The government has again proposed a sweeping extension of ‘counter-terrorism’ and ‘security’ measures in the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2007, being drafted to go before Parliament in November. These measures include the power to detain ‘terror suspects’ without charge for up to 56 days (double the current 28-day limit), post-charge questioning, and more severe sentences for any ‘terrorist-related’ crime. Also proposed is a new criminal offence of seeking information which could be useful for terrorism, whether or not the seeker intends such a use. For mere suspicion of involvement in terrorism, anyone could face travel restrictions and be deprived of their passport.
Even worse, all these special powers relate to a broad definition of ‘terrorism’. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism includes any activity which simply poses a threat of damage to property in pursuit of a political cause. Any suspicion of a political motive can trigger and justify special powers. They can and have been used against peaceful protest which posed no threat to anyone – for example, people standing outside the arms fair in Docklands or residents opposing the loss of their homes for a third runway at Heathrow airport.
A recent prosecution illustrates the vague crime of ‘terrorist’ association. Four university students and a schoolboy from Bradford were jailed for possessing DVDs of radical Imams – officially labelled as material ‘for terrorist purposes’ (The Guardian, 27.07.07). The defendants were charged under the Terrorism Act 2000, which was supposedly aimed at people who possess detonators and combustible chemicals. That a court now considers DVDs to be as dangerous as Semtex says much about the way in which security laws are being used politically.
To justify detention without trial, in 2001 the government claimed that we faced a national emergency, as a basis to claim exemption from the European Convention on Human Rights. When the Law Lords declared those powers illegal in 2004, the government soon got Parliament to authorise ‘control orders’, a form of house arrest which turns homes into prisons. In 2005 Parliament also authorised 28-day detention without charge, under the pretext that the police sometimes need the extra time to investigate terrorist threats. Yet the political logic is just the opposite: such powers encourage lengthy detention on the basis of scant evidence or disinformation, as in many recent cases. Of the thousands arrested under anti-terror laws, only a tiny number have been convicted for doing or planning violent activities; meanwhile personal reputations are destroyed, jobs are lost and families suffer.
All those ‘anti-terror’ powers amount to punishment without trial. They are well suited for harassing, punishing and criminalising political protest of all kinds. The authorities can readily create more ‘terror suspects’ and treat them as guilty, while promoting a politics of fear. Now ongoing terrorist threats are supposed to justify more severe powers than during the violent conflict in Northern Ireland.
The government’s new proposals extend the injustice of measures already in force. Longer pre-charge detention periods, along with post-charge questioning, will further encourage arbitrary arrests and put psychological pressure on prisoners. Information ‘which could be useful for terrorism’ can mean nearly anything, e.g. having maps or researching companies, and would be used for speculative charges to harass or criminalise political activists. Restrictions could also be imposed on travellers to international demonstrations.
The ordinary criminal law would be adequate to protect the public from violent threats. The state wants special ‘anti-terror’ powers for political reasons – to stigmatise and persecute individuals as ‘terror suspects’. These aims are clearly demonstrated by special powers regarding mere suspicion or association with ‘terrorism’ – defined so broadly as to include any threat of force or damage to property anywhere in the world. Such powers are inherently unjust.
Using terrorist threats as a pretext, the government tries to establish a permanent state of emergency. This trend towards a police state can be stopped only by claiming the rights that would be taken away from us. We need to deter the use of ‘anti-terror’ powers and to dissuade Parliament from voting for their extension. Towards those aims, there will be a broad campaign featuring a Month of Action during 15 October –15 November (see the CAMPACC site for more details).
The government has again proposed a sweeping extension of ‘counter-terrorism’ and ‘security’ measures in the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2007, being drafted to go before Parliament in November. These measures include the power to detain ‘terror suspects’ without charge for up to 56 days (double the current 28-day limit), post-charge questioning, and more severe sentences for any ‘terrorist-related’ crime. Also proposed is a new criminal offence of seeking information which could be useful for terrorism, whether or not the seeker intends such a use. For mere suspicion of involvement in terrorism, anyone could face travel restrictions and be deprived of their passport.
Even worse, all these special powers relate to a broad definition of ‘terrorism’. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism includes any activity which simply poses a threat of damage to property in pursuit of a political cause. Any suspicion of a political motive can trigger and justify special powers. They can and have been used against peaceful protest which posed no threat to anyone – for example, people standing outside the arms fair in Docklands or residents opposing the loss of their homes for a third runway at Heathrow airport.
A recent prosecution illustrates the vague crime of ‘terrorist’ association. Four university students and a schoolboy from Bradford were jailed for possessing DVDs of radical Imams – officially labelled as material ‘for terrorist purposes’ (The Guardian, 27.07.07). The defendants were charged under the Terrorism Act 2000, which was supposedly aimed at people who possess detonators and combustible chemicals. That a court now considers DVDs to be as dangerous as Semtex says much about the way in which security laws are being used politically.
To justify detention without trial, in 2001 the government claimed that we faced a national emergency, as a basis to claim exemption from the European Convention on Human Rights. When the Law Lords declared those powers illegal in 2004, the government soon got Parliament to authorise ‘control orders’, a form of house arrest which turns homes into prisons. In 2005 Parliament also authorised 28-day detention without charge, under the pretext that the police sometimes need the extra time to investigate terrorist threats. Yet the political logic is just the opposite: such powers encourage lengthy detention on the basis of scant evidence or disinformation, as in many recent cases. Of the thousands arrested under anti-terror laws, only a tiny number have been convicted for doing or planning violent activities; meanwhile personal reputations are destroyed, jobs are lost and families suffer.
All those ‘anti-terror’ powers amount to punishment without trial. They are well suited for harassing, punishing and criminalising political protest of all kinds. The authorities can readily create more ‘terror suspects’ and treat them as guilty, while promoting a politics of fear. Now ongoing terrorist threats are supposed to justify more severe powers than during the violent conflict in Northern Ireland.
The government’s new proposals extend the injustice of measures already in force. Longer pre-charge detention periods, along with post-charge questioning, will further encourage arbitrary arrests and put psychological pressure on prisoners. Information ‘which could be useful for terrorism’ can mean nearly anything, e.g. having maps or researching companies, and would be used for speculative charges to harass or criminalise political activists. Restrictions could also be imposed on travellers to international demonstrations.
The ordinary criminal law would be adequate to protect the public from violent threats. The state wants special ‘anti-terror’ powers for political reasons – to stigmatise and persecute individuals as ‘terror suspects’. These aims are clearly demonstrated by special powers regarding mere suspicion or association with ‘terrorism’ – defined so broadly as to include any threat of force or damage to property anywhere in the world. Such powers are inherently unjust.
Using terrorist threats as a pretext, the government tries to establish a permanent state of emergency. This trend towards a police state can be stopped only by claiming the rights that would be taken away from us. We need to deter the use of ‘anti-terror’ powers and to dissuade Parliament from voting for their extension. Towards those aims, there will be a broad campaign featuring a Month of Action during 15 October –15 November (see the CAMPACC site for more details).