Terror panic could turn Britain into police state, says Kennedy
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Charles Kennedy condemned "panicky measures" to protect Britain from terrorism yesterday and said David Blunkett had stripped people of "hard-earned freedoms".
After several terrorist suspects were arrested yesterday, the Liberal Democrat leader warned against the establishment of a police state and said "emergency" measures introduced by the Home Secretary to protect Britain from terrorists were "draconian".
Mr Kennedy, at an event in London hosted by The Independent , acknowledged that the threat from al-Qa'ida meant changes needed to be made to protect society, but he said proposals to restrict the right to trial and lower the burden of proof jettison the fundamentals of the rule of law and would not solve the long-term problem.
Mr Kennedy condemned the emergency provisions that have allowed foreign nationals suspected of terrorism to be detained indefinitely without trial in Belmarsh prison. "Once fundamental liberties are withdrawn to deal with one emergency, it is easy enough to find other emergencies to apply them to," he said. "Salami-slicing of civil liberties is unacceptable."
Explaining his philosophy of "tough liberalism", he said: "There are times when it is appropriate to strike a compromise between safety and liberty".
But he said the correct balance must be struck with the utmost care. "There is a big difference between empowering the police to tackle crime on the one hand and stripping society of its hard-earned freedoms on the other hand," he said.
Mr Kennedy said, "we don't need a police state" and rejected the Home Office case for ID cards. He called for "the billions of pounds" it would cost to run an identity card scheme to be spent on expanding the police, M15 and the intelligence services.
"We don't need identity cards to protect us from terrorists. They would be ineffective, ill-judged, and unnecessary," he said. "ID cards do not prevent the massacre of innocent civilians in Spain."
He said the detention of terrorist suspects by the Americans in Guantanamo Bay operated outside any recognised legal framework. He added: "The Liberal Democrats have never argued for special treatment of these men, but for fair treatment according to the law. They are entitled to no less."
Mr Kennedy also criticised government attempts to restrict the right of appeal for asylum-seekers. He said Britain should be a safe haven for the persecuted without being "a soft touch".
"If there is abuse of the asylum process, you remove the abuse," he said. "What you don't do is circumvent long-established and fundamental judicial practices like the right to appeal."
He said failed asylum-seekers should be thrown out of the country "as soon as possible" while assessment of asylum cases should be "swift and accurate".
Mr Kennedy said he wanted the public to drop preconceived notions that the Liberal Democrats were soft on criminals and crime. He said such perceptions were based on misunderstandings and his party was prepared to be "tough, very tough" on crime "without descending into populist illiberalism". He said that those who commit violent crime should be in prison but he questioned whether so many petty criminals and women should be locked up and cautioned against trying to satisfy "the instinct for revenge".
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments