Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance but there is no
Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa’ida.”No doubt? It all depends what is meant by survival. Suppose al- Qa’ida were to acquire weapons of mass destruction? Apart from the loss of life, even one dirty bomb in London could do enduring damage to the economy. The same security services which provided recommendations that Lord Hoffmann wishes to override have managed to prevent a number of planned al-Qa’ida attacks from reaching these shores. If this judgment stood, it would be impossible to detain al-Qa’ida operatives unless there were sufficient evidence to convict them, and the work of the security services would be hampered.The is a further objection to Lord Hoffmann’s comments. When he starts opining about the threat from al-Qa’ida, he is no longer speaking as a lawyer.
He is talking like an historian, a political analyst or even a politician. His views as to the threat from al-Qa’ida may command respect, but they are not entitled to the force of law. Yet that is what happens when doctrines of human rights are given precedence over the legal system and the parliamentary process.One can understand why many people will instinctively sympathise with Lord Hoffmann. This is an illiberal government, which has shown itself insensitive to legal niceties and uninterested in human rights, except as a political slogan. In a host of areas, the Government has shown itself to be far keener on encroachments on the liberties of the subject than in protecting them.
Yet that is not a sufficient reason for disregarding its assessment of the Belmarsh detainees. In dealing with them, it is trying to defend the right of the British people to live in freedom and security. Sometimes, even this set of ministers can be right about human rights.
More from Bruce Anderson. When David Blunkett resigned last week as Home Secretary before Sir Alan Budd’s report was published, I thought that was the end of the business.
Sir Alan’s findings on the question whether a visa application had been fast-tracked would appear in due course and merely confirm what Mr Blunkett had said when he left office. It would be an extraordinary state of affairs if the departure of a Home Secretary didn’t set to rest all the outstanding issues. Not least because Mr Blunkett has cast doubt on Sir Alan’s judgement even before the report appears. “Somebody said to me [Blunkett], who is in the know on this, that Alan Budd appears to have been as mesmerised by Kimberly Quinn [the mistress] as you.” That quotation appeared in The Independent on Sunday yesterday. Why has this strong man not observed a dignified silence? Is it just the reflex of Labour Party professionals to rubbish their critics? Or is it also because Mr Blunkett’s explanation is coming apart at the seams?The limited versions of what Sir Alan has discovered show that the document the Home Secretary took into his office was not, as he stated publicly and Home Office officials repeated, the visa application of his mistress’s nanny but, at a later date, an official letter warning her of a year’s delay Mr Blunkett says he has witnesses backing his account. Yet Sir Alan has either not found them or not believed them.Pause for a moment. There have been so many startling developments in this story of the poor boy brought down by the pampered rich – as Mr Blunkett now sees it – that we may be in danger of underestimating the significance of what Sir Alan may uncover.
