Civil Rights Are Indivisible.

For me as for so many Londoners, the violation of London's metro system in the July 7th bomb attacks was a huge blow. Not that my sense of loss could begin to compare to that of those who suffered death, bereavement and injury, but even so, the attack felt personal. It was also a big test of Londoners' sense of unity in diversity.

London seemed to get bravely back on its feet after 7/7. It was said that if the bombers wished to find a people who can easily be instilled with fear and self-doubt, with a sense of defeatism and disunity, then they'd picked the wrong bunch. Most Londoners reported remarkably low levels of stress. There was much talk of stoicism and resilience, and harking back to the spirit of defiance of the 1940 Blitz. As in 9/11 (New York) and 3/11 (Madrid) the toll of victims, including Muslims, was testimony to the ethnic and religious mix in a great city. The bombers were hitting 'us', not 'them'.

But were Londoners really so unaffected? People did not rush back to the restored Tube lines, in fact Tube usage is down 30% since July. There has been a surge in cycle purchase. The streets seem somewhat empty, tourist spending is depressed. The real test will come with the autumn return to work.

In fact the hurt is deeper than at first appeared. Maybe it would have been healing faster by now if it had not been for the shameful fatal shooting by police of Jean-Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian man mistakenly feared to be a potential suicide-bomber. London is reeling from this tragic event, and anxiously awaits the inquiry report.

The implications of a 'shoot-to-kill' policy for suspected suicide-bombers has caused much anguish. I am willing to be convinced that there may be circumstances in which shooting, even to the head, is the least worst option when someone is reliably suspected of carrying a bomb. But I cannot accept that policy for such an eventuality should be considered purely an operational policing matter; the guidelines have to be decided democratically.

And the information whereby such a person is identified has to be as accurate as humanly possible. Media reports on the day said police had been watching a 'house'. In fact it was a block of 8 flats, greatly increasing the chance that anyone who came out would be unconnected with the wanted person. Police could have found out from the local borough the names of all the tenants. Shooting to kill on the basis of sloppy detective work is inexcusable.

So there is a sense of disorientation. But nowhere more than among Muslims, who have reported the highest level of stress. This is unsurprising when in the few weeks following the attacks, faith-hate crime rose 6-fold, and Muslims felt they were being held responsible as if they were a homogeneous single group.

Thankfully, the upsurge of hate attacks has now subsided. There have been many events, often in local town halls, put on to bring people together and avoid the demonisation of all 1.5 million British Muslims. But there has been quite a lot of media hysteria, often directed against the radical preachers and dissidents who, to the consternation and condemnation of the French who label us 'Londonistan', have been permitted to make London their home.

The UK government wants to deport alleged terrorist sympathisers to Middle East countries known to practise torture. It is difficult to see how it will secure 'understandings' on decent treatment robust enough to satisfy the courts, but then lawyer Tony Blair says he would be prepared to amend the UK Human Rights Act (incorporating the European Convention) to prevent the courts stopping him. This is a very slippery slope. While Home Secretary Charles Clarke's thinks "the human rights of those people who were blown up on the tube in London on July 7 are, to be quite frank, more important than the human rights of the people who committed those acts", I believe human rights are indivisible.

The government will be encouraged by a recent poll showing a majority of Britons are willing to lose civil liberties in order to gain security. I do not believe it is a direct trade-off, and I also wonder if people really mean that they are willing to trade their own civil liberties?

Security is of huge importance but it is essential to define it broadly and ensure that knee-jerk reactions don't lead to bad policy and bad law. Let's seek prosecution in preference to deportation wherever possible. New offences could fill real gaps (such as 'acts preparatory to terrorism' and 'indirect incitement'), but let's take great care not to criminalise or exclude people who express extreme opinions. That will just push them underground.

I have co-signed a letter to the Prime Minister alongside parliamentarians from other parties, religious spokespeople and human rights campaigners which includes the plea: "We believe that the fight against terrorism requires a broad consensus around its means and the involvement of all communities to isolate and defeat those who would use terror to divide us." Surely, real security is dependent on achieving just this.