David Cameron Seeks New Powers to Combat Extremism in Britain

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/world/europe/david-cameron-combat-muslim-extremism-britain.html

Version 0 of 1.

LONDON — Stoking the debate over the balance between security and civil liberties, Prime Minister David Cameron pledged on Wednesday to seek broad new police powers to combat the radicalization of Muslims in Britain and to end what he termed “passive” tolerance of extremism.

Mr. Cameron’s office said the proposals included a new system under which the police would be able to apply for “disruption orders” allowing them to restrict the activities of those thought to be radicalizing people. The orders would be overseen by the courts.

Details have yet to be made public, but according to British news reports, the orders could include a requirement that anyone subject to the restrictions submit in advance any material to be published in print, digitally, or on social media.

The proposed legislation, which will be included in the new government’s legislative program to be announced this month, might also include new powers to close buildings being used to promote violence or jihad, including mosques with radical preachers.

Other measures likely to be revived by the British government include updating laws on the retention of records of phone calls, emails and other data, a plan that critics have called the “snoopers’ charter.”

Mr. Cameron’s decision to press ahead with the proposals reflects the new freedom he has to pursue his Conservative Party’s agenda after his election to a second term last week and with an absolute majority behind him in Parliament — a shift from his first term, when he had to govern in a coalition with the centrist Liberal Democrats. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats, who have now been ousted from power, opposed the plan that Downing Street outlined on Wednesday and blocked Mr. Cameron from proceeding with it.

The new approach in Britain comes at a time when the United States and Europe are grappling with what weight to give to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and other basic democratic rights as they develop more aggressive surveillance and law enforcement responses to evolving threats from organized terrorist groups and individuals inspired by them. The debate has been galvanized by a series of events, from the revelations by Edward J. Snowden about the extent of spying by the National Security Agency, to fatal attacks this year in Paris, Copenhagen and Texas.

The British proposals were drawn up after the murder in May 2013 of a British soldier, Lee Rigby, in a vicious daylight attack on a street in southeast London. Since then, a significant number of Britons are thought to have left the country to fight with jihadist groups in Syria or Iraq, and security officials are worried that some of them could return with training and motivation to carry out attacks at home.

In much of Europe, a strong anti-immigrant strain — sometimes with an anti-Islam tinge — has driven political consideration of both security and social issues to the right. The political climate has also been shaped by the substantial numbers of Europeans who have traveled to Syria and Iraq to support the Islamic State or other radical groups, and the many more who have been exposed to radical propaganda.

That feeling has been intensified in Britain by a number of high-profile cases, including young British girls traveling to Syria to join jihadist groups.

Legislators in France have been moving ahead with a bill that could give the authorities their most intrusive domestic spying abilities ever, with very limited judicial oversight.

By contrast, recent revelations in Germany about the extent of surveillance by the country’s security services have embarrassed the government. And in the United States, where security concerns after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, tilted the balance away from civil liberties advocates, Congress is now debating whether to sharply limit the federal government’s sweeps of phone and Internet records.

In Britain, Mr. Cameron cast the debate on Wednesday in quasi-moralistic terms, and made clear that he favors a less tolerant, more muscular approach, accompanied by greater powers for the security services.

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society,” Mr. Cameron said in comments released by his office. He added that by appearing to stand neutral between different values, society had “helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.”

“This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach,” Mr. Cameron told a private meeting of the country’s National Security Council.

Critics contend that the measures could drive radicals underground, allow a new category of individuals to be defined as extremists and undermine some of the liberties that underpin democracy.

Mr. Cameron’s stance was criticized by Emma Norton, a legal officer at Liberty, an organization that promotes civil liberties.

“Just a few months after the prime minister marched in Paris in defense of free speech he proposes measures to help shut it down,” she said in a statement, referring to the aftermath of the attacks on the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

“Driving those who despise diversity underground does nothing to challenge their beliefs. You don’t protect democracy by undermining the freedoms that sustain it,” she said.

Mr. Cameron’s office rejected claims that the powers could be used to erode free speech, arguing that they were intended to combat forces such as Islamic extremism and neo-Nazism.

The British government has defined extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”

The definition also includes calling for the death of members of Britain’s armed forces.