Carrying out the position of the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation is not an easy job for anybody and I do not envy Lord Carlile in having to discharge the duties associated with it.
For a start it has meant that he has attracted abuse from within his own party over the years from some members who have questioned whether he should remain within it and others who have argued that he should no longer be allowed to take the Liberal Democrat whip in the House of Lords. And yet throughout this period Alex has remained an instinctive Liberal and a deep-thinking, authorative and substantial asset to the party.
Today’s Western Mail carries a report of a speech he gave to a dinner held at the University of Wales Institute, Cardiff on Thursday night. In it he claims that the term “war on terror” is deeply unhelpful and based on an entirely false historical analysis. He continues:
“Terrorism is a political event, a political action but it is an illegitimate use of the political process.
“It’s a political heresy and, in the case of violent jihad, a religious heresy.
“What we have to do is address the heresies and not fight the people as though we were fighting a war.”
On the subject of wars, Lord Carlile said he would refuse to fight if he conscientiously objected and fight vigorously if he approved.
He said: “I don’t have any physical fears of war – its participation or its consequences – but I do have a concern with concept.
“There are certain terms I never use and never allow other people to use in my presence unless they are justified.
“One is Nazi, another is fascism and the other is war. I think we have to be careful of such terms.”
He continued by giving an insight into the judgements he has to make as the reviewer of terrorism laws:
“I’ve spent my time over the last seven years trying to ensure that in dealing with terrorists we achieve a critical balance between the Holy Grail of the common law and an organised society, in which people know the boundaries beyond which they cannot go.
“The trick is to have a rational debate about those boundaries and try to find the balancing point between the role of the state and the role of the individual.
“I find that easy because I am a liberal with a small ‘l’ and that has guided me throughout my life.”
I have not always agreed with Alex on a number of these matters but I have always respected his principles, his judgement, his basic decency and his political instincts. It has always been my preference that a genuine liberal such as Alex Carlile carries out this role, even if he or she has to make compromises, than somebody who has no understanding of human rights and who is instinctively authoritarian in outlook.
Those Liberals who are discomfited by some of the decisions that Lord Carlile has made need to question whether they are uneasy with the man himself or the implications of a Liberal occupying the role of reviewer of terrorism legislation.
We need to recognise that in government, with the responsibility that entails and a whole raft of conflicting intelligence advice in front of them, a Liberal Democrat Minister may have to make decisions for the sake of national security that they are uncomfortable with and which conflicts with the fine words delivered in opposition.
Yes, we would do things differently, and I have no doubt that Alex Carlile has acted as a moderating influence on government on many occasions, but we need to be clear that running a country is not easy and that taking on that responsibility will require compromises that may not sit well with our liberalism and our party colleagues. It is only when we acknowledge that fact that we become a potential government in waiting.
In the meantime, I will continue to defend Alex Carlile against his critics in the Liberal Democrats. In the twenty eight years I have known him I have come to respect him for his liberalism, his intellect, his political skills, his compassion and his humanity. There is no doubt in my mind that he remains a good Liberal Democrat.
Related posts:
