Stop the Counter-Terrorism Bill
Alarmed | 01.03.2008 11:54
News from Scotland Against Criminalising Communities - SACC (www.sacc.org.uk)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop the Counter-Terrorism Bill
Please contact your MP to ask him/her to oppose the government seeking draconian police powers such as the extension of pre-charge detention from 28 to 42 days and secret court procedures.
You can find all the arguments against these measures and resources including a draft letter at www.campacc.org.uk. The Counter-Terrorism Bill was presented to Parliament in January. No date has yet been set for a Commons debate and vote on the Bill - but it may come up in the next month.
However if you want to send a quick letter by email, you can do it in less than 5 minutes by following these steps
1. Please click this link
http://www.writetothem.com/
2. A separate window will appear. Put in your post code and you will get a link to your MP. 3. Click that it will take to a form. entering your details and space for the letter
4. Then copy the letter below and paste it in the space for the letter in the form. Edit it to suit your own style and perspective.
5. Send it.
6. Go back to your email. You will get a message to confirm that you want to send the message. Click the link.
CAMPACC/SACC model letter available for adaptation.
(your letter will be more effective if you adapt the letter below using your own words)
Re: Counter-Terrorism Bill proposals: oppose more punishment without trial
Dear xxx MP,
As a member of your constituency, I am writing to you about my serious concerns regarding the Counter-Terrorism Bill which was published in February. These proposals would extend the injustice of current police powers, which make exceptions to the normal criminal law, especially its protection of suspects through the right to a fair trial. The proposed powers are based on the Terrorism Act 2000, which defined terrorism so broadly as to include simply the threat of violence to property in an attempt to influence a government, anywhere in the world. Such a broad definition could include many normal political activities in this country and any resistance to oppressive regimes abroad. That Act also created ‘terrorist’ offences of associating with particular organizations, sharing a platform with their members, and helping them financially, e.g. simply by selling publications.
The proposed new powers will extend the injustice of the current ones, again linked with the excessively broad definition of terrorism in the 2000 Act. The proposals would extend punishment without trial in several ways, not simply by extending pre-charge detention. In particular I oppose the following new powers, which would be inherently unjust:
1. Detention without charge would be extended to 42 days
Neither the government nor the police have given credible grounds for why 42-day detention would be necessary. For anyone called a 'terror suspect', the current limit of 28 days already represents a drastic extension from before the Terrorism Act 2000. The 28-day detention period has been used as a substitute for a proper criminal investigation, instead intimidating and stigmatising people as ‘terror suspects’. Such a long detention violates the principle that citizens must be considered innocent until proven guilty. It amounts to internment in all but name, thus violating the principle of habeas corpus. This despotic practice puts detainees under enormous psychological pressure; it can be used to extract dubious 'information', thus justifying detention of yet more 'terror suspects’'. Extension to 42 days would impose even greater punishment without trial.
2. Post-charge questioning of 'terror suspects' – presumed guilty?
'Terror suspects' could be subjected to further questioning after a criminal charge, even up to the trial date. Saying nothing could count against them at trial. Under the normal criminal law, people once charged can refuse to answer questions, without this being interpreted as a sign of guilt or deception. Under this new 'anti-terror' measure, detainees will be more readily pressurised to give or invent information. Officially, questions may be asked only about the specific charge, but police can find ways around this rule.
3. 'Terrorist connection' warranting a heavier sentence
Even where a conviction is obtained under the ordinary criminal law, an alleged 'terrorist connection' could be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing the defendant. Such an allegation could refer to the broad statutory definition of terrorism. A heavier sentence could be based on a political interpretation of the defendant's alleged activities or vague associations.
4. Confiscation of property without fair trial
Convicted 'terrorists' could have their property confiscated – such as bank accounts, vehicles, computers or even a house. This would be done through a special procedure – not a normal trial. It could involve secret evidence not revealed to the affected person. Any connections between the property and terrorism could be shown simply 'on the balance of probability'. Charities’ funds could be confiscated in the same way.
5. Extra punishment beyond the original sentence
Convicted 'terrorists' could face a ban on foreign travel after release from jail, however minor their offence. This 'foreign travel order' would be imposed by a special order, not a trial. If placed on a 'terrorism offenders register', those convicted could also face a requirement to tell the police where they go whenever they sleep away from home – potentially for life. All these measures impose extra punishment beyond the original sentence – again without trial.
6. New offences
Under the 2001 terrorism law, it is already an offence not to tell police of suspected terrorist activities if you find anything suspicious in the course of your employment. The 2008 Bill extends this requirement to volunteer workers, for example in a youth project or charity. People might be over-suspicious and report imagined activities because they are afraid of being criminalised for concealment. They also might be deterred from volunteering in a charity that sends money abroad.
The Bill would also make it an offence to seek or communicate information about the armed forces which could be useful to terrorism. This could apply to peace protestors simply telling each other, for example, what happens at which gates of a military base – on grounds that such information could assist activities that damage property.
7. Systematic retention of DNA samples
Under the government proposals, police could retain all DNA samples collected for any reason and could check them against other samples in the interests of 'national security', even where no crime is being investigated. This power aims to use and expand a National DNA Database by stealth. In this way, more and more people are effectively treated as suspects.
8. Exception for UK-friendly state terrorism
Current anti-terror laws already permit the UK authorities to prosecute defendants for acts committed abroad, but the government now proposes that such decisions must be approved by the Attorney General. This requirement helps to ensure that the definition of terrorism will be politically selective. The Attorney General could block a prosecution of terrorist activity supported by the UK government, e.g. a mercenary in Liberia or an intelligence agent in the Lebanon.
9. Hiding evidence about police killings
The bill would allow the government to hold some inquests in secret, without juries, if some evidence should not be made public in the interest of national security, international relations or any other public interest – in the government's view. Sensitive material, e.g. about how and why a person was killed by the police or army, would be hidden away; the killers would never be held properly to account.
For all the above reasons, I ask that you give an undertaking not to vote for renewal or extension of any 'anti-terror' powers. Please let me know your view on the new proposals. A fuller briefing paper on the Bill can be found at www.campacc.org.uk, or I can e-mail it to you if you wish.
I will contact your local constituency office for an appointment to discuss these issues with you. I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop the Counter-Terrorism Bill
Please contact your MP to ask him/her to oppose the government seeking draconian police powers such as the extension of pre-charge detention from 28 to 42 days and secret court procedures.
You can find all the arguments against these measures and resources including a draft letter at www.campacc.org.uk. The Counter-Terrorism Bill was presented to Parliament in January. No date has yet been set for a Commons debate and vote on the Bill - but it may come up in the next month.
However if you want to send a quick letter by email, you can do it in less than 5 minutes by following these steps
1. Please click this link
http://www.writetothem.com/ 2. A separate window will appear. Put in your post code and you will get a link to your MP. 3. Click that it will take to a form. entering your details and space for the letter
4. Then copy the letter below and paste it in the space for the letter in the form. Edit it to suit your own style and perspective.
5. Send it.
6. Go back to your email. You will get a message to confirm that you want to send the message. Click the link.
CAMPACC/SACC model letter available for adaptation.
(your letter will be more effective if you adapt the letter below using your own words)
Re: Counter-Terrorism Bill proposals: oppose more punishment without trial
Dear xxx MP,
As a member of your constituency, I am writing to you about my serious concerns regarding the Counter-Terrorism Bill which was published in February. These proposals would extend the injustice of current police powers, which make exceptions to the normal criminal law, especially its protection of suspects through the right to a fair trial. The proposed powers are based on the Terrorism Act 2000, which defined terrorism so broadly as to include simply the threat of violence to property in an attempt to influence a government, anywhere in the world. Such a broad definition could include many normal political activities in this country and any resistance to oppressive regimes abroad. That Act also created ‘terrorist’ offences of associating with particular organizations, sharing a platform with their members, and helping them financially, e.g. simply by selling publications.
The proposed new powers will extend the injustice of the current ones, again linked with the excessively broad definition of terrorism in the 2000 Act. The proposals would extend punishment without trial in several ways, not simply by extending pre-charge detention. In particular I oppose the following new powers, which would be inherently unjust:
1. Detention without charge would be extended to 42 days
Neither the government nor the police have given credible grounds for why 42-day detention would be necessary. For anyone called a 'terror suspect', the current limit of 28 days already represents a drastic extension from before the Terrorism Act 2000. The 28-day detention period has been used as a substitute for a proper criminal investigation, instead intimidating and stigmatising people as ‘terror suspects’. Such a long detention violates the principle that citizens must be considered innocent until proven guilty. It amounts to internment in all but name, thus violating the principle of habeas corpus. This despotic practice puts detainees under enormous psychological pressure; it can be used to extract dubious 'information', thus justifying detention of yet more 'terror suspects’'. Extension to 42 days would impose even greater punishment without trial.
2. Post-charge questioning of 'terror suspects' – presumed guilty?
'Terror suspects' could be subjected to further questioning after a criminal charge, even up to the trial date. Saying nothing could count against them at trial. Under the normal criminal law, people once charged can refuse to answer questions, without this being interpreted as a sign of guilt or deception. Under this new 'anti-terror' measure, detainees will be more readily pressurised to give or invent information. Officially, questions may be asked only about the specific charge, but police can find ways around this rule.
3. 'Terrorist connection' warranting a heavier sentence
Even where a conviction is obtained under the ordinary criminal law, an alleged 'terrorist connection' could be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing the defendant. Such an allegation could refer to the broad statutory definition of terrorism. A heavier sentence could be based on a political interpretation of the defendant's alleged activities or vague associations.
4. Confiscation of property without fair trial
Convicted 'terrorists' could have their property confiscated – such as bank accounts, vehicles, computers or even a house. This would be done through a special procedure – not a normal trial. It could involve secret evidence not revealed to the affected person. Any connections between the property and terrorism could be shown simply 'on the balance of probability'. Charities’ funds could be confiscated in the same way.
5. Extra punishment beyond the original sentence
Convicted 'terrorists' could face a ban on foreign travel after release from jail, however minor their offence. This 'foreign travel order' would be imposed by a special order, not a trial. If placed on a 'terrorism offenders register', those convicted could also face a requirement to tell the police where they go whenever they sleep away from home – potentially for life. All these measures impose extra punishment beyond the original sentence – again without trial.
6. New offences
Under the 2001 terrorism law, it is already an offence not to tell police of suspected terrorist activities if you find anything suspicious in the course of your employment. The 2008 Bill extends this requirement to volunteer workers, for example in a youth project or charity. People might be over-suspicious and report imagined activities because they are afraid of being criminalised for concealment. They also might be deterred from volunteering in a charity that sends money abroad.
The Bill would also make it an offence to seek or communicate information about the armed forces which could be useful to terrorism. This could apply to peace protestors simply telling each other, for example, what happens at which gates of a military base – on grounds that such information could assist activities that damage property.
7. Systematic retention of DNA samples
Under the government proposals, police could retain all DNA samples collected for any reason and could check them against other samples in the interests of 'national security', even where no crime is being investigated. This power aims to use and expand a National DNA Database by stealth. In this way, more and more people are effectively treated as suspects.
8. Exception for UK-friendly state terrorism
Current anti-terror laws already permit the UK authorities to prosecute defendants for acts committed abroad, but the government now proposes that such decisions must be approved by the Attorney General. This requirement helps to ensure that the definition of terrorism will be politically selective. The Attorney General could block a prosecution of terrorist activity supported by the UK government, e.g. a mercenary in Liberia or an intelligence agent in the Lebanon.
9. Hiding evidence about police killings
The bill would allow the government to hold some inquests in secret, without juries, if some evidence should not be made public in the interest of national security, international relations or any other public interest – in the government's view. Sensitive material, e.g. about how and why a person was killed by the police or army, would be hidden away; the killers would never be held properly to account.
For all the above reasons, I ask that you give an undertaking not to vote for renewal or extension of any 'anti-terror' powers. Please let me know your view on the new proposals. A fuller briefing paper on the Bill can be found at www.campacc.org.uk, or I can e-mail it to you if you wish.
I will contact your local constituency office for an appointment to discuss these issues with you. I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Alarmed