). True, Davis goes on to suggest that the 90 day limit was too long. Regardless, his stance in 2005 was surely no less an attack on habeus corpus. It makes no sense for Davis to be lamenting the demise of the Magna Carta now.
Indeed, yesterday he said:

Because the generic security argument relied on will never go away – technology, development complexity, and so on – we’ll next see 56 days, 70 days, then 90 days.

The problem is, many people argued this precise point as a reason to oppose the extention to 28 days! The argument then was “first 28 days, then 42 days, then 56 days” ad nauseum, ad absurdum. It is precisely because of Davis earlier capitulation to 28 days, that 42 days has become feasible. The same Bill would not have passed in 2005.
We are witnessing the boiling of the frog, David, and you were complicit in turning up the heat.

Update

Here’s David Davis on Question Time, being asked whether he supports Habeas Corpus or not. His answer is a terrible fudge:

Facetious Gaza Post

23 January 2008 / / 13 Comments

Gaza Wall
In reporting the recent Gaza border break the BBC reffered to the security “wall”. Now, call me pedantic, but that looks more like a big fence to me, just like the other “security fence” currently under construction around the West Bank.
Oh, but wait! The fence in the West Bank is actually a wall. Now I’m confused. Why can’t we get nomenclature correct on this one?
That’s the problem with dehumanising people these days, you just run into a wall of political correctness. Or is that a fence?

Bhutto

29 December 2007 / / 6 Comments

I did not write about the death of Benazir Bhutto when it happened yesterday, because I did not feel I had anything interesting to say. I still don’t, but it is without a doubt one of the defining moments of this year, and thus deserves a mention. The posts on my front page are beginning to look a little stale, like the left-over turkey in our fridge.
Deaths and disasters are always discordant, inconvenient things, which disrupt the normal order of one’s day. But this is more so at Christmas time, which should be characterized by lighter emotions. You’re surrounded by torn wrapping paper and chocolate papers, and suddenly Huw Edwards is telling you that James Brown or Gerald Ford is dead, or that earthquakes and tsunamis have ripped apart other people’s homes, or that another nameless teenager has been stabbed in our capital. There is nothing to do but continue with Christmas, but now you know that somewhere, people are mourning. The next tangerine is more sour than the last.
Most depressing, in this case, is to watch the optimism die along with the woman. Political momentum takes years, or even generations to build. It colours the air slowly, like a smog, slowly pressurizing a government and a people into action. And then some cretin comes along and blows it all away. The clock is reset, and we start all over again. The last time I felt like this was after the London bombings.
The Bhuttos, Zulfikar and Benazir, took two generations to build a following and a reputation that could hold a military dictator to account, in the way Benazir did with General Musharaff earlier this year. Her death now, at the moment of a new victory, is a waste, the classic ‘tale told by an idiot’. She is suddenly gone, and in place of the political pressure, there is a vacuum, and no-one is optimistic about what will fill it.
Benazir Bhutto

Notes for Michael

5 August 2007 / / 11 Comments

Congratulations, dear brother of mine, on your recent ‘swearing in’ as a Police Constable. You are now officially an agent of the state, and we have given you power over us so you may act as our protector, an enforcer of our laws.
It is natural that you will wish to do the job with which you have been tasked in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Without doubt, it is this noble sentiment that has led some of your colleagues to call for more powers: To detain suspects for longer without charge; and to retain our DNA on a database. It must be frustrating when we prevaricate over such requests.
Remember that there are two kinds of freedom that we strive for. The first of these is freedom from the harrassment of other individuals. By enforcing laws and catching crimminals, you are ideally placed to offer protection against the people who would do me harm and steal my laptop. However, we also require freedom from harassment from the machinery of state, a machinery of which you are now a part. It is therefore much more difficult for you to protect us against this threat, and you may only be able to do so through inaction, rather than the more proactive approach that you will be trained in.
In the week that you take up your duties, you might find it offensive for me to talk about state harassment and abuse of powers. Please remember that when we make laws, set bench-marks and draw moral lines on the pavement, we must do so for all time, and all situations, for all citizens. I know I can trust you, and I hope I can trust the men and women you will be working with next week. But we already know that not all those who join your service are worthy of that trust… and to trust all politicians would be foolhardy!
Read Matthew Parris on ID Cards:

I just don’t want to give government — any government — that much control … I oppose them because evasion, deceit, even crime, and the irregular organisation of one’s own affairs, are part of a citizen’s weaponry of last resort against State oppression. They are weapons I may never need, but I need to know they are there.

Read David Eastman on Anonymity:

Its when computers talk to other computers that liberty disappears. Because a computer can correlate countless bits of data and create new records that would take many humans exponentially longer to do. And that gap, or grace period, is actually where anonymity lies, or did.

… or, for that matter, on civil liberties:

The outgoing Mr Blair bemoans how hard it is for the authorities to fight terrorism and maintain civil liberties. That to me seems a reasonable balance. Terrorism and road accidents are comparable; they are bad and sometimes preventable, but are a result of modern urban life.
…
Civil liberties on the other hand are the glue that allows trust between those who govern and everybody else. Without that trust, modern life is impossible. There is little point in being protected from one set of arbitrary beliefs only to be subject to another.

I’m afraid the obstacles we place in your way, and the high-standards of proof we set, are all necessary. Yes – it is a problem that the two types of freedom, the two types of protection, are often antagonistic. It is a paradox that giving you more powers to protect us in one way, will actually end up harming us in another. It is a paradox that your occasional failures might demonstrate the success of our system. In striking the balance between the two, we are in effect asking you to do a job, and then willfully hampering you in your efforts! Its a devil of a task… which is precisely why we respect you for taking on the challenge.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Robert Sharp

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑