Can we protect human rights in fight against terrorism?

In the fight against terror, a willingness to abandon international conventions is wrong and needs to be addressed says Cecilia Malmström

You cannot plan for terrorist attacks. And although everyone was in a state of shock after the London attacks, I think that the British police have handled most aspects of the investigation well in terms of finding the suspects and identifying them. Of course, the shooting dead of a Brazilian civilian was a tragic exception that should not be accepted.

It is also important that the UK presidency of the EU focus on terrorism. Gijs de Vries, the EU's anti-terrorism co-ordinator, has pointed out that there has been much talk about fighting terrorism but little action.

What happened in London is that loved and appreciated neighbours turned out to be death machines. Everybody has to accept some restrictions as a result. There are cameras in public places now and maybe most of us do not like that but we accept it.

But there is one dimension to the fight against terrorism that I strongly dislike. It is a willingness to breach international conventions by letting people be detained for a long time without trial or allowing people to be sent back to regimes where they could face torture. In Sweden, we have a case of a Somali whose assets have been frozen because he has been on a list of suspected terrorists, even though there has not been any trial.

The difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is that the latter maintains the rule of law. If we start to go weak on that, then we are on a very dangerous slippery slope.

I would not be against giving prosecutors access to telecommunications data when there is a suspicion of a serious crime. But the proposal that has been presented to the European Parliament on data retention is fluffy and very badly elaborated. It raises questions about efficiency and cost for industry but also about integrity. How can we know that data will not be abused, that it will be protected from intruders?

We need a lot more detail on the technical questions. Is it possible to store telecommunications data on this scale and who will pay for it? In certain countries such as Germany and Holland it goes against their legal traditions, so we need to know how to harmonise rules and under what conditions.

I am slightly surprised at how the Swedish government is supporting data retention, while taking little account of the legitimate questions surrounding it. Our minister for justice gives the impression that the whole of Swedish society is backing it. That is not true; it has not been accepted in the Swedish parliament yet.

Franco Frattini, the European commissioner for justice, freedom and security, has recently talked about identifying websites which promote terrorism. Hate speech and encouraging terrorism are already crimes in many countries as far as I can see and I am not against that.

But a general European ban on certain websites or books or magazines is not the way forward. To just prohibit a view will not make it disappear, either. Possibly, though, we can see if incitement to hatred legislation should be harmonised.

Tony Blair is correct to say the rules of the game have changed. There are extremely violent people among us, who are ready to set suicide bombers on innocent commuters. We have to identify them.

Still, democracy is a place where human rights and the rule of law is for everyone. We cannot eliminate those principles during the struggle against terrorism.

But the British are going too far with deportation orders. I realise that there is trauma in the UK and I do not want to neglect that suffering but we still have to question such measures.

Whatever horrible crimes people have committed, we do not accept torture or the death penalty here in Europe, so we cannot send people back to countries where they are accepted. If we want to be credible here, we have to be consistent, especially when we are lecturing these countries about human rights.

Swedish Liberal MEP Cecilia Malmström is a member of Parliament's committee on foreign affairs.

It is of paramount importance that law enforcement authorities have the tools they require to protect us, says Timothy Kirkhope

British people are more sensitive than most to interference with our civil liberties, as is manifest by the vigorous debate on identity cards. The freedoms we enjoy are the accumulation of centuries of legal wisdom. Whether they were secured against overweening monarchs or haughty governments, our rights matter to us. Individual freedom has also been an important seam running through the history of my party, the Conservative Party.

As a nation, the UK has faced down the threat of terrorism and will do so again. The Conservative government in which I served took what legal steps were necessary to confront the IRA without compromising our essential freedoms. Our security services helped to save thousands of lives by thwarting terrorist attacks. But many innocent people still died - and no democratic state which prizes civil liberties can totally prevent that from happening.

Balancing respect for civil liberties and the need to protect people from terrorism is far from easy. That may seem like an understatement, but in fact there are people on both sides of the debate who see this issue as clear-cut.

I remember vividly hearing news of the London bombings while the Parliament was sitting in Strasbourg. I had hoped that these atrocities - coming only 16 months after the Madrid attacks - would galvanise the Parliament and spur consensus on a common response among MEPs.

It is clear that public opinion across the EU demands a firm response to terrorism and supports a degree of interference in civil liberties if it means a safer journey to work.

But the debate on anti-terrorism measures in the Parliament is still often emotive and unrealistic. No one disputes the importance of human rights - who would ever say otherwise? But an absolutist defence of civil liberties plays into the hands of terrorists. They seek to divide us. To defeat them we must use the means at our disposal, including new technology and advances in data retention.

In September MEPs rejected a joint framework decision on data retention drafted by four EU governments including the UK. The legal basis for the legislation was inadequate and flimsy. The Commission has come forward with its own plans.

But the Council of Ministers must now decide whether to resuscitate the framework decision or to put its faith in the European Commission's ideas. UK Home Secretary Charles Clarke's big test is to forge an agreement in the Council which is both robust and proportionate. MEPs should do their bit by calling an end to the grandstanding and posturing which has characterised this debate until now.

There is a danger that the EU, in its enthusiasm to co-ordinate anti-terrorism measures, can actually stifle an effective response. Governments need to be flexible in responding to the threat. The harmonisation of anti-terrorism measures would be a flawed approach. It would deny our police and security services the flexibility and adaptability they need to stay one step ahead of the terrorists.

Co-operation between member states is the way forward. In the previous Parliament I was rapporteur on joint investigation teams - a concept which works on an opt-in basis. It allows member states to co-operate as and when they wish to do so, instead of being compelled from the top down. I am convinced this approach remains the most effective and valuable way in which our security services can work together.

Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. It is vital in the battle against terrorism that governments and security services are held to account for their actions. But we should be aware of the pressures they face in making difficult decisions and split-second choices. Democracy is all about accountability and oversight.

But it is of paramount importance that law enforcement authorities have the tools they require to protect us. They must not be hamstrung either by excessive and unnecessary bureaucracy or by an unbending devotion to human rights - however well intentioned.

UK Conservative MEP Timothy Kirkhope is a member of Parliament's committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs.

Two MEPs discuss the balance between international conventions on human rights and the need for effective law enforcement in the fight against terrorism.

• Primary Source