21. Submission from the Mayor of London
on the Terrorism Bill
1. Following the deplorable and tragic attacks
in July the Mayor fully supports the Government's review of existing
counter-terrorism legislation. It is vital for the safety, security
and economic health of London and the UK that counter-terrorism
measures are robust and effective. As the directly elected head
of London's regional government, the Mayor is in a unique position
to represent the concerns and interests of Londoners.
2. The London bombings brutally served to
demonstrate that there must be a range of appropriate and rigorous
measures that can be used to prevent attacks on the innocent and
to bring the perpetrators to justice.
3. The Mayor is deeply concerned that a
number of the provisions in the Terrorism Bill may criminalise
those who oppose terror and whose cooperation is vital to the
police. While the Mayor recognises the pressing need to tackle
terrorism decisively and effectively, lasting success is unlikely
to be achieved if we rush into legislation that lacks consensus
and if we fail to take with us those communities whose support
and trust are vital.
4. At a time when Londoners are standing
united against those who threaten our city's security and multiculturalism,
it is essential that we properly consider the potential impact
on community relations of criminalising some non-violent behaviours
and groups. Such steps will isolate and disenfranchise those who
may disagree with the Government's perspective on struggles past
and present, but who oppose violence.
5. The emphasis must be on developing effective
engagement with all communities, and developing policies and laws
that not only protect, but also unite. It would be both regrettable
and dangerous if new anti-terror laws inadvertently add to the
hostility faced by minority groups from some sections of society
through presenting visible minorities, or particular faith groups,
as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
6. The onus must be on the Government to
present a clear and compelling case for why the current law on
incitement is inadequate and broader measures are required—specifically,
who and what is the new law designed to address that existing
legislation does not? This case has not yet been made.
7. At a time when the democratic principles
that underpin our society are under threat, the Government should
strive to safeguard our right to express opinions that are controversial
or even offensive. One person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.
It is the freedom to debate—and to disagree—that helps
to make our society strong.
THE TERRORISM
BILL
8. Clauses 1 and 21 of the Terrorism Bill,
which relate to the encouragement and glorification of terrorism
by individuals and organisations, give cause for greatest concern.
While Clause 1 is undoubtedly an improvement on draft Clauses
1 and 2, it would still make it quite possible for an individual
to be prosecuted for making a statement that unintentionally encourages
an act of terrorism.
9. Under the definition of terrorism that
will be used for the purposes of this Bill, it could be argued
that the African National Congress was engaged in "terrorism",
as it was involved in a military conflict with the Apartheid regime.
Both the ANC and its supporters could therefore have been caught
by Clauses 1 and 21.
10. Indeed, any non-state actors involved
in a military conflict where democratic means to resolve issues
do not exist, irrespective of the circumstances, could arguably
be deemed to support terrorism and fall foul of these clauses.
Laws that would criminalise those who supported action against
the regime of Adolf Hitler, will undermine the legitimacy of our
anti-terror efforts.
11. The trust and cooperation of all our
communities is indispensable to isolate and defeat supporters
of terrorism. If legislation is framed too loosely, people who
totally condemn terrorist attacks may fear that legitimate views
on, for example, the conflict in the Middle East, make them and
others vulnerable to prosecution. In those circumstances, they
are more likely to be wary of contact with the police and less
likely to volunteer information that could prove crucial to counter-terrorism
investigations.
12. For similar reasons, the Mayor sees
no purpose to banning organisations that do not advocate or support
terrorism. Driving such organisations underground, where they
are impossible to engage with, would be counter-productive and
make intelligence-gathering more difficult.
13. The Mayor recognises the importance
of proscribing organisations that directly incite violence. However,
clause 21 will significantly broaden the criteria for proscription
to include the "glorification" (defined as "any
form of praise or celebration") of acts of terrorism. The
use of such a vague term risks outlawing wholly non-violent groups
which happen to have a different view to the Government on certain
political issues or historical events.
14. The Mayor recognises the considerable
challenges faced by the Police in gathering enough evidence to
bring charges against terrorist suspects. However, the Mayor fears
that proposals contained in Clause 23, to extend the period of
pre-charge detention of suspects from 14 days to three months,
could prove to be highly counter-productive and that a better
balance between the demands of operational policing and the rights
of the individual must be found.
15. Clause 23 is likely to impact on British
Muslims disproportionately. The Mayor is concerned to avoid a
situation in which possibly innocent Londoners will be held for
up to three months—equivalent to a six month custodial sentence—without
charge. This would impact not only on the individuals involved,
but also on their families and their communities, and significantly
dent public confidence in policing.
16. The Mayor firmly believes that only
united communities will defeat terrorism and protect human rights.
The Mayor, Liberty, faith communities, MPs, peers, trade unionists
and lawyers have together launched a campaign to ensure that any
measures adopted by Parliament and the Government against terrorism
do not criminalise people who condemn attacks like the ones on
7 July and who urge communities to work with the police to find
those responsible.
| 
