Hope for concessions in Anti-Terror Laws
Statewatcher | 06.12.2001 08:17
A victory for civil society on the EU definition of terrorism?
from Statewatch 5th Dec 2001
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2001/dec/05terdef.htm
from Statewatch 5th Dec 2001
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2001/dec/05terdef.htm
There some signs that the strong concerns raised by civil society groups over the proposed EU definition of terrorism is having some effect on the original proposal put forward by the Commission which clearly extended the definition of terrorism to include protests and other democratic activities. At the 16 November meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council it was agreed that a Declaration should be added to the Framework Decision which reads:
"The Council declares that the framework decision on the fight against terrorism covers acts which are considered by all Member States of the European Union as serious infringements of their criminal laws committed by individuals whose objectives constitute a threat to their democratic societies respecting the rule of law and the civilisation upon which these societies are founded. It has to be understood in this sense and cannot be construed so as to argue that the conduct of those who have acted in the interest of preserving or restoring these democratic values, as was notably the case in some Member States during the Second World War, could now be considered as "terrorist" acts. Nor can it be construed so as to incriminate on terrorist grounds persons exercising their legitimate right to manifest their opinions, even if in the course of the exercise of such right they commit offences." (12647/4/01, 19.11.01)
A Declaration, if agreed, has no legal force and is simply a political statement so the wording of actual text adopted will need to be examined with care, especially as the majority of governments want a wide definition.
The European Parliament too took moves to try and clarify the purpose and intent of the proposed Framework Decision. The draft report to the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights was silent on the scope of the measure. However, the adopted report changes the crucial Article 3.1 on the scope of the Decision, where the Commission proposed Article 3, paragraph 1 read:
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the following offences, defined according to its national law, which are intentionally committed by an individual or a group against one or more countries, their institutions or people with the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic, or social structures of a country, will be punishable as terrorist offences
The parliament report reads:
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the following offences, defined according to its national law, which are intentionally committed by an individual or a group against one or more countries, their institutions or people with the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying the fundamental freedoms, democracy, respect for human rights, civil liberties and rule of law on which our societies are based will be punishable as terrorist offences
On this measure the European Parliament is only "consulted" under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, the final decision rests with the Council.
At the plenary session of the European Parliament, on 29 November, Mr Vittorino, the Commissioner for justice and home affairs, is reported as saying that protests would not be covered, "The Council and the Commission agreed this from the very outset", he said. This statement is hard to reconcile with the text of the Commission's proposal, its reference to "urban violence" and the Commission's website which refers to dealing with "radicals using violence".
Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, commented:
"It would appear that the detailed critiques from across civil society has made some in the Commission, the European Parliament and in the Council to think again about extending terrorism to include democratic dissent. The text of the Decision is crucial.
Now the Council has to withdraw the proposals to place protestors under surveillance, to police future demonstrations with national para-military police units, to create an EU-wide database on "suspected" protestors and all the proposed measures and operational cooperation which have nothing to do with combating terrorism"
Full-text of European Commission proposal: Text (pdf)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2001/sep/terrorism.pdf For full background see: Statewatch "Observatory" in defence of freedom and democracy
http://www.statewatch.org/observatory2.htm
Statewatcher
Comments
Hide the following comment
And UK specific laws....
06.12.2001 09:05
------------------------------
Wednesday, 5 December, 2001, 22:00 GMT
Anti-terror plans 'face defeat'
Fears have been raised about police powers
The government faces defeat over key parts of its anti-terror legislation, opposition peers in the House of Lords have predicted.
Conservative peers inflicted the government's first parliamentary defeat since the general election on part of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill last week.
The government should be in no doubt that, if need be, we are ready to fight for the right balance
Lord Strathclyde
Tory Lords leader
Now the Tories plan to work together with the Liberal Democrats to cause more problems for ministers as the bill goes into its report stage in the Lords.
A sign of the looming trouble for the government, which wants the bill on the statute book by Christmas, came late on Tuesday night when the Commons went into secret session for the first time since 1958.
The procedural move - which saw the chamber cleared of public, media and even the Hansard reporters who record proceedings - was forced by the Liberal Democrats.
Failure not the aim
Their aim was to protest at the timetabling of the bill imposed by the government, which Lib Dem and Tory MPs have described as "monstrous" and "tawdry".
Neither the Conservatives nor the Lib Dems say they want the bill to fail but both parties agree on the need to rewrite sections of the anti-terror plans.
Conservative Lords leader Lord Strathclyde said the next week would decide whether the legislation provided what the country wanted.
The result could be a tough anti-terror bill "focused on the powers needed to deter and defeat terrorism".
Consenus call
The alternative was a bill "put to Parliament by the government, which goes far beyond anti-terrorist measures and encroaches on ancient freedoms of British people".
The Tory peer went on: "We want a sensible, balanced effective measure, built on consensus and built to deliver justice and to protect justice."
Key areas where the opposition parties want the government to make concessions include:
Plans to create a new offence of religious hatred.
Disclosure of information about suspected terrorists.
A suspect's right to judicial review where their face detention without trial or deportation.
The so-called "Third Pillar", where ministers can create new criminal offences through agreements with other countries without primary legislation.
What the Tories say are "excessive powers to eavesdrop" on people's e-mails.
Both the disclosure and judicial review issues are expected to be particular flashpoints when the Lords begins its report stage consideration of the bill on Thursday.
Both opposition parties also want all the new anti-terror laws to be subject to a "sunset clause", forcing it to be renewed by Parliament after a fixed time.
Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes, the party's chief home affairs spokesman, said it was clear both Houses of Parliament were "extremely unhappy" with the legislation.
He warned: "The more the government insists on unreasonable timetables, the fewer the concessions they can expect from the opposition."
Voting intention
His party colleague in the upper house, Lord McNally, echoed that note of caution.
"Liberal Democrat peers now intend to vote to remove the non-emergency or excessive powers contained in the bill."
Home Office Minister Lord Rooker, who is steering the bill through the Lords, has argued the plans are a proportionate response to the terror attacks.
But Lord Rooker has hinted the government might be prepared to make some concessions to get the new laws in force quickly.
See also:
29 Nov 01 | UK Politics
Anti-terror plans suffer first defeat
29 Nov 01 | UK Politics
Head-to-head: Anti-terror Laws
26 Nov 01 | UK Politics
Religious hatred law survives
22 Nov 01 | UK Politics
Labour MPs rebel on terror bill
13 Nov 01 | UK Politics
Ministers defend terror crackdown
13 Nov 01 | UK Politics
Terror laws at-a-glance
06 Dec 01 | South Asia
Rumsfeld warns of 'messy' war
05 Dec 01 | UK Politics
EU wide arrest warrants imminent
--------------------------------
Wednesday, 5 December, 2001, 18:44 GMT
Colleagues 'attacked' me, says MP
A Labour MP who is opposed to military action in Afghanistan has said colleagues verbally and physically "attacked" him because he opposed government legislation.
The alleged intimidation came during a debate on the wide-ranging Anti-Terrorism Bill, Shrewsbury and Atcham member Paul Marsden said.
--------------------------------
Peers unite in bid to force changes to anti-terror bill
Patrick Wintour, chief political correspondent
Thursday December 6, 2001 The Guardian
Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers yesterday announced joint plans to gut the government's emergency anti-terrorism bill by inflicting six large scale defeats on the government, starting today.
The strategy has been agreed between the two frontbenches over the past week - but plans for an unprecedented joint press conference were blocked by Tory officials.
The stage now looks set for a confrontation between peers and MPs that could shape constitutional relations between the two houses for the rest of the parliament.
If the government does suffer a string of defeats today, and again early next week, the home secretary, David Blunkett, plans to ask MPs to reject the amendments with the aim that the bill should complete all its stages by next Thursday.
The opposition parties, using a rare parliamentary ploy, kept the Commons sitting until just before 2am yesterday to block the government's timetable.
Opposition peers plan to defeat the government today on two central planks of the bill.
The first set of joint amendments will limit the part of the bill relating to disclosure of personal financial and tax information, applying it only to people genuinely suspected of terrorism.
The bill currently allows for as many as 60 public authorities to disclose information to police that might be relevant to an unlimited range of criminal investigations in Britain or abroad. The information, disclosable at the earliest stage of an investigation, includes the timing and destination of emails and phone calls, but not the content. The Liberal Democrat Lord Phillips has claimed that the bill extended these disclosure rights even to private prosecutions.
The director of the civil rights pressure group Liberty, John Wadham, said yesterday that the sweeping new disclosure powers should at least be shelved until the government published a long-delayed Cabinet Office review of government data sharing and privacy. The bill, he said, completely pre-empted the review.
The parliamentary joint human rights committee yesterday joined the criticism, saying: "There remains a significant risk that disclosures will violate the right to respect for private life under article eight of the European convention, because of the range of offences covered, and the lack of statutory criteria to guide decisions."
The information commissioner, Elizabeth France, has also said that the bill's powers requiring retention of data may breach the Human Rights Act.
Peers are also expected to vote today to restore a right to judicial review over the new Home Office powers to detain or deport anyone suspected of assisting terrorist groups.
The joint human rights committee warned that the bill allowed for someone to be detained indefinitely, even if there was new evidence that reasonable grounds for detention no longer existed.
The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Lord McNally, insisted that peers were within their democratic rights to block those parts of the bill that had nothing to do with terrorism, or infringed basic freedoms.
"This House [of Lords], with its powers of scrutiny and delay, was created by parliament two years ago with certain powers," he said. "Even David Blunkett signed up to those powers."
On Monday next week, the Tories and Liberal Democrats also plan to throw out clauses introducing an offence of incitement to religious hatred. They will also impose strict new "sunset clauses" requiring the detention powers to be renewed through full fresh legislation within a year. Mr Blunkett has offered to resubmit the bill once every five years.
On Tuesday, peers will demand that any anti-terror legislation coming from the EU and submitted after next March cannot be passed by means of secondary legislation, but must be subject to full debate.
--------------------------------
Independent 06 December 2001
Parties unite for second Lords defeat on Blunkett's terror Bill
Terrorism
By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent
Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will unite to inflict the most serious clash between peers and MPs since the election, opposition leaders said. Both parties said they would vote down sections of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill to force concessions from David Blunkett, the Home Secretary.
Senior Home Office sources said the Government would not offer fresh concessions and they still hoped "to win round some peers". But Tory and Liberal Democrat leaders said they would not allow the Bill to pass without substantial changes to limit the Government's power and safeguard civil liberties.
They demanded giving the right of judicial review to foreign terrorist suspects held without trial and introducing a package of "sunset clauses" to force the Government to bring the legislation back to the Commons for approval after one or two years. Opposition peers also want to scrap proposals to allow European anti-terror laws to be incorporated into British legislation without debate, to remove new laws against inciting religious hatred and to impose curbs on powers to hold financial information on suspects. Last week the Lords forced an amendment.
Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers hope to vote down the Government when the Lords debates the Bill's report stage today. Further defeats are expected during the Bill's third reading next week.
Ministers want to put the Bill on the statute books by Christmas, but that could be in jeopardy if it "ping-pongs" between the Commons and the Lords as the Government attempts to overturn peers' amendments.
Lord Strathclyde, Conservative leader in the Lords, said the party was seeking consensus, but insisted it would not allow the Bill to become law as it stood. "This is the first serious clash between the Lords and the Government this session. I expect a statesmanlike response from the Home Secretary. But the Government should be in no doubt that, if need be, we are ready to fight for the right balance in this Bill.
"None of these requests is unreasonable. None strikes at the purpose or effectiveness of the Bill. All are aimed to find the right balance between the needs of security and protection of freedom that is the historic role of Parliament."
--------------------------------
Telegraph
Yesterday in Parliament
(Filed: 06/12/2001)
Michael Kallenbach, Parliamentary Correspondent, reports on the debates at Westminster
A ROW about the Government's anti-terrorism Bill early yesterday led to the House of Commons sitting in secret for the first time in more than 40 years.
Members of the public and the press were excluded from the chamber not because MPs were discussing anything particularly confidential, but because members of the opposition had used a procedural "trick" in order to disrupt business.
The initiative came from Paul Tyler, a Liberal Democrat, who successfully called for a vote on "That the House sit in private".
Until recently this was known as the "I spy strangers" procedure.
MPs use it to call for a vote on clearing the public gallery and, although this normally fails, the division can hold up proceedings.
Early yesterday, in a debate that started on Monday night, Mr Tyler called for a vote on this and won.
It was the first time the procedure had been used successfully in Parliament since 1958.
At that time, the Commons was debating a motion to set a time limit for the anti-terrorism Bill to become law. The Tories and the Liberal Democrats objected.
Mr Tyler decided to act because he believed that the Labour whips were about to wind up the debate, which was contrary to an agreement that they had given earlier to let it run on for as long as MPs wanted.
He managed to win the vote because all of the Labour whips were out of the chamber when he stood up to move the motion.
As normally happens at the start of a division, the acting Speaker took the vote by acclamation.
She asked MPs to shout aye if they agreed. Normally MPs who are opposed shout no, and then the Speaker orders a proper vote in order to settle the matter.
But yesterday, after the opposition MPs shouted aye, Labour backbenchers were silent because they did not know what to do. The motion was carried.
For the next hour the Commons sat in secret. Hansard, the official record of Parliament, does not record what was said.
Following Mr Tyler's procedural victory, the motion to set a deadline for the anti-terrorism Bill debates had to be dealt with again yesterday afternoon. Andrew Sparrow, Political Correspondent
--------------------------------
Times Letters:
THURSDAY DECEMBER 06 2001
Questioning need for anti-terror law
FROM MR PETER WILLDRIDGE
Sir, The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill proposes fundamental losses to our freedoms in this country, such as habeas corpus (letters, December 3, etc), and is justified by the threat from international terrorists who could launch chemical biological, radiological or nuclear attacks on our civil population.
However, strangely enough, at the same time ministers are reassuring the public that there is no credible threat. The Prime Minister at Question Time in Parliament on November 28 dismissed any increase in the terrorist threat to our nuclear reprocessing convoys. At the same time, there is no public warning or guidance on government websites on what to do in the event of such terrorist attacks.
There is either a significant threat or there is not. If there is then the Anti- Terrorism Bill is justified and the sooner it is in the better. If there is not then the Bill is not needed and our ancient and hard-earned liberties should remain.
Yours faithfully,
PETER WILLDRIDGE
(County Emergency Planning Officer),
Buckinghamshire County Council,
--------------------------------
Peers attack plan to 'rubber-stamp' laws
Anti-terror bill
By Ben Russell Political Correspondent
04 December 2001 Independent
A Foreign Office minister said that the Government would reflect on a controversial proposal to allow European anti-crime measures to be passed into British law without debate after bitter opposition from peers.
But Baroness Symons told peers she could not withdraw the proposal after angry protests during a debate on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.
Liberal Democrat and Conservative peers attacked the proposals during clause-by-clause debate on the Bill, saying it would stifle Parliament by allowing laws to be passed as regulations without requiring full legislation in the UK.
Lord Condon, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, added his voice to the opposition, telling peers: "I would find it difficult to persuade colleagues and members of the public that clause 110 as currently defined will take forward the fight against terrorism. I hope the noble Lord will reconsider."
Lord Wallace of Saltaire, a Liberal Democrat frontbench spokesman, sought to change the Bill, saying Parliament would not stand for legislation by stealth. He said: "Legislation which clearly short-circuits democratic debate and scrutiny is most inappropriate at a time when we are defending freedom and democracy from terrorism."
Objections emerged during detailed discussion of the Bill during its committee stage in the Lords.
Liberal Democrats withdrew an amendment, but the Bill could run into trouble when peers vote on amendments during its report stage, which starts on Thursday.
--------------------------------
Who EU Calling a Terrorist?
By Jeffrey Benner - Wired News
3:30 p.m. Dec. 3, 2001 PST
European lawyers have denounced a European Union proposal to establish a definition of terrorism so broad that it could include workers' strikes or protests against globalization.
More than 200 lawyers from nearly every country in the European Union (EU) have signed an appeal urging European Parliament and EU governments to reject a broad definition of terrorism.
"This antiterrorist legislation once imposed will become a real war machine against fundamental democratic rights," the appeal warned, "and against those who come up against a political and social system with its basis in economics, a system increasingly global and unjust."
Supporters held a press conference on the issue in Brussels on Monday in an effort to raise awareness of the issue.
The European legislation in question is a proposal on combating terrorism that the EU Council of Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs is scheduled to discuss later this week.
The proposal defines terrorism as, "offenses intentionally committed by an individual or a group against one or more countries, their institutions or people, with the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic, or social structures of a country."
If endorsed, EU member states will be obligated to incorporate the definition into their own laws. Six member countries already have special anti-terror laws, and critics fear the EU proposal could dramatically expand their application under the proposed definition.
Jan Fermon, a lawyer from Brussels who helped draft the appeal, is concerned that the EU is using the Sept. 11 attack as an excuse to pass proposals designed to quash political dissent under the guise of counter-terrorism.
"Most of these proposals have no relation to terrorism," Fermon said, "but the EU is now using 9-11 to get them passed without criticism.
"The main concern is that the definition is so broad that it includes all kinds of lawful protest. Trade union activity, anti-globalization protest, all of it can be criminalized under the legislation."
As a matter that relates to domestic security, the proposal -- called a "framework decision" -- does not require approval from the European Parliament.
The concern in Europe mirrors developments in the U.S., where civil liberties groups are worried about an expansion in the definition of terrorism, an increase in surveillance power for law enforcement, and the prospect of military trials for accused terrorists.
While the debates on terror and civil liberties in Europe have been similar to those in the U.S., the situation is not exactly parallel, according to Sarah Andrews, a researcher at the Electronic Privacy and Information Center in Washington D.C.
"In some respects, they're going further than the U.S.," Andrews said. "The data retention proposals, and things like keeping data on those suspected of public disturbance" have not been proposed in the United States, she said.
Regarding keeping data on public rabble rousers, Andrews was referring to a report released Monday by the London-based civil rights group Statewatch.
It warned the EU might expand its Schengen Information System (SIS) -- an existing system for sharing law enforcement information among EU states -- to include "suspected protesters."
"Targeted suspects would be tagged with an "alert" on the SIS and barred from entry (to) the country where the protest or event was taking place," the report warned. The matter is being discussed by the EU but has not yet been approved, according to Statewatch.
Following violence this summer at anti-globalization protests in Genoa, Italy, and Goteborg, Sweden, the European Union began considering proposals to give police additional power to stop the protests. Since Sept. 11, those efforts appear to have merged with a push to combat terrorism.
Fermon doesn't believe EU governments intend to use terror laws against domestic protesters. But he fears unintended consequences once laws are on the books. As an example, he cites the decision earlier this year to prosecute protesters at Goteborg under anti-mafia laws.
"We fear that once you get into this kind of logic, you inevitably end up having all kinds of special rules incompatible with fair trial," he said.
Fermon believes existing laws are adequate to prosecute terror.
In addition to the proposal to establish a broad definition of terrorism, civil libertarians in Europe are also concerned about another proposal to create an EU-wide arrest warrant. If approved, it would eliminate the need for extradition procedures when transferring suspects from one member country to another.
=================================
Bring out your dead
Government anti-terrorist proposals have less to do with 11 September than we are asked to believe
Liberty Watch: Observer campaign
Nick Cohen Sunday December 2, 2001
Beside David Blunkett, Jo Moore is an innocent. Her notoriety as a misanthrope with the soul of a stoat rests on her instruction to civil servants to treat the attack on the World Trade Centre as a fine moment to 'bury' bad news. She was happy to exploit the dead. But for all the denunciations which followed, the bad news she wanted to bury was merely an announcement about expenses in local government, which wouldn't have been news if 11 September had been another dull autumn day.
Statewatcher