Does death of Bin Laden mark end of age of terrorism?

2 May 2011 by

I argued last summer that rights campaigners were approaching the end of the age of terrorism, with economic concerns taking centre stage. The death of Bin Laden, just under a decade since the September 11 terrorist attacks, may ultimately be a historical marker of that shift in focus. 

It is coincidental that Bin Laden’s death was announced on the British May Day bank holiday, traditionally a period of economic protests and celebration of the labour movement. But that coincidence does serve to highlight two different aspects of universal rights protections: to put it crudely, the protection of people we do and people we don’t like.

It is also a coincidence, but an important one, that the history of the Human Rights Act and the reaction to the September 11 attacks have been so intertwined. The HRA was passed into law in October 2000, but many of the major and most visible decisions made under it have been made as a result of the last government’s response to the terrorist threat.

We have posted 59 times on this topic in a year. Notable examples relate to control orders, secret evidence, terrorist deportations, stop and search and evidence obtained under torture. There is also more to come, with the “rendition” public inquiry still to get under way.

The Coalition government pledged early on to “restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power“. But despite its strong words, many of the government’s civil liberties policies have been easy wins or policy choices made in the context of critical domestic European court of human rights rulings: for example in relation to control orders, stop and search and the use of biometric data by the police.

As I said in August, the major battlefront  for rights campaigners now is in relation to the enormous budget cuts which have been made to almost all aspects of the public sector. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, the economy, stupid.

One of the problems arising from the coincidence of timing between the war against terror and the human rights act is that many perceive the act as a terrorists’ charter imposed by unelected European judges. For example, recent (and rather silly) article in The Sun begins “The hated European human rights act…”. In some sections of the public, that sentiment seems now to be automatically assumed, hardly even worth a byline.

Since I wrote the post in August, the imagination of the usually disparate legal community has been captured by the significant cuts to the justice budget, and in particular legal aid, with many combining under the Sound off for Justice campaign. There have also been a number of successful judicial reviews challenging the cuts, although these rarely put human rights at front and centre, but rather more traditional public law arguments against bad decisions. Some have resumed calls for economic and social rights.

A rebalancing of human rights law, at least in the public eye, to focus on economic and social concerns may make the act more popular, as the public realise that it is not just for criminals, pedophiles and terrorists. Universal means for everyone. But this rebalancing is also likely to occur via the Bill of Rights commission, which will probably seek (perhaps even successfully) to make it harder for criminals to use the act’s protection.

Sadly the death of Bin Laden will not mean the end of terrorism, but it does provide a moment of pause in which to consider the remarkable legal effects which the war on terror he provoked has generated in just under 10 years. Those effects will continue to be felt long aftert the terrorist leader’s death. But hopefully the human rights act itself may soon pull itself free from accusations that it is merely a terrorists’ charter.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

1 comment;


  1. James Wilson says:

    I suppose it depends on whether there are any high profile terrorist incidents in the aftermath of Bin Laden’s death, especially in this country. If so, then the anti-human rights feeling will if anything gain momentum, especially as it seems Bin Laden was traced using information gained from Guantanomo Bay detainees, who presumably did not give the info during a pleasant cup of tea.

    I think (as I have argued elsewhere) that the killing of Bin Laden was lawful on any view, but that is due to the extreme circumstances of who he was and where he was found. I would hope that in every respect he will be the exception that proves the rule.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: