Results 1-20 of 319 for terrorism speaker:David Winnick

Opposition Day — [14th allotted day]: Iraq Inquiry (24 Jun 2009) has video

David Winnick: If I gave the impression that there are hon. Members who do not condemn terrorism, I am sorry and I apologise, but time and time again, those who opposed the war mention the hundreds of thousands who undoubtedly died, but do not give sufficient emphasis to the fact that those are due to terrorist action, certainly not to the killings carried out by the occupation forces.

Olympics: Operation Pathway (20 Apr 2009) has video

David Winnick: My right hon. Friend has rightly praised the police. No one would dispute the important role that they play in securing our country and protecting it from terrorism. However, would she also bear in mind the fact that there is much concern about one or two individual police officers who have acted in a way that is totally incompatible with policing? We have seen outright police brutality shown...

Orders of the Day: Counter-Terrorism Bill (19 Nov 2008) has video

David Winnick: ...opposed to it. She was a bit surprised, and asked me to name the second; I replied that it was Stella Rimington. It is obvious that quite a large body of people who know all about the dangers of terrorism are not persuaded by any means that it is necessary—at least at this stage—to detain people for longer than 28 days. It should also be borne in mind that three years ago the...

Oral Answers to Questions — Home Department: Topical Questions (27 Oct 2008) has video

David Winnick: ...the UK? Is she aware that many have wondered over the years why we have allowed into this country people whose sole purpose while visiting Britain has been to encourage violence and, in some cases, terrorism, albeit in other countries? What my right hon. Friend said today is very welcome and I hope that it will be implemented.

Points of Order: Counter-Terrorism Bill (13 Oct 2008) has video

David Winnick: ...no way question my right hon. Friend's sincerity, but does she accept that those of us on the Labour Benches, be it in the Commons or the Lords, who have opposed 42 days in no way underestimate the terrorist threat of those people who wish to bring terror and destruction to our country? We know, and they have to be defeated. Does she recognise that the reason why we have opposed 42 days is...

Oral Answers to Questions — Home Department: Topical Questions (14 Jul 2008) has video

David Winnick: Would it not be sensible for the Cabinet to reconsider the whole issue of the 42 days pre-charge detention? Surely the former director of MI5 cannot be accused of being soft on terrorism. Next time, my right hon. Friend might find it far more difficult to get the proposals through the House of Commons—the Democratic Unionist party might not be around.

Orders of the Day: Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism (23 Jun 2008) has video

David Winnick: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not see any principle being involved. Does he not accept that in non-terrorist cases the longest period for which a person can be held—the maximum—is 96 hours, after which they must be released or charged? The increase for terror suspects, which in my view was necessary and justified up to 28 days, is one thing, but it baffles me when he...

Orders of the Day: "Part IV — Bail (11 Jun 2008) has video

David Winnick: ...—together with a number of my hon. Friends—support for the Government. It says: "We are adamant that the legislation", which is now being debated, "will affect only those who would use terrorism against our people". How do we know that? Is there not a danger that we will be declaring people guilty who may not be guilty and who may be released? Those are very dangerous words. I...

Business of the House (5 Jun 2008) has video

David Winnick: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that next week, during consideration on Report of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, we will be dealing with one of the most difficult issues facing any democracy: fighting terrorism and at the same time trying to preserve our traditional civil liberties? Does she also agree that as far as Labour Members are concerned, we will be debating the case on the...

Orders of the Day: Counter-Terrorism Bill (1 Apr 2008) has video

David Winnick: I am pleased to follow a fellow member of the Home Affairs Committee. Let us at least agree on one thing: no one in this House is soft on terrorism or has any desire to be passive in the face of an ongoing and acute terrorist danger. The atrocities of 7/7 came as no surprise. Of course, the four mass murderers were not under suspicion and had not been detained in any way. Outside the...

Orders of the Day: Counter-Terrorism Bill (1 Apr 2008) has video

David Winnick: It may have been long, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I fully agree with every word that my hon. Friend said. For terror suspects we have increased the period to seven days, to 14 days and, less than three years ago, to 28 days. This is not the first time that Parliament has faced the challenge of how to bring about the necessary legislation to protect the country and at the same time defend our...

Written Answers — Home Department: Terrorism: Detainees (1 Apr 2008)

David Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the Answer of 19 November 2007, Official Report, column 505W, on terrorism: detainees, if she will provide an update on the numbers of people (a) held, (b) charged and (c) released without charge.

Point of Order: Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism (21 Feb 2008)

David Winnick: ...say that I have urged consensus during my time in the House, especially when I sat on the Opposition Benches. I certainly did not—and for good and valid reasons. When it comes to combating terrorism, however, I depart from my perhaps more controversial position because I believe that there is room to find a consensus. We are all opposed to terrorism—that goes without saying....

Point of Order: Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism (21 Feb 2008)

David Winnick: ...for everyone to recognise the terrorist threat, and the overwhelming majority of the Muslim community, whether in the west midlands or anywhere else in this country, knows and recognises that terrorism is wrong. Those people recognise, as was the case with 7/7, that if terrorism takes place, Muslims can be the victims—slaughtered or seriously injured like anyone else. They have no...

Point of Order: Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism (21 Feb 2008)

David Winnick: In my borough, there is no such problem. The Muslim community in the Walsall area has always been moderate and totally opposed to any form of terrorism or anything of that kind. I believe there are very few places of religious worship that would wish to help or encourage those engaged in terrorism, but of course any that exist should be exposed. What the assistant chief constable of the West...

Point of Order: Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism (21 Feb 2008)

David Winnick: ..., the Home Office and the rest—will always bear in mind the fact that if certain steps are taken which are not appropriate, they can prove entirely counter-productive in the fight against terrorism. I hope that in the short period between now and the Second Reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill the Government will make some attempt to find a consensus, particularly on the number of...

Business of the House: Terrorist Suspects (Renditions) (21 Feb 2008)

David Winnick: However much international terrorism remains a constant danger, and however much the United States is a close ally, have we not a responsibility to say that so much of its practices in dealing with terrorism—the torture, and the manner in which its reputation has been so tarnished, for reasons that have been mentioned already—is unacceptable? Should we not make it quite clear to...

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister: Chilcot Report (6 Feb 2008)

David Winnick: ...danger to our country and our people. If, arising from the Prime Minister's welcome statement today, there is near all-party agreement on many measures, not least on combating the acute danger of terrorism, will the Government give serious consideration to the question of detention without charge? No evidence whatever has been produced to justify going beyond 28 days, and the Director of...

Orders of the Day: Home Affairs and Justice (7 Nov 2007)

David Winnick: ...extending the period beyond 28 days simply that it would be counter-productive? It will cause antagonism within the Muslim community—the very people whose help the police need to combat terrorism. So far, no compelling evidence has been produced by the Government or the police to justify going beyond 28 days, which is already the longest period of detention without charge in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister: National Security (25 Jul 2007)

David Winnick: My right hon. Friend carries a heavy responsibility in the fight against terrorism, but does he accept that Parliament agreed to 28 days—after the original three, five, seven or 14 days—because of the acute terrorist threat to our country, so we should be very hesitant indeed and reluctant to go further? That could be counter-productive in the fight against terrorists and their...