I'm a dissenter from the ideology of human rights for many reasons, but what I hadn't understood up until now was how incompatible it all was with the long-established, tried and tested, English and Welsh legal system. The Blair government could not have seized the emergency powers it has done via the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 had it not first introduced the Human Rights Act in 1998, and then, post-9/11, deemed Britain to be in an on-going state of emergency, thereby allowing it to circumvent its legal obligations. (The Blair government always means well, but the road to Hell...)
In December 2004 the Law Lords came to the (counterintuitive?) judgment (re the Belmarsh detainees), forced upon them by Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights, that the UK government should treat British citizens and foreign nationals, if either are suspected of involvement in terrorism, as having the same rights under British law. The government could have, should have, ignored that judgment but instead it chose to embrace it. Human rights ideology vanquished civil liberties in an instant. Now, British terror suspects will have the same rights as the former Belmarsh detainees who are now subject to Control Orders.
Except one. The foreign nationals, most of whom are Algerian, were, and still are, in what has been described as 'a prison with three walls'. That is, they are free to return to Algeria or wherever, but the British government can't force the detainees to return because they might face torture or worse. But, if we Britons have Control Orders slapped on us, we would be in a 'prison with four walls', not having the option to go anywhere else. So, under the new Act, British nationals subject to Control Orders will have fewer legal rights than foreign nationals.
And the government's definition of terrorism is somewhat wider than most people realize...