Who rules //
Emergency Laws
What is an emergency law?
Sometimes, governments need to deal with emergency situations immediately – due to a war or a natural disaster for instance. An emergency law is one which the government makes in order to deal with a problem and protect the people of the country. An emergency usually needs to be dealt with quickly, so the process of making these laws is much speedier than for making ordinary laws. It can take just a few weeks.
What happens?
The government needs to convince Parliament that there is a state of emergency. The same process for ordinary laws still goes ahead but much more quickly. Once everyone has agreed the law has to be passed, special time is given in Parliament to discuss, debate and vote. However, an emergency law isn't a permanent law. Its status has to be reviewed every year. Emergency laws do not have to take human rights into account.
Key Points
- Emergency laws can only be introduced if there is a state of emergency.
- Emergency laws still have to go through the same process as other laws, they just do so more quickly.
- Emergency laws don't necessarily have to take human rights into account.
- Emergency laws aren't made very often.
Reality Bytes: Anti-terrorism Laws
On 11 September 2001, events not only changed people's lives and attitudes in America forever, they also caused change the world over. The UK government decided it was necessary to introduce some new emergency anti-terrorism laws that would protect the country from the possibility of terrorists and terrorist attacks. These were very controversial as they contravened human rights laws. However, emergency laws don't have to take account of human rights.
The right to a fair trial
The most controversial aspect of the anti-terrorism laws was that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorism could be held in prison without trial for any length of time. Why is this a problem? UK law states that you can't be held in prison without trial to determine whether you are innocent or guilty. These emergency laws did not take account of this and some people were very concerned that mistakes could be made. The possibilities existed for innocent people to be imprisoned indefinitely.
Murtza Rasul holds a newspaper article that allegedly shows his brother, Shafiq Rasul, with a bullet wound after he was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and accused of fighting for the Taliban. Shafiq was detained for more than two years without trial.
Big Question
- At the start of 2005 there were 11 people being held in prisons in the UK under the emergency laws that were made in 2001. They had not yet been charged or tried. Do you think this should have been allowed?
