Britain unveils new antiterrorism legislation

"The terrorist threat facing the UK is real and significant and the government is determined to do all it can to protect our citizens from groups who would try to destroy our society, our way of life and our freedoms," Home Secretary Charles Clarke said as the Terrorism Bill was published in Parliament.

10/11/05 Pentagon wants new spying powers in US 10/07/05 Saudi ambassador to US calls for inter-faith unity to defeat terrorism 10/06/05 Britain accuses Iran of supplying bombs to militias in Iraq

Sign up to be notified daily: Find out more. Subscribe via RSS:   What is this?

But The Daily Telegraph reports that there seems to be some disagreement between Mr. Blair and Mr. Clarke about key elements of the legislation. While Blair was defending the move to extend the period a terror suspect can be held from 14 days to three months, Clarke was telling was telling members of Parliament that he might be prepared to compromise on the question of the length of the detention. The discrepancy was picked up on immediately by Conservative opposition members.

"The public expects, especially at this time of heightened terrorism, the Government to speak with one voice,'' [David Davis, the shadow home secretary in the Conservative Party] said. "The case for detention without charge for 90 days has yet to be made."

The Daily Telegraph also points out that Clarke "significantly watered down" the plans to make "glorification of terrorism" a criminal offense. The legislation introduced Wednesday, unlike earlier drafts, stipulates that those making such statements "must have a reasonable belief" that they would actually induce others to commit acts of terrorism. For instance, if the new measures have been in place several years ago, they argue, they could "have led to the prosecution of Cherie Blair for saying a few years ago that she could empathize with Palestinian suicide bombers."

Guardian columnist Seamus Milne writes that while the government has backed down on some of the more controversial elements of the legislation, " the most dangerous and inflammatory elements" are still present, particularly concerning the effect on free speech.

In fact, under the terms of the bill, anyone who voices support for armed resistance to any state or occupation, however repressive or illegitimate, will be committing a criminal offence carrying a seven-year prison sentence – so long as members of the public might reasonably regard it as direct or indirect encouragement. Terrorism is not defined in the bill as, say, indiscriminate attacks on civilians, let alone an assault on civilian targets by states – but as any politically motivated violence against people, property or electronic systems anywhere in the world.

This is not only an assault on freedom of speech and debate about the most contentious subject in global politics. It also makes a criminal offence out of a belief shared by almost every society, religion or philosophy throughout history: namely, that people have the right to take up arms against tyranny and foreign occupation. Clarke made clear on Tuesday that this was exactly his intention. He could not, he said, think of any situation in the world where "violence would be justified to bring about change."

The Washington Times/UPI reports that London Mayor Ken Livingston said recently that "It is easy for politicians in the West to condemn acts of terror [said Mr. Livingston], but I knew some terrorists I could call courageous men with principles."

Livingston referred to a friend of his, a German Jew, who had killed Nazis for the Communist Party of Germany. "He knew how to make bombs. He made them and placed them. He blew up headquarters of the Nazi party once. When they [communists] took over, Central Committee of the Communist Party ordered him out of East Germany... The man moved to Britain, joined the Labor Party, and became an active socialist. Consider it. The man decided that killing was the only way, and I'd say it was a correct decision. I'd like to believe I myself would have had the courage to join him in it."

But it's not just media pundits and legal scholars who are concerned about the new rules. Australia's ABCNews reports that the legislation will face tougher than expected opposition in the British parliament as some members of Blair's own Labour Party, and many opposition members, are wondering if the new measures will really make any difference in the fight against terrorism.

The Guardian reports that even the man the British government appointed to oversee the new legislation, Lord Carlile, has some concerns. While he believes that the 90-day holding period is a "sensible option" for police, it would require much stronger judicial control than a local magistrates' court; otherwise it would probably be struck down on human rights grounds.

"A more searching system is required to reflect the seriousness of the state holding someone in high-security custody without charge for as long as three months," Lord Carlile said. "I question whether what is proposed in the bill would be proof to challenge under the Human Rights Act given the length of extended detention envisaged."

"I think a much tighter system of control is required, though I do think that fairly lengthy detention is justified in a very small number of cases by evidence."

"The prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment ... is absolute and nonnegotiable," said Council of Europe chairman Terry Davis. "It is wrong to suggest that this ... has changed as a result of the recent terrorist threats. There cannot be any question of 'striking the right balance' when absolute rights are at stake."

Also...
• Few Britons satisfied with Blair's take on terrorism ( Angus Reid Global Scan)
• British terror suspects released without charge ( Birmingham Post, Britain)
• Redd: US making progress on terrorism ( Associated Press)
• Saudi ambassador to US calls for inter-faith unity to defeat terrorism ( Arab News, Saudi Arabia)
• Rumsfeld, regional leaders meet in Key Biscayne ( MiamiHerald.com)

• Feedback appreciated. E-mail Tom Regan .