Some thoughtful words on civil liberties...

Twitter seems to have aimed a great deal of abuse today at Tom Harris MP on the basis of a tweet where he decreed that "Any minister who puts civil liberties ahead of security should be in student politics, not government". Fair enough. The man's had his say, now Libertarians all, get on with your lives.
Now, I disagree with Tom, though I respect his opinion, and was having a debate elsewhere recently where similar arguments applied. It's an age old debate and anyone who says that they are "correct" on the matter while others are "wrong" should probably be ignored out of hand.
Recently in my professional life I had the good fortune to read some words on this debate which stuck and which I feel like sharing. They may be familiar to some, but possibly not to those younger libertarians who stalk the halls of Twitter looking to be outraged.
These comments are taken from a famous judgement by Lord Hoffmann in the 2004 House of Lords case brought against the government, where it was argued that s.23 (right to detain foreign nationals without charge indefinately) of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act contraveened the citizen's human rights. While the Law Lords found that it was against the European Convention of Human Rights, it was only Lord Hoffmann who argued against s.23 in its entirity. He wrote:

"The power which the Home Secretary seeks to uphold is a power to detain people indefinitely without charge or trial. Nothing could be more antithetical to the instincts and traditions of the people of the United Kingdom.

...

There have been times of great national emergency in which habeus corpus has been suspended and powers to detain on suspicion conferred on the government. It happened during the Napoleonic Wars and during both World Wars in the twentieth century. These powers were conferred with great misgiving and, in the sober light of retrospect after the emergency has passed, were often found to have been cruelly and unnecessarily exercised. But the necessity of draconian powers in moments of national crisis is recognised in our constitutional history. Article 15 of the Convention, when it speaks of "war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation", accurately states the conditions in which such legislation has previously been thought necessary.

...

The question is whether the threat of terrorism from Muslim extremists similarly threatens the life of the British nation.

...

Of course government has a duty to protect the lives and property of its citizens. But that is a duty which it owes all the time and which it must discharge without destroying our constitutional freedoms.

...

Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda.

...

The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the trus measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory."

This is a very difficult argument to unpick, though do feel free.