This document was submitted to the Joint Committee on human Rights on October 7, 2005
We regard the governments proposed anti-terror legislation as totally incompatible with basic
human rights, especially the rights to free association,free speech and liberty from unfair
detention.
These new proposals would extend the current powers based on the Terrorism Act 2000, which
redefined terrorism more broadly to include simply the threat of violence to property in an
attempt to influence a government, anywhere in the world. That broad definition encompasses
many normal political activities in this country and any resistance to oppressive regimes abroad.
The Terrorism Act 2000 and its two successors have been used to suppress domestic dissent
against oppression, by intimidating, detaining and even criminalizing many people as terror
suspects, sometimes simply for a vaguely defined association with so-called terrorism. The
current powers have already been designed and used for a political agenda − suppressing human
rights to free association, free speech and liberty from unfair detention.
The latest proposals would intensify and extend the injustice of the current powers. In particular:
1. Two new crimes:any statements which amount to the direct or indirect encouragement of terrorist acts or statements which glorify, exalt or celebrate such acts.
Reasons: The ordinary criminal law already prohibits efforts to incite violent crimes or
conspiracy to organize crimes. The new terrorist crimes would be used to intimidate,
silence and persecute merely verbal support for resistance against oppressive regimes
or even verbal support for domestic political activities which may fit the broad definition
of terrorism. Such statements may include, for example, mere expressions of support for
legal defence or solidarity statements for peace protestors accused of damage at
military bases.
2. Banning groups which glorify terrorist acts.
Reasons: The Terrorism Act 2000 has already been used in a politically biased way, by
banning many groups abroad which resist oppressive regimes, wherever those groups
activities fit the broad definition of terrorism. The new power would help extend the current bans to UK-based organizations which glorify terrorism as broadly defined
under the 2000 Act. Overall this would mean further criminalizing political dissent
against UK foreign policy, for example, opposition to the Iraq War or to the Israeli
occupation of Palestinian land. Of course, regimes allied to the UK government are
never classified as terrorist, much less UK military activities abroad.
3. A new crime of disseminating terrorist publications.
Reasons: Already the Terrorism Act 2000 has been used to prosecute a Turkish-
language magazine as terrorist property, even though it is legally sold in Turkey and
simply reports on political developments there. This prosecution illustrates how current
anti-terror powers are used to promote UK foreign policy objectives, not to protect us
from violence. The new crime would further suppress dissent, without needing to
demonstrate any link with a banned organization. It is a serious attack on freedom of
speech; even if unsuccessful in court, prosecutions could be highly disruptive to political
dissent.
4. Detention without charge (of terror suspects)would be extended from 14 days to 3
months.
Reasons: Already the 14-day maximum detention period has been used as a substitute
for a proper criminal investigation,instead intimidating and stigmatizing people as
terror suspects. An even longer period would amount to internment in all but name,
thus violating the principle of habeas corpus. Such long detention would be used to extract real or imaginary information to justify detention of yet more terror suspects.
For all those reasons,we oppose renewal or extension of any anti-terror powers, especially
those newly proposed by the government. The new powers would extend the already excessive
anti-terror laws and their inherent injustice. The ordinary criminal law is adequate to protect
us from violence. Anti-terror laws are designed and used mainly to protect oppressive regimes
abroad and UK foreign policy objectives.
If you would like more information on the use of earlier anti-terror powers during 2001—2003,
then please read our document:
Terrorising Minority Communities with Anti-Terrorism Powers: their Use and Abuse, Submission to
the Privy Council Review of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, July 2003, www.campacc.org.uk/ATCSA_consult-final.pdf
If you would like more information on why to oppose the governments new proposals, then
please read the briefing document,Protect our Rights ,along with the petition United to
Protect our Rights, both available at www.campacc.org.uk
We would be pleased to send more detailed information and to answer your questions at a public
hearing.
Estella Schmid On behalf of Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC)
This document was submitted to the Joint Committee on human Rights on October 7, 2005
We regard the governments proposed anti-terror legislation as totally incompatible with basic
human rights, especially the rights to free association,free speech and liberty from unfair
detention.
These new proposals would extend the current powers based on the Terrorism Act 2000, which
redefined terrorism more broadly to include simply the threat of violence to property in an
attempt to influence a government, anywhere in the world. That broad definition encompasses
many normal political activities in this country and any resistance to oppressive regimes abroad.
The Terrorism Act 2000 and its two successors have been used to suppress domestic dissent
against oppression, by intimidating, detaining and even criminalizing many people as terror
suspects, sometimes simply for a vaguely defined association with so-called terrorism. The
current powers have already been designed and used for a political agenda − suppressing human
rights to free association, free speech and liberty from unfair detention.
The latest proposals would intensify and extend the injustice of the current powers. In particular:
1. Two new crimes:any statements which amount to the direct or indirect encouragement of terrorist acts or statements which glorify, exalt or celebrate such acts.
Reasons: The ordinary criminal law already prohibits efforts to incite violent crimes or
conspiracy to organize crimes. The new terrorist crimes would be used to intimidate,
silence and persecute merely verbal support for resistance against oppressive regimes
or even verbal support for domestic political activities which may fit the broad definition
of terrorism. Such statements may include, for example, mere expressions of support for
legal defence or solidarity statements for peace protestors accused of damage at
military bases.
2. Banning groups which glorify terrorist acts.
Reasons: The Terrorism Act 2000 has already been used in a politically biased way, by
banning many groups abroad which resist oppressive regimes, wherever those groups
activities fit the broad definition of terrorism. The new power would help extend the current bans to UK-based organizations which glorify terrorism as broadly defined
under the 2000 Act. Overall this would mean further criminalizing political dissent
against UK foreign policy, for example, opposition to the Iraq War or to the Israeli
occupation of Palestinian land. Of course, regimes allied to the UK government are
never classified as terrorist, much less UK military activities abroad.
3. A new crime of disseminating terrorist publications.
Reasons: Already the Terrorism Act 2000 has been used to prosecute a Turkish-
language magazine as terrorist property, even though it is legally sold in Turkey and
simply reports on political developments there. This prosecution illustrates how current
anti-terror powers are used to promote UK foreign policy objectives, not to protect us
from violence. The new crime would further suppress dissent, without needing to
demonstrate any link with a banned organization. It is a serious attack on freedom of
speech; even if unsuccessful in court, prosecutions could be highly disruptive to political
dissent.
4. Detention without charge (of terror suspects)would be extended from 14 days to 3
months.
Reasons: Already the 14-day maximum detention period has been used as a substitute
for a proper criminal investigation,instead intimidating and stigmatizing people as
terror suspects. An even longer period would amount to internment in all but name,
thus violating the principle of habeas corpus. Such long detention would be used to extract real or imaginary information to justify detention of yet more terror suspects.
For all those reasons,we oppose renewal or extension of any anti-terror powers, especially
those newly proposed by the government. The new powers would extend the already excessive
anti-terror laws and their inherent injustice. The ordinary criminal law is adequate to protect
us from violence. Anti-terror laws are designed and used mainly to protect oppressive regimes
abroad and UK foreign policy objectives.
If you would like more information on the use of earlier anti-terror powers during 2001—2003,
then please read our document:
Terrorising Minority Communities with Anti-Terrorism Powers: their Use and Abuse, Submission to
the Privy Council Review of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, July 2003,
www.campacc.org.uk/ATCSA_consult-final.pdf
If you would like more information on why to oppose the governments new proposals, then
please read the briefing document,Protect our Rights ,along with the petition United to
Protect our Rights, both available at www.campacc.org.uk
We would be pleased to send more detailed information and to answer your questions at a public
hearing.
Estella Schmid On behalf of Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC)