You are here

Home

Stop the Bill

Stop the Bill
National Campaign against 'Anti-Terror' Powers

"I never thought I would be in the House of Commons on the day Magna Carta was repealed." - Tony Benn

"There will be widespread consternation among our supporters seeing a Labour Government prepared to use every tactic available in its determination to crush essential civil liberties...This is no way to run a Government. Securing votes by threats, bribes and personal pleading demeans the role of the Prime Minister." - John McDonnell MP (Labour)

"Rarely has a government hazarded so much of its credibility for so narrow a victory - and in such certainty that it will shortly crumble into pitiful defeat" - Simon Hoggart (The Guardian)

Gordon Brown has brought the Labour Party and the British Parliament into disrepute by using of bribery and threats to win a hairsbreadth majority (in the Commone vote on 11 June 2008) for the extension to 42 days detention without charge for terrorist suspects - a measure that almost nobody sincerely supports. The Labour MPs who supported this crazy plan must also share the blame. The only Scottish Labour MP to oppose the government was Katy Clark (Ayrshire North and Arran). She deserves our thanks. The others chose to put the Prime Minister's favours before common sense. Some of them had previously told constituents they would oppose 42 day detention, or were thinking of doing do so. They deserve nothing but contempt.

42 day detention is likely to be rejected by the House of Lords and sent back to the Commons for MPs to think again. Please tell your MP that you expect them to vote against it when they next get a chance. The absurdity of the measure - which not even the police want - is now exposed for all to see. There is no reason for any MP to support the plan.

This is about more than 42 days. The Bill contains many other frightening measures. It's time for the government to admit that the Bill is fatally flawed and withdraw it

The Bill will be debated again by the House of Lords in October 2008.

How did your MP vote on 11 June?

This is about more than 42 days letter to the Guardian, 3 June 2008

Leaked report warns of 42 days rebellion - The Herald (21 April 2008) says a number of Scottish MPs are still undecided.

A stitch-up heading for an unravelling - The Counter Terrorism Bill passes it's second House of Commons reading

OPEN LETTER - 'April Fool's Day' in Commons- one more step to grave injustices

No extension to pre-charge detention limits is acceptable, says Amnesty

Why this national campaign?

The government is planning yet more 'anti-terrorism' measures. This Counter-Terrorism Bill reinforces a trend beginning with the Terrorism Act 2000, whose broad definition of terrorism criminalised normal political activities, potentially on the basis of suspected 'association'. This law was followed by three more in 2001, 2005, 2006; these multiplied extra police powers (e.g. glorification of terrorism), punishment without trial and treatment of 'suspects' as guilty, thus bypassing due process.

Together these laws have normalised detention without trial under various guises, such as control orders and immigration rules, whereby the accused never see the evidence against them.

This national campaign is bringing together many organisations and individuals involved in defending civil society against the politics of fear and insecurity unleashed by 'anti-terror' laws. The campaign includes civil liberties activists, migrant groups, religious groups, lawyers, journalists, academics, trade unions and environmental campaigners amongst others. We invite you to join the campaign.

The campaign will oppose all current anti-terror laws as well as their extension. This broad approach will help to involve everyone affected by those powers, could deter their use, and will provide extra reasons to oppose their extension.

Who is supporting this campaign?

The campaign is supported by a coalition of 20 organisations:

Peace & Progress; Scotland Against Criminalising Communities (SACC); Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC); Stop the War Coalition (STWC); Cageprisoners; Index on Censorship; Campaign Against Racism and Fascism (CARF); Institute for Policy Research and Development (IPRD); Kurdish Federation UK; London Guantanamo Campaign (LGC); The Muslim Parliament; Tamil Centre for Human Rights; Tamil Campaign for Truth and Justice; Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC); Peace and Justice in East London; Centre for the Study of Terrorism (CFSOT); Panjaab National History Society; South Asia Solidarity Group(SASG);Justice not Vengeance(JNV); Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers; Baluch Human Rights Group.

 

What is at stake?

The government's proposals include the power to detain 'terror suspects' without charge for up to 42 days (much longer than the current, already-excessive 28-day limit), post-charge questioning, and more severe sentences for any 'terrorist-related' crime.

In 2005 Parliament also authorised 28-day detention without charge, under the pretext that the police sometimes need the extra time to investigate terrorist threats. Yet the political logic is just the opposite: such powers encourage lengthy detention on the basis of scant evidence or disinformation, as in many recent cases. Holding a person in detention for 8 weeks is equivalent to 4 months custodial sentence. Of the 1228 arrested under anti-terror laws from 2001-2007, only a tiny number 41 have been convicted for involvement with or plans for violent activities; meanwhile personal reputation, jobs and family lives have been damaged for the rest.

Also proposed is a new criminal offence of seeking information that could be useful for terrorism, whether or not the seeker intends such a use. For mere suspicion of involvement in terrorism, anyone could face travel restrictions and be deprived of their passport.

Even worse, all these special powers relate to a broad definition of 'terrorism'. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism includes any activity which simply poses a threat of damage to property in pursuit of a political cause. Any suspicion of a political motive can trigger and justify special powers. They can and have been used against peaceful protest which posed no threat to anyone - for example, people standing outside the arms fair in Docklands or residents opposing the loss of their homes for a third runway at Heathrow airport.

A recent miscarriage of justice illustrates the vague crime of 'terrorist association'. Four university students and a schoolboy from Bradford were jailed for possessing DVDs of radical Imams - officially labelled as material 'for terrorist purposes' (The Guardian, 27.07.07). The defendants were charged under the Terrorism Act 2000, which was supposedly aimed at people who hoard detonators and combustible chemicals. Thus a court now considers DVDs to be as dangerous as Semtex; this says much about the way in which security laws are being used politically. Fortunately, these young men were released following a successful appeal in February 2008. We need to scrap laws that can lead to mistaken prosecutions like this. We certainly shouldn't be extending them.

To justify detention without trial, in 2001 the government claimed that we faced a national emergency, as a basis to claim exemption from the European Convention on Human Rights. When the Law Lords declared those powers illegal in 2004, the government soon got Parliament to authorise 'control orders', a form of house arrest which turns homes into prisons. These have resulted in collective punishment of families including children with restrictions on visits by friends and denial of use of the Internet. The government is now proposing confiscating homes of convicted terrorist thereby punishing family members who usually have little knowledge of any actions planned by the convicted person.

All these 'anti-terror' powers amount to punishment without trial. They are well suited for harassing, punishing and criminalising protests of all kinds. The authorities can readily create more 'terror suspects' and treat them as guilty, while promoting a politics of fear. Now ongoing terrorist threats are supposed to justify more severe powers than during the violent conflict in Northern Ireland.

The government's new proposals extend the injustice of measures already in force. Longer pre-charge detention periods, along with post-charge questioning, will further encourage arbitrary arrests and put psychological pressure on prisoners. Information 'which could be useful for terrorism' can mean nearly anything and would generally be linked with politics to justify prosecutions, as well as to harass activists. Restrictions could be imposed on travellers to international demonstrations.

Special 'anti-terror' powers needed only for political purposes, e.g. to stigmatise and persecute individuals as 'terror suspects'. Their aims are clearly demonstrated by special powers regarding mere suspicion or association with a vaguely defined 'terrorism'. The use of such powers is inherently unjust - and unnecessary to protect the public from violent threats. The ordinary criminal law would be adequate for that purpose.

Using terrorist threats as a pretext, the government tries to establish a permanent state of emergency. This trend towards a police state can be stopped only by us collectively reclaiming the rights that have been taken away from us.

We must deter the use of 'anti-terror' powers and dissuade Parliament from voting for their extension.

Oppose yet more 'anti-terror' powers!
No to a permanent state of emergency!

Briefing - the Counter Terrorism Bill 2008

The proposed new powers will extend the injustice of the current ones, again linked with the excessively broad definition of terrorism in the 2000 Act. The proposals would extend punishment without trial in several ways, not simply by extending pre-charge detention. In particular I oppose the following new powers, which would be inherently unjust:

  1. Detention without charge would be extended to 42 days.
    Neither the government nor the police have given credible grounds for why 42-day detention would be necessary. For anyone called a 'terror suspect', the current limit of 28 days already represents a drastic extension from before the Terrorism Act 2000. 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 violates the principle that citizens must be considered innocent until proven guilty. It amounts to internment in all but name, thus violating the principle of habeas corpus. This despotic practice puts detainees under enormous psychological pressure; it can be used to extract dubious 'information', thus justifying detention of yet more 'terror suspects'. Extension to 42 days would impose even greater punishment without trial.
  2. 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. Under the normal criminal law, people once charged can refuse to answer questions, without this being interpreted as a sign of guilt or deception. Under this new 'anti-terror' measure, detainees will be more readily pressurised to give or invent information. Officially, questions may be asked only about the specific charge, but police can find ways around this rule.
  3. 'Terrorist connection' warranting a heavier sentence
    Even where a conviction is obtained under the ordinary criminal law, an alleged 'terrorist connection' could be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing the defendant. Such an allegation could refer to the broad statutory definition of terrorism. A heavier sentence could be based on a political interpretation of the defendant's alleged activities or vague associations.
  4. Confiscation of property without fair trial
    Convicted 'terrorists' could have their property confiscated - such as bank accounts, vehicles, computers or even a house. This would be done through a special procedure - not a normal trial. It could involve secret evidence not revealed to the affected person. Any connections between the property and terrorism could be shown simply 'on the balance of probability'. Charities' funds could be confiscated in the same way.
  5. Extra punishment beyond the original sentence
    Convicted 'terrorists' could face a ban on foreign travel after release from jail, however minor their offence. This 'foreign travel order' would be imposed by a special order, not a trial. If placed on a 'terrorism offenders register', those convicted could also face a requirement to tell the police where they go whenever they sleep away from home - potentially for life. All these measures impose extra punishment beyond the original sentence -again without trial.
  6. New offences
    Under the 2001 terrorism law, it is already an offence not to tell police of suspected terrorist activities if you find anything suspicious in the course of your employment. The 2008 Bill extends this requirement to volunteer workers, for example in a youth project or charity. People might be over-suspicious and report imagined activities because they are afraid of being criminalised for concealment. They also might be deterred from volunteering in a charity that sends money abroad.The Bill would also make it an offence to seek or communicate information about the armed forces which could be useful to terrorism. This could apply to peace protestors simply telling each other, for example, what happens at which gates of a military base - on grounds that such information could assist activities that damage property.
  7. Systematic retention of DNA samples
    Under the government proposals, police could retain all DNA samples collected for any reason and could check them against other samples in the interests of 'national security', even where no crime is being investigated. This power aims to use and expand a National DNA Database by stealth. In this way, more and more people are effectively treated as suspects.
  8. Exception for UK-friendly state terrorism
    Current anti-terror laws already permit the UK authorities to prosecute defendants for acts committed abroad, but the government now proposes that such decisions must be approved by the Attorney General. This requirement helps to ensure that the definition of terrorism will be politically selective. The Attorney General could block a prosecution of terrorist activity supported by the UK government, e.g. a mercenary in Liberia or an intelligence agent in the Lebanon.
  9. Hiding evidence about police killings
    The bill would allow the government to hold some inquests in secret, without juries, if some evidence should not be made public in the interest of national security, international relations or any other public interest - in the government's view. Sensitive material, e.g. about how and why a person was killed by the police or army, would be hidden away; the killers would never be held properly to account.

More information