A press statement dated today, February 16, by the Campaign Against Criminalising Communities describes a trial of six people at Kingston Crown Court under the Terrorism Act 2000 which started today as a "show trial". It is seen as being aimed at victimising ethnic minorities, suppressing dissent and criminalising solidarity actions in order to please tyrannical foreign governments, in this case the government of Turkey.
16/02/2004
CAMPACC (Campaign Against Criminalising Communities) PRESS STATEMENT
Vatan Show Trial Begins at Kingston Crown Court on Monday 16 February
Starting on Monday at Kingston Crown Court, six activists are to be tried under anti-terrorism legislation as a result of distributing political literature. Widely known as the Vatan case, this should be seen as a show trial using the "war on terror" to carry out further attacks on civil liberties.
The six defendants -- five Turkish and one British -- are charged with selling and distributing magazines which the prosecution classifies as "terrorist property" (see Note 1). Entitled Vatan (Homeland) and Ekmek ve Adalet (Bread and Justice), the magazines are legally and freely available in Turkey and across Europe. Moreover, they are registered with the Republic of Turkey and thereby pay taxes to the Turkish state. However, political activists there are regularly subjected to harassment, arrest, torture and criminalisation.
The Vatan trial extends Turkey's attacks on civil liberties into the UK political-judicial system. The run-up to the trial has been characterised by police harassment of the Turkish community and of the defendants' families. The police have visited over one hundred people, asking them whether the defendants had ever demanded money from them. In some cases those that were approached by the police had never heard of the defendants, yet still they were asked to make statements against them in court. When people refused to cooperate with the police, they were threatened with the loss of their homes and businesses (see Note 2 for more background to the case).
Moreover, this case involves greater international state co-ordination against political dissent. The prosecution's preparations for the case revealed close collaboration between police and security agencies internationally. The UK authorities worked with the governments of Turkey, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Bulgaria in pursuit of information deemed relevant to the investigation.
This show trial vindicates our warnings that the UK anti-terrorism legislation is a political tool. It shows why the Terrorism Act 2000 banned a wide range of organisations -- namely, in order to suppress free speech and international solidarity activities. In general this legislation has been used by an increasingly authoritarian government to stifle political dissent. The "war on terrorism" is indeed a war on dissent and an attack on migrant communities, such as the Turkish community involved in this case.
Our campaign urges everyone to heed the full implications of this show trial.
We demand the following:
1) The charges should be dropped immediately.
2) The Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ACTSA) 2001 should be repealed.
3) The Civil Contingencies Bill, currently passing through Parliament, should not be enacted.
NOTES
1. Prosecution charges
The six defendants face the following main charges, to which they are pleading not guilty:
Count 1
Belonging to a proscribed organisation, contrary to Section 11(1) and (3) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
It is alleged that between 28th March 2001 and 12th December 2002 the defendants belonged to, or professed to belong to a proscribed organisation, namely the DHKP-C (Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front). This charge applies to all six.
Count 2
Facilitating the retention or control by or behalf of another person of terrorist property, contrary to Section 18(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
It is alleged that between 28th March 2001 and 12th December 2002 one of the accused entered into or were otherwise concerned in an arrangement which facilitated the retention or control by or behalf of another person of terrorist property by keeping accounts from the sale of Vatan and Ekmek ve Adalet magazines and donations and giving instructions for the use of such monies for the purposes of the DHKP-C.
Count 3
Facilitating the retention or control by on behalf of another person of terrorist property, contrary to Section 18(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
It is alleged that between 28th March 2001 and 12th December 2002 the accused entered into or were otherwise concerned in an arrangement which facilitated the retention or control by or behalf of another person of terrorist property by being in involved in the sale of Vatan and Ekmek ve Adalet magazines and the receipt and distribution of funds there from for the purposes of the DHKP-C. This charge applies to the remaining five of the six.
2. Background to the prosecution
The case goes back to the year 2000, when the UK authorities started to harass the magazine distributors and eventually confiscated entire consignments of Vatan. Nevetheless the distributors defied the harassment, continued their distribution activities and demanded the return of their stolen property. The UK government escalated its attack by prosecuting the defendants on grounds that the magazines were linked to an organisation banned under the Terrorism Act 2000.
For more details, see our Submission to the Privy Council Review of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA), Appendix IV on the Vatan case, online at www.irr.org.uk/2003/september/ha000007.html and at www.cacc.org.uk
[give specific URL if possible]
CAMPACC (Campaign Against Criminalising Communities) PRESS STATEMENT
Vatan Show Trial Begins at Kingston Crown Court on Monday 16 February
Starting on Monday at Kingston Crown Court, six activists are to be tried under anti-terrorism legislation as a result of distributing political literature. Widely known as the Vatan case, this should be seen as a show trial using the "war on terror" to carry out further attacks on civil liberties.
The six defendants -- five Turkish and one British -- are charged with selling and distributing magazines which the prosecution classifies as "terrorist property" (see Note 1). Entitled Vatan (Homeland) and Ekmek ve Adalet (Bread and Justice), the magazines are legally and freely available in Turkey and across Europe. Moreover, they are registered with the Republic of Turkey and thereby pay taxes to the Turkish state. However, political activists there are regularly subjected to harassment, arrest, torture and criminalisation.
The Vatan trial extends Turkey's attacks on civil liberties into the UK political-judicial system. The run-up to the trial has been characterised by police harassment of the Turkish community and of the defendants' families. The police have visited over one hundred people, asking them whether the defendants had ever demanded money from them. In some cases those that were approached by the police had never heard of the defendants, yet still they were asked to make statements against them in court. When people refused to cooperate with the police, they were threatened with the loss of their homes and businesses (see Note 2 for more background to the case).
Moreover, this case involves greater international state co-ordination against political dissent. The prosecution's preparations for the case revealed close collaboration between police and security agencies internationally. The UK authorities worked with the governments of Turkey, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Bulgaria in pursuit of information deemed relevant to the investigation.
This show trial vindicates our warnings that the UK anti-terrorism legislation is a political tool. It shows why the Terrorism Act 2000 banned a wide range of organisations -- namely, in order to suppress free speech and international solidarity activities. In general this legislation has been used by an increasingly authoritarian government to stifle political dissent. The "war on terrorism" is indeed a war on dissent and an attack on migrant communities, such as the Turkish community involved in this case.
Our campaign urges everyone to heed the full implications of this show trial.
We demand the following:
1) The charges should be dropped immediately.
2) The Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ACTSA) 2001 should be repealed.
3) The Civil Contingencies Bill, currently passing through Parliament, should not be enacted.
NOTES
1. Prosecution charges
The six defendants face the following main charges, to which they are pleading not guilty:
Count 1
Belonging to a proscribed organisation, contrary to Section 11(1) and (3) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
It is alleged that between 28th March 2001 and 12th December 2002 the defendants belonged to, or professed to belong to a proscribed organisation, namely the DHKP-C (Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front). This charge applies to all six.
Count 2
Facilitating the retention or control by or behalf of another person of terrorist property, contrary to Section 18(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
It is alleged that between 28th March 2001 and 12th December 2002 one of the accused entered into or were otherwise concerned in an arrangement which facilitated the retention or control by or behalf of another person of terrorist property by keeping accounts from the sale of Vatan and Ekmek ve Adalet magazines and donations and giving instructions for the use of such monies for the purposes of the DHKP-C.
Count 3
Facilitating the retention or control by on behalf of another person of terrorist property, contrary to Section 18(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
It is alleged that between 28th March 2001 and 12th December 2002 the accused entered into or were otherwise concerned in an arrangement which facilitated the retention or control by or behalf of another person of terrorist property by being in involved in the sale of Vatan and Ekmek ve Adalet magazines and the receipt and distribution of funds there from for the purposes of the DHKP-C. This charge applies to the remaining five of the six.
2. Background to the prosecution
The case goes back to the year 2000, when the UK authorities started to harass the magazine distributors and eventually confiscated entire consignments of Vatan. Nevetheless the distributors defied the harassment, continued their distribution activities and demanded the return of their stolen property. The UK government escalated its attack by prosecuting the defendants on grounds that the magazines were linked to an organisation banned under the Terrorism Act 2000.
For more details, see our Submission to the Privy Council Review of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA), Appendix IV on the Vatan case, online at www.irr.org.uk/2003/september/ha000007.html and at www.cacc.org.uk
[give specific URL if possible]
Homepage:
