Liberty - Protecting civil liberties, promoting human rights

Powers in the bill which may violate human rights protections include:
- A dangerously broad ‘encouragement of terrorism’ offence which does not require the intent to incite others to criminal acts. Although the Lords voted against “glorification of terrorism,” the remaining “encouragement” offence would still allow for a person to be prosecuted without having intended anyone to take action as a result.
- The criminalization of individual membership or support of a non-violent political party.Peers restricted the ability to ‘proscribe’ groups, but there is still the potential for non-violent political organisations to be classified with the likes of al-Qaeda.

Director of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti said: “’Encouragement’ is redundant for those who incite murder and dangerous for those who don’t. We should enforce the law that already exists before spinning new law.It is important to remember that this law may well outlive politicians who reassure us that certain political groups, such as North Korean dissidents, won’t fall foul of these new powers.”

This afternoon Parliament will also determine if the control order regime created by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 is to be renewed. Liberty believes that control orders undermine the central pillars of the British legal system: protection against unlawful detention, the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. Control orders enable Ministers to impose restrictions on individual freedom (including tagging and curfews) but Liberty suggests that criminal prosecutions are preferable.

Liberty Press Office on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 383 1128

Notes to editors: 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.