12. Submission from Campaign Against
Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC) to the JCHR's inquiry into
counter-terrorism policy and human rights
We regard the government's 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 criminalising 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 agendasuppressing 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 organise crimes.
The new "terrorist" crimes would be used to intimidate,
silence and persecute merely verbal support for resistance against
oppressive regimesor 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 organisations which "glorify
terrorism" as broadly defined under the 2000 Act. Overall
this would mean further criminalising 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 organisation. 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 three months. Reasons: Already
the 14-day maximum detention period has been used as a substitute
for a proper criminal investigation, instead intimidating and
stigmatising 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 designed and used
mainly to protect oppressive regimes abroad and UK foreign policy
objectives.
7 October 2005
|