UK’s anti-terror Laws
By Fauzia Qureshi

WITH the recent bombings in London, the British Parliament is to meet this year to pass a new Terrorism Act. It is learnt that this new piece of legislation is being pushed by the British police.

This Act is supposed to give more powers to the British police especially of withholding suspects without charge. The Act is also to create new offences like incitement to terrorism and giving or receiving terror training.

Will this new Act be passed? Is it not contrary to Human Rights Act? Does this Act curtain civil liberties especially of the minorities living in Britain?

It is learnt that in September this year the Parliament may be recalled to pass yet another Terrorism Act. In 2000, the Labour Government enacted a new permanent Terrorism Act which produced a new much wider definition of terrorism.

This definition included the threat of damage to property as well as a threat to life if it is designed to influence the government or intimidate the public for the purpose of advancing an ideological cause.

Significantly, the Act specifically provided that the definition extended to ‘action outside the UK.’ In response to September 11, in 2001, subsequently another Act was rushed in-the Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act(ATCSA)- allowing foreign nationals to be detained indefinitely without trial.

Fortunately, the House of Lords declared this act contrary to the Human Rights Act. The Parliament rushed in with another act in March, known as the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 substituting control orders for indefinite detention under which both British and foreign nationals could be severely restricted in their movements, subjected to a form of arrest and forced to wear electronic tags( how very civilized).

These powers expire in March 2006 unless of course renewed before then. What is proposed in the fourth Terrorism Act is the creation of new offences of Acts preparatory to terrorism and giving or receiving terror training. Other measures discussed include an increase in the amount of time that suspected terrorists can be held without charge.

The proposed new offence of Acts preparatory to terrorism have been strongly pushed by the British police. If the intention behind the new offence may be an attempt to convict people on the basis of association with others without evidence of knowledge or intention then, this is likely to result in innocent people in the foreign community fearing to report their suspicions. This Act also proposes to create new offence of incitement to terrorism.

A new offence of giving or receiving terror training is also being proposed. As there are no visible training camps in UK, will this new offence be used to justify increased surveillance of other minorities? Already Section 7 of ATCSA gives powers to police to pull people off flights without compensation and compel them to answer questions about their destination.

What is worrisome is the recent proposal by the police to increase the time terrorism suspects can be held without charge. The current limit of 14 days is already sufficient why increase it to three months? The police justify this by saying that they need longer to examine computers seized. Is this the right way to deal with the so-called ‘terrorism threat’?

Just because terrorism is now defined in UK law as actions abroad, will all those who support liberation movements in, Kashmir or Chechnya be denied freedom of expression? Are all freedom fighters to be listed as ‘terrorists’? Are States which are engaged in unlawful wars, not included in the definition of terrorism?

Mr Blair is surely using the recent London bombings as an excuse to further deplete the rights of his people along with those of others, as his master (President Bush) has done in America.

Their goal is not security, but greater control. Tony Blair already has the right since 2003 to remove British nationality from dual-nationality foreigners deemed to represent a threat to the country. Terrorism is already illegal then why is there a need to pass additional law?

Mind you threats to kill and incitement to murder are already offences. Even if new anti-terrorist laws are needed, why were they not done long ago? Does this mean now that in order to pass the new terrorism law the Human Rights Law would be repealed?

What the UK Government needs to understand is that repressive, unfair laws are likely to increase the risk of terrorism not curb them. Why isn’t Mr Blair ready to review his foreign policy towards the issues that evoke such strong reactions from others? Why is Mr Blair listening to the advice he likes to hear and ignoring the rest?

Tony Ben, father of the British Parliament, said a couple of years back on BBC, “ Tony Blair has turned Great Britain to a mere satellite State of America. England is no longer a free and fair State. Its independence is gone, sovereignty is lost.”

Who can deny that Britain contributed proportionately more to the invasion of Iraq than did the US( a third of the total military force compared to a tenth of the Pentagon’s).

It is the need of the hour that Mr Blair should wake up to the new post-July world in which he would have to do far more to integrate his people along with different minorities living in. The common values for the Europeans and other minorities are the individual human rights.

These human rights must be upheld at all costs. Mr Blair mustn’t make the error that emphasises confrontation and alienation rather than integration. Tough legislation and security measures alone are inadequate — just foreign policy and integration through dialogue is the key to the security of the world.●

© 2005 Fauzia Qureshi