No to the New Counter-Terrorism Bill! Repeal All "Anti-Terrorism" Legislation!

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

No to the New Counter-Terrorism Bill! Repeal All "Anti-Terrorism" Legislation!

Why Does the Government Need a "Terrorism Bill"?

The Conviction of Samina Malik: An Attack on the Right to Conscience

For Your Reference:
The Law on Charge
Control Orders and Detention without Charge

On January 24, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith unveiled the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008. The publishing of this Bill marks the introduction of the sixth piece of draconian "anti-terror" legislation since 2000. Included in this most recent legislation is the granting to the Home Secretary of the power, without any necessity to receive the approval of Parliament, to order the detention of a suspect ("persons reasonably suspected to be a terrorist") for 42 days without any charge being brought. It appears that this period itself may subsequently be extended by periods of seven days (up to 60 days). Of course, the "suspect" may then be charged with "terrorism offences", and the Home Secretary is given the power to amend a list of these "offences", and these already include "conspiracy", "incitement" and so on. These measures are a further attack on people’s rights and civil liberties, and contribute to further dragging society back to a system of medieval justice when ordinary people are subject to arbitrary fiat, and held prisoner against all human principle and conscience.

In 2000, the Terrorism Act was introduced (see the following WDIE article from the time of the introduction of the 2000 Terrorism Bill). The subsequent Acts have had the 2000 Act as their reference point and have built on its provisions. It should be noted that this Act predates 9/11 which supposedly initiated the Anglo-US "war on terror". It demonstrates that the ruling elite began the 21st century by making "terrorism" the issue, and that when on September 11, 2001, Tony Blair declared that "mass terrorism" had become the main enemy of western civilisation, this was already a well worked-out line. This so-called "anti-terrorism" legislation and the pretext of the threat of terror has become one of the main weapons in the state’s arsenal to quell and criminalise the people’s resistance to injustice and attempt to split the people’s struggles.

In this raft of "anti-terrorism" laws, terrorism has been defined not only as the use of force, as was the government’s former definition, for political ends, but has been widened beyond all recognition, so that the Acts illegalise acts of "glorifying terrorism" and such like, including for ideological and other aims. As for the pre-charge period of detention, Section 41 of the 2000 Terrorism Act allowed police to detain a person without charge for up to 48 hours. This period could be extended to 7 days, with the permission of a judge. Section 44 of the Act provided the police and Home Secretary with the power to define any area or time period where the police could stop and search for items that could be used for terrorism. This laid the foundation for a huge attack on civil liberties. Up to 2005, 750 people had been arrested under the legislation with only 22 convictions. After 9/11, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 extended the detention without charge period to 14 days, and the Terrorism Act 2006 raised it to 28 days. Tony Blair’s attempt to extend it to 90 days was famously defeated.

Many arrested under this legislation, as well as civil liberties campaigners, have seen that every time people resist these anti-human laws, then the government puts the legislation under more scrutiny and passes one more Act to screw down the level of repression still further. As one man arrested under the "anti-terror" legislation said, "Once the status quo is there the legislation is very easy to use. In other words, they put in certain ‘safeguards’ to appear to be protecting civil liberties, such as having to get the permission of Parliament, to extend the pre-charge detention to sixty days, and so once this becomes accepted it is easy for the authorities to extend the amount of time they can detain someone."

Now most people who have been convicted under the laws are caught under the provisions relating to preparation, or instigation. This can mean that having a book that is considered to be "terrorist" literature, such as an encyclopaedia of Afghanistan, is deemed to be an offence under the legislation. The case of Samina Malik was one such case where she was convicted under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 of "possessing records likely to be useful in terrorism".

This indicates that acts of terror are not the main issue, as the government keeps insisting. The bottom line is the state’s conception that to qualify for recognition of their human rights, people are having to conform to the government’s definition of "our way of life" and espouse their definition of "British values". The Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008 is being introduced in the context of stepped up resistance to arbitrary state authority and impunity, and would legalise methods and extend the scope of control and state intervention in the lives of the target population. It will be used to zero in on the Muslim community as the "enemy within"; and with the co-operation of the media seek to further demonise this part of the British working class, which includes foreign nationals.

The Bill includes measures to list released "suspect terrorists" who will have to keep in touch with the police, which are part of stricter monitoring arrangements. It also ensures that full use of DNA can be made in "terrorism investigations" without having to charge the person. This adds to the long list of "security measures" that the New Labour government aims to convince the people are in their best interests. The issue is presented as one of striking a balance between "security" and civil liberties, whereas the people desire both security, which comes from their own struggle in defence of the rights of all, and to have their rights guaranteed. Pitting these against each other as though on opposite sides of a seesaw makes no sense and shows an ulterior motive in removing civil liberties.

The Bill is yet another way to codify the practices of an inhuman and medieval authority, which the 2008 Bill would grant the power to hold a person for up to 60 days without charging them and without any suggestion of a fair trial. Locking anyone up without charge is against basic human rights and means that the rule of law is thrown out of the window. Holding someone for one day without charge is inhumane, but it can be said that 60 days will not be the limit, as the history of continual extensions shows. The authorities will find the means to detain someone for a further period of time by holding them, for instance, on the basis of another "investigation".

This is not to mention the many foreign nationals detained without charge or trial for up to seven years, based on "secret evidence" with the use of control orders that are keeping people locked in hospitals or tiny flats, with a humiliating tag on their leg, and only certain visitors allowed to call. The Law Lords ruled this unlawful in 2004, as defying the European Convention on Human Rights, as enacted into British law in the Human Rights Act. This shows that the government is determined to strengthen the hand of the state and impose their dictate. It highlights the utilisation of an unwritten constitution that does not vest sovereignty in the people and stands against their struggles. This is one factor in the arbitrary authority of the state in its clash with the people and their resistance.

This Bill and the other pieces of "anti-terrorism" legislation before it are an attack on all, even though in their implementation they single out definite sections of the people. The working class and people must oppose all the attempts to split and divide their ranks. In opposing the 2008 Bill and calling for a repeal of all the "Anti-Terrorism" legislation, and fighting to uphold a modern conception of the rule of law, the working class and people seek to defend the rights of all. There is a strong movement to condemn and end the illegal detention of those unjustly caught by the provision of this legislation, and it is a movement that fights against this latest appalling Bill with the realisation that an injury to one is an injury to all. These are the aims and ideals of the movement which are being held high, and this movement must unite with all other movements for progress and change.

WDIE calls on all democratic people to condemn and oppose the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Bill and demand the repeal of all the "anti-terrorism" legislation. Free all those held under the "anti-terror" laws!

Take a Bold Step Together in Defence of the Rights of All!

Workers’ Daily Internet Edition, Year 2000 No. 4, January 13, 2000

The raft of "law and order" legislation outlined by the government for this parliament includes a "Terrorism Bill". It was introduced into the House of Commons on December 2 and received its Second Reading on December 14.

The question arises, why does the government need to enact a Terrorism Bill? What is its objective?

The Acts which the Terrorism Bill is intended to replace were of a temporary nature. The Prevention of Terrorism Act was rushed through the House of Commons in November 1974 after the Birmingham bombing, and had to be renewed annually. In 1989 it was re-enacted, again to be annually reviewed, but casting its net wider. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 was due to lapse in August this year. The previous "Terrorism" Act, the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act of 1998, was another Act rushed through parliament, this time in response to the Omagh bombing, and this again had to be renewed annually.

All of these Acts had been widely condemned as fundamental assaults on people’s rights to justice. The 1998 Act in particular had been described as the most draconian piece of legislation passed by a British government since the second world war. For example, it gave the courts powers to convict those who are deemed to be members of an organisation which is defined to be proscribed by decree of a government minister, allowing for the seizure of finances and property, and giving the courts powers to convict persons for what was termed "conspiracy" to commit offences outside the United Kingdom. In fact, this last section of this Act will remain unrepealed.

However, what is presently notable is that now the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Executive are operating, when the Peace Process has advanced so far, the government is not only not consigning the provisions of the previous Acts to history, but is making them permanent and extending them. The new Terrorism Act is to specifically cover "domestic terrorism" as well as "international terrorism".

It is not for nothing that the government is introducing such a Bill. Could it be that the government is intending to create such a climate of anarchy and chaos where such legislation is waiting to label "terrorist" and criminalise political activity? Is it intending to provoke acts of terrorism and then use the legislation to outlaw legitimate political organisations? In any event, once the legislation is passed, the police and courts will possess extraordinary powers against anyone that they declare is even "suspected" of being connected with "terrorism" or with the proscribed organisations. Jack Straw may say, also, when accused of wanting to outlaw political protests, that the laws would only be used in situations where "demonstrations turned ugly", but if the state itself is intent on turning them ugly, it will be the people who are opposing the anti-social offensive who will pay the price. Furthermore, if the government was engaged in the solving the problems of society, the people would support the government. But the crises in society are intensifying and far from solving the problems the government is engaged in making political issues into law-and-order issues.

As society retrogresses, as everyone is supposed to pull together behind their employers, the government wishes to make any opposition the target of repressive legislation. Historical experience also shows that communist parties and organisations themselves become a prime target of the state as the capitalist crisis intensifies and social democracy is unable to keep the struggles of the working people in check.

The enactment of the Terrorism Bill, in common with the government’s related law-and-order legislation, would be a very dangerous development for the working class and people.

Samina Malik was convicted in November 2007 of thought crime: thinking or writing unacceptable things under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Although accused of collecting articles "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism", Malik states that her poems which she posted on the internet were "meaningless" and she called herself the Lyrical Terrorist, she said, because it sounded cool. It did not mean she was actually a terrorist or wanted to be one, she said. She told the court: "It’s only a user name. You have taken it too literally and out of context. It was only because it was cool name. It doesn’t mean I’m a terrorist."

Malik told the court that she started writing love poetry at Villiers High School in Southall. In early 2002, using the name Lyrical Babe she said she began writing rap poems about guns and violence in the style of Tupac Shakur and 50 Cent. At the same time, her interest in Islam began to grow and she started wearing the hijab. It was then that Malik changed her online name to the Lyrical Terrorist.

The government are creating the illusion of a balance that must be stuck between security and liberty. Eroding civil liberties is done in the name of a safer Britain with all the values and so called morals of a modern-day Third Reich which seem to preach what is wholesome and human, but are in fact the opposite. In these times, it could be anyone who is targeted in this way. People may have records of music that is against the "war on terror", or which has a title with "terrorist" in it.

The conviction of Samina Malik is an attack on the right to conscience. The working class and people must not allow these attacks on any individual on the basis that an attack on one is an attack on everyone, and must defend the rights of all.

From the Liberty Report "Terrorism Pre-Charge Detention – Comparative Law Study", November 2007

In outline, "charge" is the point between arrest and criminal trial when the prosecuting authority formally advises the suspect that s/he is to be prosecuted and gives him/her the particulars of the criminal allegations s/he will face.

Detention at the police station prior to charge:

A suspect may only be detained at the police station without being charged if the police have reason to believe that this is necessary: (a) to secure or preserve relevant evidence; or (b) to obtain such evidence by questioning him/her.135 This is the stage at which the suspect is usually questioned by the police.

In general a person cannot be detained for more than 24 hours without being charged.136 A senior police officer may, however, authorise the suspect’s continued detention without charge for up to a further 12 hours if s/he has reason to believe that this is still necessary to preserve or obtain relevant evidence and the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously.137 A judicial warrant is required to continue to hold the suspect without charge for longer than 36 hours. In most cases a judicial warrant can only authorise a person to be detained for up to a total of 96 hours138 but in terrorism cases the maximum is a total of 28 days.139 The court may only issue a warrant if it is satisfied that (i) detention without charge is necessary to preserve relevant evidence or to obtain evidence by questioning the suspect and (ii) that the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously.140 In general the suspect has the right to attend the hearings for warrants of detention and has the right to make representation.

Charge:

The police are under a continuing obligation to determine whether there is enough evidence to charge a person in detention.141 If they decide they have enough evidence (i.e. sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of the detainee’s conviction) they must pass the evidence to the state’s prosecution service (the CPS).142 The CPS then makes its own assessment of the evidence, decides whether it is in the public interest to charge the person and determines the most appropriate offence with which to charge the suspect. When a detainee is charged with an offence s/he must be given a written notice showing particulars of the specific offence(s) with which s/he is charged and including the name of the officer in the case. So far as is possible, the charge must be stated in simple terms and must show the precise offence in law with which the detainee is charged. The notice must begin: "you are charged with the offence(s) shown below". A record must be made of anything a detained person says when charged.

After-Charge:

A person must be released from custody after s/he has been charged unless, inter alia, the officer has reason to believe that continued detention is necessary:

(a) to prevent him/her from committing an offence;
(b) to prevent him/her from interfering with the administration of justice or with the investigation of offences or of a particular offence; or
(c) for his/her own protection.143

If a person is not released from custody after charge s/he must be taken to court as soon as possible.144 At the initial hearing the court sends the case to trial (in terrorism cases will also involve committing the case to the Crown Court) and decides whether to remand the defendant in custody (i.e. keep them in detention pending the trial) or release the defendant on bail (with or without conditions).145 In terrorism cases it would not be unusual for a person to be detained for the entire period between charge and the conclusion of the trial.

The need to obtain more evidence, for example by questioning the suspect, is not a valid reason for detention post-charge. Indeed suspects are not in general interviewed by the police after charge.146 Nevertheless, the police can and do continue to gather evidence between charge and trial. During this period prosecution and defence lawyers prepare for the trial.

135 Section 37(2) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)

136 Section 41(7) PACE

137 Section 42 PACE

138 Section 44 PACE

139 Schedule 8 PACE

140 Section 43 PACE

141 Section 37 PACE

142 The Crown Prosecution Service

143 Section 38 PACE

144 Section 46 PACE

145 Section 50(3) Crime and Disorder Act 1998

146 Code C: Code of Practice for the Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Officers, para 16.5. There are limited exceptions i.e. where necessary for the purpose of preventing or minimising harm or loss to some other person or to the public, for clearing up an ambiguity in a previous answer or statement; or where it is in the interests of justice that the detainee should have put to him, and have an opportunity to comment on, information concerning the offence which has come to light since he was charged.

Control Orders

Control orders enable the Home Secretary to impose an unlimited range of restrictions on any person he suspects of involvement in terrorism.

They were created by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, in response to the House of Lord’s ruling against the detention powers in Part IV of the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001.

The restrictions imposed by control orders amount to house arrest. They include controls on who a person can meet with or speak to; as well restrictions on when a person can leave their house and where they can go.

They have undermined the rights and freedoms of not only the men subject to them but also their families.

Control orders undermine the presumption of innocence – allowing Ministers to punish someone without requiring them to prove that they have committed any crime.

They undermine the separation of powers and the right to a fair trial – the decision to impose a control order is made by the Home Secretary and is based on secret evidence which the individual concerned is unable to see and powerless to dispute.

Detention without Charge

The Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 was rushed through parliament after the 9/11 attacks in the USA.

Part IV of the Act allowed for the detention, without charge or trial, of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism.

For three years, a group of men were detained in high security prisons and mental health institutions without knowing the suspicions that kept them there.

They were appointed special security-cleared lawyers that had access to the information held about them, but not to the men themselves.

They were allowed their own lawyers, but these lawyers were not allowed to see the material about their clients.

This Kafka-esque situation was brought to an end after the Law Lords condemned the use of part IV in their judgment in December 2004.

The Government's response was the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. When this was passed, the detained men were issued with control orders.

(source: Liberty)