Liberty - Protecting civil liberties, promoting human rights

Liberty is deeply concerned that outlawing passionate speech and criminalizing non-violent political parties will make Britain less safe by silencing dissent.

Liberty’s Policy Director Gareth Crossman said:

“These new powers make us not only less free, we are also less safe when we drive dissent underground and alienate minorities. Swept up in this new anti-terror safety net could be those who protest against dictators like Zimbabwe’s Mugabe or North Korean dissidents.”

Liberty Press Office on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 383 1128

Notes to editors:

1) The provisions of the Terrorism Act 2006 which come into force on 13 April 2006 area) sections 1 to 22, together with Schedule 1;b) sections 26 to 36, together with Schedule 2;c) sections 37(1) to (4) and 38;d) sections 37(5) in so far as it relates to the entries in Schedule 3 brought into force by sub-paragraph (e) below; ande) all of the entries in Schedule 3 except those relating to paragraph 36(1) of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and section 306(2) and (3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Liberty’s concerns about the Terrorism Bill include:1) Proposals to create new offences of encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications are extremely broadly drafted. They do not require any intention to incite others to commit criminal acts.

The Terrorism Act 2000 (TA) and existing common law means there is already very broad criminal law. Instead, difficulty in bringing prosecutions can be largely attributed to other factors such as the self-imposed ban on the admissibility of intercept evidence.

Under the Act a person’s passionate expression might be interpreted as recklessness. Since the London bombings in July 2005 there has been considerable speculation in the press and elsewhere as to how comments made by Muslim clerics can be interpreted. For example, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, recently invited the cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi to speak in the UK. Much of the criticism he faced as a consequence centred on comments made by Mr al-Qaradawi. It is easy to see how these comments could be interpreted by some sections of the press as encouraging terrorism. For example The Sun referred to him as “A ranting Islamic rabble-rouser who supports suicide bombings by children and brutal punishment of gays.”

Concerns over criminalising opposition to Zimbabwe, North Korea or any other repressive regime are not mitigated by the redrafted Clause 1. It is the broad definition of Terrorism and the lack of any defence relating to opposition to non democratic regimes that are the key to criminalisation. If someone is calling for the end of the North Korean regime it is not particularly relevant whether they are negligent or reckless in the way they do so. Liberty believes that when speech offences are linked to terrorism, there should be a far tighter definition of what constitutes terrorism than that contained in the TA.

Under this clause, a North Korean who has advocated the overthrow of the regime while resident there, who then flees for his life might, if arriving in the UK as a refugee, be liable for prosecution.

2) Extension of the grounds for proscription under the TA will criminalise membership or support of non-violent political parties. Clause 21 allows for the extension of the grounds for proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. This will now cover non-violent organisations who ‘glorify’ terrorism. There are currently 25 organisations subject to proscription, including al-Qaeda, Hamas and many other groups associated with international terrorism.

3) Government plans to allow three month detentions without charge were defeated in the House of Commons on 9 November 2005. Liberty feared that the 90 day detention would have had a severe impact on community relations because minorities would be targeted for what is the equivalent of a six month custodial sentence – more than twenty times the pre charge detention time limit for murder. Liberty maintains that no extension of pre-charge detention can be justified without considering alternative measures.