“Fanatical death-cult of Islamist extremist violence” – PM
Joint Parliamentary Committee are currently deliberating on whether to add strengthening powers to current laws. Ministers claim the powers are “necessary and proportionate”
PM David Cameron visited the unity rally in Paris wherein he was amongst the estimated 2 million that turned out, and on his return he announced his interest to bring about the counter-terrism bill. Parliament’s humans rights watchdog believe the bill will must be changed to cater for the protection of rights for the UK citizenry, whilst many claim it will have a polarising juxtaposed effect.
Cameron sought briefing by officials by Britain’s intelligence chiefs over our readiness of similar attacks that occurred across the channel. Cameron tells the BBC however that the danger can be minimised but not removed.
“These are difficult situations to prepare for.” he said.
“We are fortunate that we have very capable counter-terrorism police, we have very capable security and intelligence services, we have brilliant special forces. We need to make sure we have everything in place to cope with whatever situation might arise. But we live in a free and open democracy. You cannot be certain of always preventing attacks like these from taking place. I think what changes [after Paris] is running through all the potential scenarios, all the things that happened again and asking again – because of course we have asked these questions many times in the past – have we got everything we need to respond to these sorts of attacks.”
The bill would seek to block returning UK citizens entering the UK temporarily if they’re suspected in indulging in terrorist activity. The UK is one of many EU and American states that have seen hundreds of their population flock to countries such as Syria and Iraq, an accusation some have attributed to the Paris shooting perpetrating, alluding to the belief they may have trained in Syria.
The human rights committee believe that instead of protecting civil liberties, they’d actually violate human rights of British Nationals. MPs and Peers argue also that the change would restrict academic freedom of speech, targeting the comments towards Theresa May; the owner of the counter-terrorism and security bill.
Many believe the argument was amplified after the Paris shooting in early January, citing a knee-jerk reaction. BBC’s Norman Smith however claimed there would be no new legislation announced in the wake of the attacks.
“Appalling and terrible though Paris was, I don’t think that has fundamentally changed that political consensus.” Referring to the balance of parliamentary opinion that security services already have the additional powers necessary, many of which are additional.
Mark Steel, English author and comedian, claims the attacks were similar to many events in Europe that happened historically and that Britain shouldn’t become reactionary.
“As if no one in any Wester country has ever gone berserk with a gun in a public place before.” Then referring to Ander Breivik; an extremist Christian terrorist who killed 70 people in Norway.
“It’s true that every Muslim leader in Britain has denounced them several times, but that’s hardly sufficient. They might denounce them at five past three, and then again at twenty past three, but what are they doing in between? For all we know they’re blowing themselves up at bus garages.” He writes, sarcastically.
“But there is one other possibility that’s been overlooked. Maybe the murderers are confused by the British government’s attitude towards crazy Islamic gunmen, which has appeared inconsistent.
Not long ago President Assad of Syria, whose record for madness and violence is exemplary, was invited by the Prime Minister to stay at Buckingham Palace. And the rulers of Saudi Arabia, who recently got through 19 executions in one month, are sold billions of pounds worth of weapons. So maybe the gunmen’s strategy was to prove how mental they were, thinking they’d then be invited for biscuits with The Queen, and then be asked to do a deal for a tank.”