Safety first

The mass-murder in Manchester has revived the old debate about security checks and procedures - whether you can stop someone who is bent on carnage, or whether a determined person will dodge every security check going.

A friend of mine (let's call him Dennis) is totally against security checks of any kind. He thinks they seldom catch a would-be terrorist, and mostly all they do is cause long queues and huge annoyance to thousands of people. And if security checks become routine in one area of life, a terrorist will simply adopt a new method.

A former friend of mine (let's call her Esther) thought the opposite. She believed the more security checks the better, that even if they didn't often catch anyone she was happy to face any number of them if they reassured people and made them feel safer. Especially on planes which many people are scared of anyway.

I guess I lean towards Esther's view. Not having any security checks is just an invitation to a terrorist to do whatever he wants because nobody will stop him (and it's usually him). Security checks will never be foolproof because they're always one step behind a terrorist's ever-changing methods, but they do act as a deterrent and they do sometimes catch someone and prevent a horrible massacre.

Security checks are irritating but they're hardly a huge burden. Airport security is tiresome and finickety but it's all over in five minutes. I don't mind having to show photo ID at airports and polling stations. I don't mind having my shoulder bag examined. I don't mind being frisked.

Surely the tedium of security checks is trivial beside much more pressing concerns like political incompetence, greedy landlords, rubbish jobs and wages, extortionate house prices, and a hundred other things. Unfortunately, in today's terrorism-prone world, they're necessary and they're here to stay.

Paying for grief

There are still so many unhealed wounds from the trauma and grief of the Troubles that any new proposals for dealing with the victims attract instant controversy.

A report commissioned by the British government suggests a £12,000 payment to each family of the 3,700 people killed, regardless of personal circumstances and regardless of whether the person who died was a terrorist or an innocent victim.

Already there's a heated debate over the proposals, with Unionist politicians angrily demanding that the families of terrorists shouldn't get any payment.

The authors of the report, Lord Robin Eames and Denis Bradley*, point out that whether the dead were terrorists or not, those left behind were equally traumatised and bereft. That's absolutely true, and the Unionists are deliberately missing the point for their own ends.

My own objection is a different one, and that is how any sum of money could possibly compensate for personal grief and loss. In fact it's almost an insult to say a wad of cash is an appropriate response.

Surely the more sensible approach is to offer each family the particular help they need, be it counselling, financial assistance, childcare or whatever. And this sort of help should be available in any case from the public services, so there shouldn't be any need for extra initiatives.

I also have to ask whether it makes sense to give £40 million of public funds to people who may not need it or want it, when the many thousands of people knocked for six by the economic slump need help much more urgently to keep a roof over their heads and feed their families.

Of course we need to recognise the dreadful suffering caused by the Troubles, but this proposal is an odd way of doing it.

* Lord Eames is a former Church of Ireland primate. Denis Bradley is a former vice-chairman of the Northern Ireland policing board.

Photo: the aftermath of the Omagh bombing in 1998

Camera terror

Thinking of taking some photos? Just be careful. To official eyes, you might be a terrorist. You might be plotting a serious attack on national security.

Photographers in different parts of Britain - both professional and private - have been harassed by police officers, railway staff and other officials and told they're contravening section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

They're being told it's an offence to photograph public servants, public buildings or even members of the public, as it goes against anti-terrorism provisions.

This is actually complete bollocks, as MPs, the National Union of Journalists and others have pointed out. Such restrictions simply don't exist and the bogey of national security is being used to hound innocent people.

One person was stopped as he photographed a derelict government print works, another as he photographed a traveller wedding in London's Docklands. Trainspotters are regularly swooped on as they photograph old locomotives. What the hell is going on in this so-called cradle of democracy?

Somehow I thought terrorists were people carrying bombs or guns and threatening some sort of mass slaughter or mayhem. Apparently not. What we should really be looking for is furtive individuals with small metallic objects known as cameras, exchanging remarks like "What a beauty. They don't make locomotives like that any more, eh Stan?"

Those who keep warning that new anti-terrorism laws are unnecessary and will only be misused to restrict civil liberties and intimidate innocent people, while the real terrorists still don't get caught, are clearly right.

Those who take a delight in imposing their authority on people they don't like the look of have a wonderful new weapon at their disposal, quoting laws most of us aren't familiar with to send us scurrying away in confusion, worrying that we might end up in court.

So why aren't more MPs making more of a fuss about it and demanding a stop to this nonsense? Are they all completely spineless?

Innocent victims

What always strikes me about terrorist assaults like the ones in Mumbai is the way those concerned are willing to attack completely innocent people to achieve their ends.

Whatever their cause (and so far it's not even clear what that is), it's utterly merciless and inhuman to hit at people who are not even involved in politics, let alone the fraught ideological battles that are being played out.

What purpose can it possibly serve to slaughter random tourists, hotel staff, hospital workers and train passengers who may know nothing at all about the terrorists' bone of contention and are merely going about their everyday lives?

What is the point for example of burning to death Niti Kang, wife of the Taj Mahal Hotel's general manager, and her two children Uday and Samar? All that has done is to leave her family devastated with grief and their lives wrecked.

No cause, however noble or important, can justify using ordinary individuals as pawns and negotiating chips. It's the last resort of ruthless fanatics unable to find more legitimate and non-violent ways of pursuing their objectives.

Here in Northern Ireland, people are all too aware of the pointlessness and barbarity of attacking the innocent for political ends. Practically everyone has faced the grief and suffering of their loved ones or someone they know being mown down in cold blood. And after 30 years of such sterile violence, progress is finally being made through peaceful negotiation.

I really can't begin to understand how some people can stop seeing others as precious human beings with rich and fulfilling lives, and reduce them to trivial objects to be casually obliterated in the name of some fashionable political goal. Their minds are twisted beyond belief.
.................................................................................

It's reported on Monday (World Aids Day) that male circumcision reduces the risk of getting HIV by about 60 per cent. Universal circumcision across sub-Saharan Africa could prevent 300,000 deaths in the next 10 years and 3 million deaths in the next 20 years. In some areas demand for circumcision is already overwhelming clinics. What an amazing discovery.

Political maverick

As you know, I'm pretty cynical about politicians, so I'm amazed and impressed that a leading English politician is taking a stand of high principle on the erosion of civil liberties.

After the Labour government won (just!) agreement to a possible detention period of 42 days for suspected terrorists, Conservative MP David Davis said he would resign and fight a by-election* on the issue.

Because he believes so strongly that the 42 days provision is draconian, and because he thinks the government is steadily undermining civil liberties in one area after another, he is going to ask the voters to re-endorse him and his stand for basic freedoms.

Naturally the Labour Party have poured scorn on him. So have the Conservatives. But the general public are right behind him, by a big majority.

He has been scathing not only about the detention increase, but the huge number of CCTV cameras, the new ID card project, restrictions on public protests, attempts to reduce jury trials and mislaid confidential personal data.

He will no doubt raise all these issues at length during his by-election campaign.

When so many politicians toe the line and do what they're told to do, usually lying outrageously in the process, it's refreshing when one of them sticks his neck out to emphasise his deeply-held convictions.

I don't often support a Tory, but his tactic is inspired.

PS: An example of the misuse of terrorist laws. Three pensioners joining a demonstration at Heathrow Airport on May 31 were questioned and escorted from the airport by police for wearing T-shirts that read "Stop Airport Expansion". Police took their names, addresses and descriptions and followed them out, warning they would be arrested if they returned within 24 hours.

* When a seat becomes vacant through death or resignation, there is a by-election to elect a new MP.

Jenny has a very different opinion on David Davis. She believes his typically Tory views on other subjects make him unworthy of support.

Unsung heroines (1)

Not many people in Britain know who Gareth Peirce is, but she is one of the most effective human rights lawyers in the country.

Most notably, she got the alleged IRA bombers, the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, freed after being in jail for 14 and 16 years respectively.

Her intervention led to Judith Ward, another supposed IRA bomber, getting her conviction quashed. And she won freedom for Frank Johnson after he served 26 years for murder.

She has defended terrorist suspects in the UK and Guantanamo Bay and represented the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, the alleged terrorist shot dead by police in London. In the 1980s she opposed the detention of striking miners.

Now in her sixties, she is a notoriously private person who consistently refuses interviews and publicity and works tirelessly to right miscarriages of justice. She treats those she represents as personal friends and not with the usual professional detachment.

It is said that it was her work as a journalist in the USA during the Civil Rights Movement that created her passion for human rights.

She is absolutely tenacious about her cases and refuses to give up however daunting the legal difficulties. If necessary she works 12 hour days to get at the truth.

Her extreme dedication is astonishing in a profession where lawyers are not always conscientious about their work and may turn up to court knowing little or nothing about their client's case. She finds such behaviour quite unforgivable. If only there were more like her, fewer innocent people would be languishing in jail.

Footnote: In the film about the Guildford Four, 'In the Name of the Father', Gareth Peirce was played by Emma Thompson.