While watching the movie “in the name of the father”, I was like everyone else, I assume, was deeply moved and overwhelmed by the gravity of the miscarriage of justice and police force abuses of which the protagonists were victim. However, what chocked me the most was the fact that this dramatic miscarriage of justice seemed to be the direct result of legislative measures. In fact, the director puts forward the link between the application of ‘the prevention of terrorism act' law, and the arrest, the physical and psychological violence imposed by the police officers, the false confessions, and last but not least the prison sentence of innocents. This is illustrated, for example, by the fact that the arrests occurred only two days after the law mentioned above took effect. Moreover, while watching the movie, I also felt that the powers conferred to the authorities by this law, were of such importance that it was obvious that such misappropriations and abuses would follow. Besides, 30 years latter, this shameful event still seems to be topical, considering the number of recent measures regarding counter-terrorism and the intense debates they call for on their potential danger on civil liberties and human rights.
[...] The Prevention of Terrorism Act: a threat to civil liberties The Prevention of Terrorism Acts were a series of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1974 to 1989, which conferred emergency powers upon police forces where they suspected terrorism. In 2000, the Acts were replaced with the more permanent Terrorism Act 2000, and then with the PTA 2005, which contained many of their powers. History of the Acts The first Act was enacted in in response to the extensive IRA bombing campaign in England of the early 1970s. [...]
[...] Tony Blair said, in an angry exchange in the House of Commons that he was protecting the citizens while trying to preserve civil liberties. Doesn't this speech seem paradoxical in the sense that the protection of our citizenship is it not indivisible from our civil liberties? 2. Bush speech, you are not with us you are against and the measures that come with it have they not lead to other reasoning such as: you are not white you are a potential terrorist” or you are running, you are fleeing the police”? [...]
[...] This part extended the powers of arrest and detention of the police by allowing them to hold a person for questioning for 48 hours, and for a further five days on the issuing of a Detention Order by the Home Secretary. In addition, the police were empowered to search premises on a warrant issued by a police Inspector (or above) and not, as is usual, on the authority of a magistrate. The detainee was exempted from certain provisions of other Acts relating to the arrest procedure and the legal protection of those arrested. [...]
[...] For, in effect, Orders were issued by the Home Secretary against those whom the police lacked sufficient evidence to bring before a court of law. The predominant use of Part III of the Act - to search, arrest and detain - has, in effect, been to expand the intelligence-gathering of the police and the Special Branch rather than to catch those involved in bombings. The miscarriages of justice, shown in the film (Guildford Four, Mcguire Seven and the Birmingham Six) resulted from the powers of the PTA. [...]
[...] This part extended the powers of arrest and detention of the police by allowing them to hold a person for questioning for 48 hours, and for a further five days on the issuing of a Detention Order by the Home Secretary. In addition, the police were empowered to search premises on a warrant issued by a police Inspector (or above) and not, as is usual, on the authority of a magistrate. The detainee was exempted from certain provisions of other Acts relating to the arrest procedure and the legal protection of those arrested. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
