counter terrorism bill | ukwatch.net

Victory for Liberty's Charge or Release Campaign

Ellie Keen — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:11:50 +0000

PRESS RELEASE

The Government has dropped plans for 42 days detention. Last night saw a resounding victory for Liberty’s long running Charge or Release campaign. Common sense and common decency prevailed as the Government dropped plans to detain terror suspects for 42 days without charge, following an overwhelming defeat in the House of Lords. The Upper House rejected the proposal by a devastating 191 votes.

In an emergency statement to MPs shortly afterwards, the Home Secretary said that the counter-terrorism bill would continue its journey through parliament without the 42 day measure. The government will publish a bill containing the 42 day plan; this bill will be held in reserve to be introduced should there be a terrorist emergency.

Highlights from the House of Lords debate

The vote followed a three-hour debate dominated by opponents of 42 days from all quarters of the Lords. There were 24 Labour rebels including two former Lord Chancellors, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Falconer of Thoroton, as well as Baroness Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, Justice Lord Woolf, former Lord Chief Justice and Lord Condon, former Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

Lord Falconer, dismissed the government’s arguments as “fanciful”, telling peers he had changed his mind after supporting plans to detain terror suspects without charge for 90 days in 2005. He said:

“The idea that extending [the detention period] from 28 days to 42 days is going to make a difference is utterly fanciful.”

Lord Dear, a former West Midlands chief constable, told peers:

“There is almost universal opposition to what the Government proposes.

“It almost beggars belief that any administration could embark on such a course.”

Lady Neville-Jones, the shadow security minister and former chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, condemned the plans as “unnecessary, undesirable and unworkable’‘.

And Baroness Mallalieu, a Labour peer, said that while she was in the “uncomfortable” position of being forced to vote against her party, the plan was: “dangerous, wrong and completely and wholly unnecessary in practice.”

A cross-party political and public campaign

With your help and support, Liberty’s award winning Charge or Release campaign has been running for over a year. We have consistently urged the Government to drop these damaging proposals and have condemned the measures as wrong in principle, unnecessary and counter-productive.

Liberty has been overwhelmed by public and parliamentary support for Charge or Release, a true cross-party political and public campaign against this unnecessary and divisive policy.

Support for Charge or Release has come all corners and from across the globe. Supporters have included Archbishop Desmond Tutu, political activist Noam Chomsky, Pakistan’s Human Rights Commissioner Asma Jahangir, designer Vivienne Westwood, former Chief Constable Geoffrey Dear, UNITE, UNISON, CWU, National Union of Journalists, the General Synod, journalists and columnists from a wide range of newspapers, senior legal opinion, the four London Mayoral candidates, the UN Human Rights Committee, the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, the two main opposition parties and a large number of Labour MPs and peers.

Freedom Reading

On the eve of the vote in the House of Lords, forty-two leading writers added their support for Charge or Release, displaying their opposition to the plans through forty-two poignant pieces of writing. ’42 Writers for Liberty’ showcases new works by leading writers including Philip Pullman, Monica Ali, Julian Barnes, Mohsin Hamid, Ian Rankin, Sadie Jones, Ali Smith and A.L. Kennedy. Visit www.42writers.com to read these wonderful works.

Thank you – we did it with your support.

With your help now and into the future, should this or any future government try again, they can rest assured that Liberty will be ready and waiting.

Thank you for supporting Charge or Release and please continue to support Liberty’s campaigns.

Letter to the UK Government

Ellie Keen — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:16:17 +0000

On the Implementation of the UN Human Rights Recommendations on Counterterrorism Policies

Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
United Kingdom

Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
King Charles Street
London SW1A 2AH
United Kingdom

8 October 2008

Dear Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary,

We are writing to call your attention to the conclusions of two recent reviews of the United Kingdom’s human rights record by authoritative international human rights bodies. In July, the United Nations Human Rights Committee conducted a comprehensive review of the UK’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In April, the UK was one of the first countries to be reviewed under the new Universal Periodic Review procedure at the UN Human Rights Council. Both processes involved rigorous questioning of the compatibility of UK counterterrorism law and policy with its international human rights obligations.

Human Rights Watch has been monitoring the development of counterterrorism laws and policies in the UK since the late 1990s. The concerns expressed by the Human Rights Committee, as well as by peer countries during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), reflect many of our own findings. We urge you to act on the recommendations formulated in the Concluding Observations of the Committee and the Report of the Working Group on the UPR of the UK in order to bring its law and practice into full compliance with international human rights law.

Extended Pre-charge detention. The Human Rights Committee expressed its concern over the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008—with its “potentially far-reaching effects on the rights guaranteed in the Covenant”—and in particular on the proposed extension of pre-charge detention. The Bill would give the Home Secretary a reserve power to temporarily authorize 42 days of pre-charge detention in terrorism cases. The Committee stressed that while it was “disturbed” by a 28-day period, it was “even more disturbed” by the proposed 42-day period. Reminding the UK government that ICCPR article 9 guaranteeing the right to liberty and security of the person is fully applicable, the Committee recommended that terrorist suspects be promptly informed of any charges and tried within a reasonable time or released (emphasis in the Concluding Observations).

This issue was taken up also in the UPR of the UK at the Human Rights Council. Indeed, no fewer than eight countries asked questions about or directly criticized extended pre-charge detention during the review. The Report of the Working Group on the UK review noted the recommendations that the UK “strengthen guarantees for detained persons” and “introduce strict time limits on pre-charge detention of those suspected of terrorism.”

The comments of the Committee are further confirmation that the current 28-day period already violates the right to liberty under the ICCPR [and therefore also the European Convention on Human Rights (article 5)]. A further extension is unnecessary, disproportionate and counterproductive. The proposed safeguards are inadequate to protect against arbitrary detention, and the government has failed thus far to provide convincing evidence that such lengthy pre-charge detention is necessary. Human Rights Watch issued a briefing paper detailing its concerns with the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008, including extended pre-charge detention, in July 2008.

Control orders. While several countries asked questions of the UK about control orders in the context of the UPR, the Human Rights Committee expressed its explicit concern about the imposition of a wide range of restrictions on individuals who have nonetheless not been charged with a criminal offence, the fact that breach of control orders can give rise to criminal liability, and about the use of secret evidence in closed sessions in the judicial proceedings to challenge the imposition of a control order.

The Committee concluded that these aspects of the control order regime are incompatible with ICCPR articles 9 and 14 (guaranteeing the right to a fair trial). Consequently, the Committee stipulated that the UK should ensure that the judicial procedure for imposing a control order comply with the principle of equality of arms, in particular with respect to access of the concerned person and his or her legal counsel to all the evidence. It added that the UK government should take steps to ensure that criminal charges are brought promptly against those subject to control orders.

Human Rights Watch first expressed its concerns about control orders when the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which created the regime, was still under debate. The Act gives the executive branch the authority to impose serious restrictions on a range of protected rights for an indefinite period of time on the basis of a low standard of proof and secret evidence. These concerns, and our recommendations to improve the safeguards in the procedure for imposing control orders, are laid out in a March 2005 commentary on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2005 as well as in a June 2007 briefing paper, Hearts and Minds: Putting Human Rights at the Center of United Kingdom Counterterrorism Policy.

Access to a lawyer. Mindful that the right to access to a lawyer immediately upon detention constitutes a fundamental safeguard against ill-treatment, the Human Rights Committee expressed its concern that Schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the police to delay a terrorism suspect’s access to a lawyer for up to 48 hours. The Committee said the UK government had “failed to justify this power,” and urged the government to ensure that anyone arrested on criminal charges have immediate access to a lawyer.

The UK delegation was asked about delayed access to a lawyer for terrorism suspects during the UPR question and answer session, and the Report of the Working Group noted the recommendation that the UK “enshrine in legislation the right of access of detainees to a lawyer immediately after detention.”

Encouragement of terrorism. The Human Rights Committee criticized the definition of “encouragement of terrorism” in section 1 of Terrorism Act 2006 as “broad and vague,” particularly because an individual can commit the offence in the absence of any intent, insofar as statements are understood by some members of the public to constitute encouragement to commit acts of terrorism. The Committee said the government should amend the language on this offense in Terrorism Act 2006 to avoid “disproportionate interference with freedom of expression” guaranteed in ICCPR article 19.

The Report of the Working Group on the UK UPR included a recommendation that the UK “harmonize its legislation with its human rights obligations towards individual protesters exercising their freedom of expression and opinion.”

Human Rights Watch opposed the introduction of the criminal offense of ‘encouragement of terrorism” when it was under discussion as part of Terrorism Bill 2005 on numerous grounds. The offense is unnecessary, ill-defined, and carries an unacceptable risk of undue infringement on legitimate free speech. The unclear mental requirement for the commission of the offense and the lack of a causal link to violence are of particular concern. Our briefing paper on the 2005 bill is available here.

Stop and search powers. The Human Rights Committee expressed concern about the use of racial profiling in the exercise of stop and search powers and “its adverse impact on race relations.” It recommended that the UK government undertake a review of stop and search powers under section 44 of Terrorism Act 2000 with a view to ensuring that these powers are exercised in a non-discriminatory manner. The Working Group report on the UPR of the UK reflects the concern expressed by several peer countries about stop and search powers. Section 44 of Terrorism Act 2000 gives the police the authority to stop anyone within a specified area even in the absence of reasonable suspicion of any wrongdoing.

Absolute prohibition on returns to torture and prohibited ill-treatment. The Human Rights Committee noted with concern the UK’s position that persons suspected of terrorism could under certain circumstances be returned to countries without appropriate safeguards to prevent treatment prohibited under ICCPR article 7 (prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment). The Committee recommended that the UK government “ensure that all individuals, including persons suspected of terrorism, are not returned to another country if there are substantial reasons for fearing that they would be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The Committee also said that the Memoranda of Understanding concluded by the UK government in order to deport terrorism suspects with assurances “do not always in practice” ensure that the affected individuals will not be subjected to torture or prohibited ill-treatment.

Human Rights Watch, as well as a number of international experts, such as the UN special rapporteur on torture and the Council of Europe human rights commissioner, take the view that diplomatic assurances are never an effective safeguard where there is an acknowledged risk of torture or ill-treatment. Our extensive research on the use of diplomatic assurances is available here. Our concerns about the UK policy of pursuing Memoranda of Understanding are detailed in various documents, including the briefing papers Hearts and Minds and Dangerous Ambivalence: UK Policy on Torture since 9/11.

Extraordinary Rendition flights. The Human Rights Committee criticized the use of Diego Garcia as a transit point for rendition flights of terrorism suspects to countries where they were at risk torture or ill-treatment, and urged the UK to investigate allegations of the use of UK territory for rendition flights and establish an inspection system to avoid use of UK airports for such purposes. Since the Committee’s Concluding Observations were published, press reports have revealed that the US may have detained and interrogated one or more terrorism suspects on Diego Garcia in 2002 and possibly in 2003.

Human Rights Watch supports the recommendations of the Committee. We urge the UK government to initiate an independent public inquiry into the use of UK territory for renditions, and to cooperate fully with the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee’s inquiry into British Indian Ocean Territory, which includes Diego Garcia.

Counterterrorism measures that violate human rights are not only illegal under international law but are also counterproductive. Abusive measures undermine the UK’s moral legitimacy at home and abroad, damaging its ability to win the battle of ideas that is central to long-term success in countering terrorism. We therefore urge the British government to implement all the recommendations emanating from the Human Rights Committee and the Universal Periodic Review.

We thank you for your attention and look forward to a continuing dialogue on these important matters.

Sincerely,

Holly Cartner
Executive Director
Europe and Central Asia Division
Human Rights Watch

Tom Porteous
London Director
Human Rights Watch

Cc:

Michael Wills MP, Minister of State, Ministry of Justice
Members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
H.E. Peter Gooderham CMG, Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations, Geneva

see the UN Treaty Body Database for the UNHRC’s report

Oppose Unjust Proposals of the Counter Terrorism Bill

Ellie Keen — Sun, 11 May 2008 00:47:35 +0000

Yet another Counter-Terrorism Bill is now before Parliament. These proposals would extend the injustice of current ‘anti-terror powers’, which make exceptions to the normal criminal law, especially its protection of suspects through the right to a fair trial.

The proposed powers are based on the Terrorism Act 2000, which defined terrorism so broadly as to include simply the threat of violence to property in an attempt to influence a government, anywhere in the world. Such a broad definition could include many normal political activities in this country and any resistance to oppressive regimes abroad. That Act also created ‘terrorist’ offences of associating with particular organizations, sharing a platform with their members, and helping them financially, e.g. simply by selling publications.

Since the Terrorism Act of 2000, ‘anti-terrorism’ measures have imposed much injustice, particularly on Muslim and migrant communities. Of over 1200 people arrested under anti-terrorism laws, less than 5% have been convicted of ‘terrorism’ offences, few of these involving any plans for violent activities. A key effect has been to create a climate of fear – fear that political activity, or simply talking to the wrong people, will bring arrest or house raids.

The proposed new powers would extend current injustices, especially punishment without trial, in several ways:

Detention without charge would be extended from 28 days to 42 days
‘Terrorism suspects’ could be detained without charge for six weeks. Before 2000 it was 4 days. Neither government nor police have given any convincing reason why so long is needed.
Post-charge questioning of ‘terror suspects’ – presumed guilty?
‘Terror suspects’ could be subjected to further questioning after a criminal charge, even up to the trial date. Saying nothing could count against them at trial.
At present, people once charged can refuse to answer until their trial, without their silence being interpreted as a sign of guilt or deception.
‘Terrorist connection’ would justify a heavier sentence
Judges could give people longer sentences for ‘ordinary’ offences if they had a ‘terrorism connection’ – for example, allegedly supporting a banned ‘terrorist’ organization.
Confiscation of property without trial
Convicted ‘terrorists’ could have their property confiscated – such as bank accounts, vehicles, computers or even a house. The special procedure would not be a normal trial; it could involve secret evidence.
Extra punishment without trial beyond the original sentence
Convicted ‘terrorists’ could face a ban on foreign travel once released from jail. This would be done by a special order, not a trial. Those convicted could also face a requirement to tell the police where they go whenever they sleep away from home, in some cases for life.
New offence for volunteers of not giving information to police
Volunteer workers, for example in a youth project or charity, could be prosecuted for not telling police about suspected ‘terrorist’ activities. People might be over-suspicious and report imagined activities because they are afraid of being criminalised for concealment.
New offence of providing information about the armed forces
The Bill would make it an offence to seek or communicate information about the armed forces which could be useful to terrorism. This could apply simply to peace protestors telling each other, for example, what happens at a military base.
Hiding evidence about police killings
Some inquests could be held in secret, without juries. Sensitive material about how and why a person was killed by the police or army would be hidden away; they would never be held properly to account.

Ask your MP to oppose those proposals of the Counter-Terrorism Bill. Support the due process rights of all ‘suspects’.

Model letter to send your MP can be downloaded at http://www.campacc.org.uk/Library/MP_letterCTB08_260208.doc
DEMONSTRATE against the Counter-Terrorism Bill on Monday 12 May 2008, 5-7pm 10 Downing Street. Details available at www.cacc.org.uk

‘April Fool’s Day’ in the Commons:

Ellie Keen — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0000

OPEN LETTER from the National Campaign Against Anti-Terror Powers (NCAATP)

One more step to grave injustices

How appropriate that on ‘April Fool’s Day’ Jacqui Smith will launch the long awaited second reading of The Counter Terrorism Bill 2008. We should not be fooled. For the last six years the Labour government has created a climate of fear and deceived us that we face a permanent emergency as a nation. Hence the most fundamental principles of justice such as ‘habeas corpus’ and the right to a fair trial have to be mutilated in the name of national security.

Although the extension of pre-charge detention from 28 to 42 days has been aired widely, the draft bill has many proposed police powers which are equally pernicious particularly when the definition of terrorism under the 2000 Terrorism Act is so broad that people are being jailed for possessing DVDs and downloading web pages.

Extra powers -for surveillance, pre-charge questioning and legal obligations to disclose ‘suspicious’ financial transactions-will further encourage arbitrary arrests. Information ‘which could be useful for terrorism’ can mean nearly anything and would generally be linked with politics activities in order to justify prosecutions, as well as to harass activists. Restrictions could be imposed on travellers to international demonstrations.

Sinister also are the attempts to extend ‘secret’ court procedures to confiscation of property and to inquests, partly or wholly held in camera, a move to avoid accountability when we have the next Jean Charles de Menezes.

A new offence making criminal the failure by volunteers in charities or NGOs to is an attack on the right to silence. The Bill would also criminalise the collection of information on armed forces by investigative journalists, thus attacking free speech.

We, the 27 civil society organisations listed hereunder, call on MPs to hold the government to account and not let this unjust bill through Parliament without serious challenge. Yes, the government has a duty to protect the public against terrorists but Parliament has a duty to protect the public from draconian measures that violate the most fundamental principles of justice.

Saleh Mamon, 1st April 2008
Campaign Against Criminalising Communities, www.campacc.org.uk

NATIONAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST ANTI-TERROR POWERS:
1990 Trust
Baluch Human Rights Group
Cageprisoners
Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC)
Campaign Against Racism and Fascism (CARF)
Centre for the Study of Terrorism (CFSOT)
Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers
Index on Censorship
Institute for Policy Research and Development (IPRD)
Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC)
July 7th Truth Campaign
Justice not Vengeance (JNV)
Kurdish Federation UK
London Guantanamo Campaign (LGC)
Muslim Parliament
Panjaab National History Society
Peace & Progress
Peace and Justice in East London
Scotland Against Criminalising Communities (SACC)
Sheffield Muslim Association (MAB)
Sheffield Guantanamo Campaign
Solidarity (Scotland’s Socialist Movement)
South Asia Solidarity Group (SASG)
Stop the War Coalition (STWC)
Tamil Campaign for Truth and Justice
Tamil Centre for Human Rights
Westbourne Grove Church