Sample letter to your MP - Counter Terrorism Bill 2007

Dear xxx MP,

(Please amend as appropriate to suit your style and views)

Re: Counter Terrorism Bill 2007

I am writing to you as your constituent to express my concerns about the government’s proposals for the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2007.

These proposals seek to extend the injustice of current police powers, creating exceptions to normal criminal law and its protection for suspects. These proposals are based on the Terrorism Act 2000, which has defined terrorism so broadly as to include the mere threat of violence to property in an attempt to influence a government, anywhere in the world. Such broad definition could include many normal political activities in this country and resistance to oppressive regimes abroad. That Act created the ‘terrorist’ offences of belonging to certain organizations, sharing a platform with their members, and helping them financially, for example by selling publications.

Existing special anti-terrorism powers authorize prolonged pre-charge detention, currently up to 28 days and punishment without trial in the form of control orders. The proposed new powers will also authorize more severe punishment for fraud, assault, criminal damage etc if these offences are committed in connection with 'terrorism', using the excessively broad definition of terrorism contained in the 2000 Act.

In particular I oppose the following new powers, which would be inherently unjust:

1. Detention without charge would be extended beyond 28 days. For anyone deemed a 'terror suspect', the current limit of 28 days already represents a drastic extension from that before the Terrorism Act 2000. There are no credible grounds for why such a long time would be necessary. The 28-day detention period has been used as a substitute for a proper criminal investigation, instead intimidating and stigmatising people as 'terror suspects'. Such a long detention amounts to internment in all but name, thus violating the principle of habeas corpus. This despotic practice can be used to extract real or imaginary ‘information’, thus justifying detention of yet more 'terror suspects’. It ignores the principle that citizens must be considered innocent until proven guilty. Police naturally want as much time as possible to lean on a suspect before honouring this principle. They may also lobby government to give them such powers, but in a free society, the police enforce the law, they don't make it. 2. Post-charge questioning of ‘terror suspects’Likewise such powers can be used to intimidate detainees, as a substitute for an adequate basis for the criminal charge in the first place. 3. A new criminal offence of seeking ‘information which could be useful for terrorism’. This offence would apply regardless of whether or not the seeker intends a ‘terrorist’ use – again terrorism being defined in such a broad way as to encompass many non-violent activities and to criminalize the peace movement, some strikers, or anyone planning boycotts, pickets, blockades etc. 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. 4. Travel restrictions for ‘suspects’For mere suspicion of involvement in terrorism, anyone could face travel restrictions and be deprived of their passport. Protesters could be prevented from traveling to international demonstrations. Like control orders, this would be punishment without trial. 5. Collective punishment of families of convicted terroristsUnder control orders, the imposing of curfews, electronic tagging, restrictions on the use of telephones (and mobile phones and the internet) and restrictions on visits by relatives and friends, even of children, have turned homes into prisons for the family as a whole. The proposal to make it easier for the court to order the forfeiture of complex assets, such as a house and a flat of a convicted terrorist would punish the family. Given the recent convictions for possessing DVDs however radical under the provisions of the ‘glorification of terrorism’, this move is extremely serious. The counter terrorism powers that exist and the new ones the government is seeking are best judged by the potential effect they have on every citizen. Government has a responsibility to protect society from terrorist attacks; however, Parliament has a responsibility to protect citizens from excessive powers wielded by the state.For all the reasons stated above, I ask that you give an undertaking not to vote for the renewal or extension of any ‘anti-terror’ powers. I would be grateful if you let me know your views on the new proposals and where you stand in relation to specific proposals as soon as possible as time is of the essence. I shall be contacting your constituency office for an appointment to discuss these issues with you in person. I look forward to hearing from you.Yours sincerely,