National security and human rights balance

First published Thursday 28 May 2015 in Letters Oxford Mail

I AGREE with Catherine Bearder MEP that the Lib Dems have done much to promote civil liberties by objecting to Control Orders and various snoopers’ charters.
We have a paradoxical dilemma of upholding civil liberties while protecting our national security.
Control orders were introduced to protect the public from known terrorists who were made subject of a curfew.
Control Orders have now been abolished.
The radical cleric Abu Qatada abused the Human Rights Act to avoid being deported to face charges of bombings in his home country.
He used the ECHR to avoid being deported to Jordan in a lengthy legal battle at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
This lengthy court case persuaded Home Secretary Theresa May to promise a reform of the Human Rights Act so it could no longer be abused by alleged terrorists such as Abu Qatada.
The idea is to protect our national security rather than to deprive individuals of their basic human rights.
It is question of semantics.
There is undoubtedly a fine balance to protect the innocent individual’s freedoms while at the same time protecting us all from a terrorist atrocity.
There are now more CCTV cameras in the UK than any other country and this could be construed as an invasion of most law-abiding citizens’ privacy.
Not long ago, I read in the Oxford Mail that a spy plane was being used by Oxford City Council and some civil liberty groups may feel this contravenes personal freedoms.
It is a contentious issue with pros and cons for both sides of the dilemma of protecting our security versus civil liberty.
SUSAN THOMAS Magdalen Road, Oxford