Labour Affairs Group
There are now four main pieces of counter-terrorism legislation: the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, and the Terrorism Act 2006. Plus The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (which includes the “Prevent” programme). In fact this list may not be exhaustive, as the anti-terror legislation keeps being added to.
The Terrorism Act 2000 continues to provide the main framework for counter-terrorism powers in the UK. It contains the main powers for arrest and extended pre-charge detention in terrorism cases as well as the main terrorism offences outside the ordinary criminal law, for example, membership of and support for a proscribed organisation. Ironically it was intended to be a single, comprehensive piece of counter-terrorism legislation intended to replace the patchwork of temporary legislation that had arisen over 30 years of the Northern Ireland conflict.
The Terrorism Act 2006 now extends the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 28 days. In addition, it is now a criminal offence for a person to publish statements that encourage, either intentionally or recklessly, the commission of terrorist acts. This includes reference to statements which ‘glorify’ acts of terrorism.
Labour Affairs reprints an extract from the Terrorism Act of 2000, in order to show the way it has been drafted constitutes a threat to the British public’s ability to voice perfectly legitimate opposition to government policy. The first point to note is that it is up to the Secretary of State to designate an organisation as terrorist or ‘concerned in terrorism’, a weasel formulation that allows a lot of scope for discretionary judgement. If the British government dislikes an organisation for being in opposition to its own foreign policy or that of a foreign power under whose influence it falls, then it can use this legislation to muzzle opposition to that policy.
HERE ARE THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS.
PART TWO, SECTIONS 4 AND 5.
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—
(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
(b) prepares for terrorism,
(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or
(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
(5A) The cases in which an organisation promotes or encourages terrorism for the purposes of subsection (5)(c) include any case in which activities of the organisation—
(a) include the unlawful glorification of the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of acts of terrorism; or
(b) are carried out in a manner that ensures that the organisation is associated with statements containing any such glorification.
(5B) The glorification of any conduct is unlawful for the purposes of subsection (5A) if there are persons who may become aware of it who could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified, is being glorified as—
(a) conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances, or
(b) conduct that is illustrative of a type of conduct that should be so emulated.
(5C) In this section—
“ glorification ” includes any form of praise or celebration, and cognate expressions are to be construed accordingly;
“ statement ” includes a communication without words consisting of sounds or images or both.
COMMENTARY:
The Secretary of State may thus determine that an organisation is concerned in terrorism, whether or not this is in fact an accurate designation of that organisation. Another individual or organisation that glorifies potential terrorism or acts in a manner (to be determined by whom?) that ensures that the organisation is associated with statements containing any such glorification is subject to prosecution. Furthermore, under 5B, if there are persons who may become aware of it who could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is illustrative of what should be emulated, then the organisation deemed to have made an oblique approval of acts committed by an organisation deemed by the Secretary of State to be terrorist can be subject to prosecution.
What this means in a case where an organisation which the government dislikes makes a statement that could be interpreted by someone (the ‘could be’ presumably being interpreted by the Secretary of State) as implicit approval for an act by an organisation deemed as terrorist by the Secretary of State could be subject to prosecution. This provision goes far beyond protection against incitement to terrorism by an overtly terrorist organisation. It licenses prosecution against organisations who make statements deemed by the Secretary of State to be supportive of organisations also deemed by the Secretary of State to be terrorist. It is a massive infringement of the British people’s right to express opposition to a government’s foreign policy. So much for liberal democracy.
The authoritarian nature of this development is illustrated by the cross-party support for legislation introduced by a Labour government. So much for party-based parliamentary democracy. Incidentally, from the BBC:
“This legislation – introduced by the Labour government – gave a broad definition of terrorism for the first time. The Act also gave the police the power to detain terrorist suspects for up to seven days and created a list of proscribed terrorist organisations.
Theresa May: Absent from the final vote (there was no Second Reading)
Jeremy Corbyn: Voted against it
Context: This legislation was supported by both Labour and the Conservatives and was therefore highly unlikely to be defeated.”
David Davis is another MP who has a good record of voting against repressive anti-terrorist legislation.
Anti-terrorist legislation used against UK journalists and activists
Pro-Palestinian journalists and activists arrested in UK:
In October 2024, Electronic Intifada’s associate editor Asa Winstanley saw his home raided by British “counterterrorism” police in response to his social media posts about Israel’s western-backed abuses in the middle east. Multiple electronic devices were seized. No charges were ever filed.
In August 2024, journalist Richard Medhurst was arrested by British counterterrorism police and held for nearly 24 hours under section 12 of the UK’s Terrorism Act of 2000. He was accused of allegedly ‘expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a prescribed organization.’
His case continues; he said on January 26th: “The police are (again) seeking to extend their “terrorism” investigation against me by another 3 months, till May 2025 at least”.
Later that month, a human rights activist named Sarah Wilkinson was detained by police and had her home raided for online speech crimes. Both cases appear to have been the result of expressions of opinion deemed too sympathetic to resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which have been designated as “terrorist” organizations by the British government. Activists Mick Napier, Tony Greenstein, and Richard Barnard have been similarly persecuted in the UK.
Gaza action censorship and repression
Demonstration Saturday 18 January. Arrests on false grounds.
As has been the case since October 2023, the demonstration scheduled for Saturday 18 January 2025 had been officially announced two months previously, and the route agreed with the police. Shortly before the date, the police rescinded the agreement, and only a static rally at Whitehall was allowed, with many restrictions, resulting in people having difficulty joining the rally and being arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Chief steward of the rally Chris Nineham was among 77 arrested.
24 were bailed, 48 remain in custody as of Monday 20th January. Chris Nineham was bailed on condition that he does not attend any protests.
Ben Jamal, the organiser of Palestine Solidarity, was charged with public order offences.
Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell were interviewed under police caution.
Jewish Voice for Labour
If you want more examples of pro-Palestine voices being stifled or silenced see the website of the group Jewish Voice for Labour. One example is the ‘deplatforming’ of celebrated children’s author Michael Rosen. JVL says:
JVL Introduction
We hear a lot about cancel culture these days, from a number of different perspectives.
There’s the idea that the “wokerati” are destroying freedom of speech for fine upstanding defenders of wholesome traditional values; that you can’t celebrate the glory days of empire any more; that universities are full of snowflake students who can’t bear to hear views about gender or race that offend their delicate sensibilities.
Then there’s the idea, propagated improbably by high-profile Jewish artists, writers, comedians and so forth who are rarely out of the public eye, that antisemitic lefties in the arts and academic, are cancelling Jews, preventing them getting a hearing for the prejudice they face. Examples include David Baddiel‘s book titled “Jews don’t Count” and Jonathan Freedland’s stage collaboration with Tracy-Ann Oberman, “Jews in their own words“.
Then again there is real, insidious cancelling which is never spoken about in the media but is damaging the reputations, livelihoods and in some cases lives of people who criticise Israel. Examples of attempts to muzzle pro-Palestinian artists, academics, journalists, activists and sporting personalities are legion. Some of the victims are world renowned, like socialist film maker Ken Loach. Some are modestly attempting to use their talents in a socially useful fashion, like Tanushka Marah, running a youth theatre company in Brighton.
And some are Jewish, like children’s author, poet, broadcaster and chronicler of Jewish life Michael Rosen.
Here is a poem written by Michael Rosen after Trump’s pronouncements on the future of Gaza, in January 2025:
The beach on the Med is soft and sandy
The airport nearby is cheap and handy
The clouds in the sky are far and few
It’s cocktails time in a room with a view
It’s always good to have ideas and plans
and no one here has blood on their hands
There are pics of old Gaza on the hotel wall
we bought an Arab rug in the shopping mall
we came out here for a wedding celebration
What we see is quality regeneration.
It’s always good to have ideas and plans
and no one here has blood on their hands
The people here are doing things properly
I myself deal with land and property
I reckon this place is gonna be great
for people like me who are in real estate.
It’s always good to have ideas and plans
and no one here has blood on their hands.
If you buy right now, you’ll make a killing
Out at sea, they’re gonna start drilling
The clouds in the sky are far and few
It’s time for cocktails in a room with a view
It’s always good to have ideas and plans
and no one here has blood on their hands.
Michael Rosen is an English children’s author, poet, presenter, political columnist, broadcaster, activist, and academic, who is Professor of children’s literature in the Department of Educational Studies at Goldsmiths, University of London.
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/beach-med
Labour Affairs 