Slave #Britain: UK definition of terrorism ‘could catch political journalists and bloggers’ (#UK #politics #bigbrother #gchq #law)

tlawThe following article is from The Guardian’s home affairs editor, Alan Travis. Terror law watchdog says police and prosecutors have exceptional powers that must be confined to ‘their proper purpose’

‘The current British definition of terrorism is so broadly drawn that it could even catch political journalists and bloggers who publish material that the authorities consider dangerous to public safety, said the official counter-terrorism watchdog.

David Anderson QC, the official reviewer of counter-terrorism laws, said Britain had some of the most extensive anti-terrorism laws in the western world, which gave police and prosecutors the powers they needed to tackle al-Qaida-inspired terrorists, right-wing extremists and dissident Northern Irish groups.

“But if these exceptional powers are to command public consent, it is important they need to be confined to their proper purpose, and recent years have seen a degree of ‘creep’ in parliament that could be reversed without diminishing their impact”

In his annual report to be published on Tuesday, Anderson is expected to give three examples of how the terror laws were too widely drawn.

They included “actions aimed at influencing governments”, hate crime and what he called the “penumbra of terrorism”.

On the first, Anderson said Britain’s laws treated politically motivated publication of material thought to endanger life or to create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public as a terrorist act if it was done for the purpose of influencing the government.

He said in other European and Commonwealth countries the bar was set much higher and there must also be an “intention to coerce or intimidate”.

The watchdog said: “This means political journalists and bloggers are subject to the full range of anti-terrorism powers if they threaten to publish, prepare to publish something that the authorities think may be dangerous to life, public health or public safety.”

He warned that they could be branded as terrorists even if they had no intention to spread fear or intimidate, and those who employed or supported them would also qualify as terrorists.

The definition was so broad it would even catch a campaigner who voiced religious objections to a vaccination campaign on the grounds that they were a danger to public health.

On hate crimes, Anderson said the law made a terrorist out of a pupil who threatened to shoot their teacher on a fascist website, or of the racist who throws a pipe bomb at their neighbour’s walls. Both were obvious criminals, but if they only intended to harm their immediate victims, no purpose would be served by branding them as terrorists, Anderson said.

The laws were so widely drawn that they now included preparatory and ancillary offences including “terrorism-related activity”, which were only used when a crime had been committed and so were unnecessary.

These definitions were so “overbroad” that they could catch a family member “who supports someone who encourages someone else to prepare an act of terrorism and could easily be limited by the home secretary”, the watchdog said.

Anderson said Britain quite rightly had very tough counter-terror laws that the public accepted so long as they were used only when necessary.

“But they can currently be applied to journalists and bloggers, to criminals who have no concern other than their immediate victim, and to those who are connected with terrorism only at several removes,” he said.

“This is not a criticism of ministers, prosecutors or police – who as a rule exercise either their remarkably broad discretions with care and restraint. But it is time parliament reviewed the definition of terrorism to avoid the potential for abuse and to cement public support for special powers that are unfortunately likely to be needed for the foreseeable future.”’

This is an example of how an ill-conceived piece of legislation slips through Parliament without the wider implications and ramifications being understood by MPs and Lords.

As one of the government’s favourite tactics, stealth legislation has found its way into apparently reasonable laws, and can be added to or adjusted after enactment with little or no public knowledge or resistance.

We remember the fiasco of the Communications Data Bill that Cameron champions as a tool to combat terrorism. When legal experts took a closer look at it they discovered that it would have allowed the government and security services unprecedented powers to arrest anyone who spoke out against the government – it had little to do with protecting citizens.

In recent weeks we have seen Cameron rush through legislation in the last week before the parliamentary recess – Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill – which has given little time for the full ramifications of its introduction to be assessed. He presented this at a time when he knew MPs and Lords would be more interested in the time they were about to have away from parliament rather than scrutinising the contents of the bill.

Those in parliament who would have engaged experts to look at the content of the bill had little or no time to make such arrangements. The consequence was that the bill was passed based on its face value, rather than as an important piece of legislation which would affect the privacy of every citizen in the UK and needed to be fully scrutinised.

There was a hard-core of around 31 MPs who vehemently opposed the bill and criticised Cameron’s tactics, but they were ignored as other MPs wrapped up parliamentary business before the recess.

We should not underestimate this tactic. It is highly dangerous to each and every citizen and is not at all representative of any form of democratic process. It is an attempt (and a very successful one as far as the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill is concerned) to undermine the normal process of introducing new legislation and is more akin to a despotic government leader than a champion of human rights.

As Anderson stated in the report in the Guardian article, it is fortunate that there are still police and prosecutors who use their discretion and restraint in applying terror laws. But it is only a matter of time before they are replaced by government lackeys who will uphold the law to every letter regardless of common sense. Such is the nature of the society we see developing before our eyes.

Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

If you would like to donate to us to help with the annual cost of operating Order Of Truth, please use the Paypal button below. Every donation is appreciated. Thank you.

Donate Button

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s