Britain’s Politicised Terror Legislation

Britain is now seeing the full effects on our civil liberties of the provisions of the 2000 Terrorism Act and other anti-terrorism legislation. It is evident that the government and the political class are determined to enforce the provisions of the 2000 and 2006 terrorism legislation to punish indirect and even implicit support for organisations proscribed by the Home Secretary. 

Unsurprisingly the public do not pay much attention to the detail of anti-terrorism legislation, taking it for granted that what Parliament enacts is done in the interests of keeping the public safe. But what if it has an ulterior purpose such as the suppression of hard-won civil liberties or the promotion of the interests of a foreign power? Perhaps it is time to take a close look at this legislation, the powers it confers on the state and the possible threat that it poses to civic and political action.

Let’s start with the question: ‘What is terrorism?’ The 2000 Act states that action falling within its ambit fulfils the following criteria:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,

(b) involves serious damage to property,

(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

The government acknowledged that these are all offences already covered by pre-existing laws. One may ask why new legislation was needed. The answer is that action falling within the scope of this legislation if designated ‘terrorist’, could attract more draconian penalties from the courts than was the case with these offences when they fell within other provisions of the criminal law. The 2000 legislation also defines proscribable organisations, that is potentially illegal organisations.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do so. For the purposes of the act, this means that the organisation:

1. commits or participates in acts of terrorism
2. prepares for terrorism
3. promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism)
4. is otherwise concerned in terrorism

Some comments are in order.  Points 1 and 2 are clear enough, although if ‘illegal acts’ is substituted for ‘terrorism’ one would have crimes already existing in UK law. Point 3 is interesting since, in 2000 it was not a crime to promote or encourage criminal activity. Since the Serious Crime Act of 2007, it has become an offence. Prior to that, promoting actions deemed ‘terrorist’ by the Home Secretary would be illegal, even though those acts were not criminal under existing criminal law. The 2007 legislation is another act of parliament which deserves further consideration although there is not the space to do so here. However, the bracketed addition: ‘the unlawful glorification of terrorism’ is worth commenting on because of its vagueness. In fact the vagueness is only apparent, since these points are expanded on in Part Two, Section 5 of the 2000 Act. It is important to realise that the legislation also covers organisations that have no concern with the UK and its affairs, but which foreign powers may be very interested in suppressing. Here are the relevant parts of Part Two of the Act.

PART TWO, SECTION 5.

(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. 

Thus any form of demonstration in favour of an organisation deemed a terrorist organisation by the Home Secretary is a criminal act, subject to endorsement by Parliament of the relevant order. This is why we have seen arrests of numerous individuals holding flags, slogans etc. supporting Palestine Action (PA). 

Brian Feeney writing in Irish News has commented on this aspect of the legislation:

“The only knowledgeable voice raised against proscription was Lord Hain, former proconsul here (Northern Ireland – LA). He voted against, describing it as “intellectually bankrupt, politically unprincipled and morally wrong”. 

The British government may have anticipated some opposition from MPs, for Home Secretary Yvette Cooper disgracefully wrapped in the vote on Palestine Action’s proscription with two real terrorist groups: Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement.”

So it appears that Cooper made sure that PA would be proscribed by framing endorsement in Parliament of her measure in such a way as to make it difficult for MPs to oppose it, even though they would have known that PA was not equivalent to the other two named organisations. Peter Hain was in the House of Commons during the passing of the 2000 Act. Here is what Google AI says about his record at the time:

“Peter Hain did not vote against the UK Terrorism Act 2000. At the time the bill was passing through Parliament, Hain was a Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a position within the Labour government that was proposing and supporting the legislation. His position in the government and his parliamentary voting record confirm his support for the bill.”

Note that he does not, in his current outburst. criticise the relevant provisions of the Terrorism Act. One may assume that he still supports its provisions. One further point about this legislation is that it is not time limited. There is no statutory period for its review and it will remain on the Statute Book indefinitely unless there is a call for its review, which is unlikely.  None of the major political parties, barring the nationalist parties and the Greens, have any problem with this legislation. When a group meets the legislative threshold for proscription, it is up to the Home Secretary to decide whether or not to proscribe it. When an organisation is proscribed it is up to the Home Secretary to implement the law. Brian Feeney, writing about Northern Ireland notes:

“Flags supporting the UVF and UDA (proscribed organisations – LA) festoon many parts of the north. At the Apprentice Boys march in Derry earlier this month, at least one band marched behind a flag glorifying the UDA. Symbols supporting republican proscribed groups are nothing like as plentiful, but despite the perception that the PSNI crack down on republican rather than on loyalist imagery, in fact prosecution is rare.”

He notes that supporters of the UVF and UDA are not prosecuted despite the record of violence of those organisations. This is a matter of political discretion, in this case a correct exercise of discretion. So why is support of Palestine Action subject to the most dubious and restrictive aspects of the anti-terror legislation? The answer one is drawn to is that the government wishes to suppress dissent from its covert support for the genocide in Gaza, not just because of opposition to its own policy but also because it is under pressure from governments that fully support this genocide. In other words our anti-terror legislation is being used to suppress dissent against the criminal behaviour of a foreign power whose terrorist actions (under the definition in the 2000 Act) far exceed anything that PA has done or is likely to do. This behaviour is a serious assault on the civil liberties of the British people and worse, probably at the behest of a foreign power. Any parliamentarian worth his or her salt would at the very least call for a review of this repressive legislation. There is a fat chance of that happening in the foreseeable future with parliament firmly in the grip of what amounts to a single party on foreign and security matters, a party that is not acting in the best interests of the British people.