Western Resistance

« Egypt: Christian-Muslim Conflict Continues, Muslim Dies | | Pakistan: Muslim Child Bride For Sale »

April 16, 2006

UK: Muslims Criticise The Terrorism Act 2006

Finally, on Thursday 13 April, the UK had a law to counter terrorism, called the Terrorism Act 2006. The entire transcript of the new Act can be found HERE, from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Clicking on the titles will bring up the entries/sections.

We have described the tortuous process by which the UK government has led its original proposal for a new law against terrorism, given the working title of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill into law, as it through parliamentary and judicial reviews.

When first published in draft form in October, there was an intention to produce a list of historical events and instances which could be classed as acts of terrorism. This list was dropped, but its context in which the list would have been place remained.

The list referred to the creating a new legal offence called "glorification of terrorism", which went on to have more controversy than any other part of the Bill. Surprisingly, this clause in the law has not been deleted. This clause of the Bill was debated by various individuals, and when the Bill finally reached the House of Lords, it was this particular clause which caused the Bill to be rejected in January this year, and sent back to the House of Commons. The clause was rejected five times in all, before finally being passed in March.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal had said in January of this clause: "The government does not believe it acceptable that people should be allowed to make statements which glorify terrorism and in doing so make it more likely their audience will themselves commit acts of terrorism."

As expected, the clause was reintroduced to the Bill, and surprisingly, it is now in the Terrorism Act 2006, and on the statute books. It features in Schedule 1 of the final Act, which deals with "Encouragement of Terrorism" and its details can be read HERE.
Schedule 1, section 1 (3) qualifies such terms of encouragement of terrorism as a statement which

- "(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and (b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances.

There are further qualifications, but in essence, encouraging terrorism, encouraging terrorist acts or committing the act of glorification of terrorism can now bring in a penalty of up to 7 years' imprisonment maximum, or a fine, or both, when convicted following an indictment, and on summary conviction a sentence of up to 12 months' imprisonment.

Another proposal from the original Bill was that the maximum time for suspects to be held without charge was to be raised from 14 days to 3 months. This notion was attacked by Lord Goldsmith the Attorney General, and even jurors from a notorious "ricin trial", held in 2002. This proposal was also criticised by Lord Carlile QC, an independent assessor of terrorism legislation.

The 90 day detention was voted out in the House of Commons on November 9, with 291 votes for this, and 322 against. Faced with a defeat, the Commons voted again for a lesser amount of time a detainee could be held. A second motion was put before the House, in which terror suspects should be detained without charge for no more than 28 days. This vote was passed. 323 MPs voted for the measure, while 290 were against it.

In the new Terrorism Act 2006, this clause remains, as stated within sections 23 to 25, allowing 28 days as the maximum amount of time a suspect can be held in detention without trial.

When the Bill was reviewed by the second, or upper house, the House of Lords on November 21, the "glorification of terrorism" clause was still an issue of debate, and had been condemned by the Association of Chief Police Officers and Human Rights Watch, who claimed it would be "likely to have a chilling effect on free expression in classrooms, media newsrooms and mosques."

In December, the Association of Chief Police Officers suggested that mosque closures, another controversial part of the proposed Bill were unwise. Assistant Chief Constable Ron Beckley suggested that to temporarily close down mosques where radical Islam was being preached, would drive extremism underground. The proposal even met with opposition from the Church of England.

The "mosque closure" proposal was dropped later in December, during the second reading of the draft Bill in the Lords.

We reported on November 1 that the Muslim Council for Britain had been publicly condemning the proposals within the Bill, including the mosque closure proposals. Abdurahman Jafar, vice chairman of the legal affairs committee of the MCB told the UK Parliament's joint committee on human rights that he feared a really "horrific counter-productive effect" from the "glorification of terrorism" proposal.

Jafar had stated that the proposal confused: "the issue of illegitimate attacks against peaceful democracies, with legitimate acts of resistance against illegitimate regimes around the world." The secretary general of the MCB, Iqbal Sacranie attended a memorial service for Sheikh Yassin, the founder of the terrorist group Hamas, so it is obvious why the MCB disapproved of this clause.

Now, according to The National Ledger, the Terrorism Act 2006 is still under fire from Muslim groups, most notably the Muslim Council for Britain, as well as civil liberty campaigners.

The Muslim Council for Britain has urged the government to exercise "maximum restraint", and said that it would take legal action should ministers try to criminalise "non-violent organisations."

These "non-violent organisations" would almost include Hizb ut-Tahrir. Back last year, the MCB tried to blackmail the government by saying that that they would only support the banning of Hizb ut-Tahrir if the government also banned the British National Party.

The Terrorism Act 2006 does not specifically mention groups which will be proscribed. But it is certain to outlaw Al-Muhajiroun successors such as Al-Ghurabaa, who notoriously held placards calling for the beheading of those who insulted Islam on February 3. The group's website also states that people who insulted the prophet should be killed.

Emergency measures introduced by Home Secretary Charles Clarke last year, as amendments to the existing Terrorism Act 2000, which include control orders - such as house arrest - were dealt a blow on Wednesday (April 12) by a High Court judge, who said they breached human rights law.

The government has said that it will appeal against the judge's ruling.

Britain's human rights law is actually governed by the European Union, and the European Commission on Human Rights, and it is likely that the Muslim Council will attempt to challenge other aspects of the new Act via their courts.

MCB Secretary-General Sir Iqbal Sacranie added: "The fact that these laws are based upon a number of false premises and an unacceptably vague definition of terrorism makes them a recipe for disaster as well as a huge blow to our freedoms."

The human rights group Liberty, which like the MCB campaigned vigorously against certain parts of the bill, said it was deeply concerned that the legislation's silencing of dissent would lead to a growth in extremism.

"These new powers make us not only less free, we are also less safe when we drive dissent underground and alienate minorities," said Policy Director Gareth Crossman. "Swept up in this new anti-terror safety net could be those who protest against dictators like Zimbabwe's Mugabe or North Korean dissidents."

It has been a long road for the Prevention of Terrorism Bill to finally become the Terrorism Act 2006. And it looks like it will have a rocky road ahead. But until it is challenged, the Act has passed all the requisite procedures to enable it to become law.

The only challenge which can now be made will involve the definition of what the EU decides "Human Rights" are about. I am more concerned at present about my human rights not to be blown to pieces, rather than the rights of people who openly call for governments to be overthrown, or people who publicly call for others to be beheaded.

Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at April 16, 2006 10:41 PM

Comments

Post a comment