Subject: Civil rights groups in jeopardy over new laws

Civil rights groups in jeopardy over new laws

Terrorism Act: Legitimate protest organisations concerned over extensive
powers of investigation for police

By Kim Sengupta

20 February 2001

Britain's new Terrorism Act came into force yesterday, giving the
Government more sweeping powers against those deemed to be enemies of
the state.

When in opposition, Labour MPs, including Jack Straw, had voted against
the 1974 Prevention of Terrorism Act. But the legislation now replacing
it is far more draconian and puts legitimate protest groups in jeopardy,
under the catch-all term of "terrorism".

Civil rights and agitprop groups have already declared opposition to the
new law. Yesterday, activists from the Reclaim the Streets group
gathered in Parliament Square, along with other protesters, to lobby
MPs.

The law extends the defitition of terrorism, previously an exclusively
political crime,to anyone motivated by a "political, religious or
ideological" cause and who uses violence and the threat of violence
against people or property. This means those campaigning against GM
foods and for animal welfare could face prosecution.

The Act is also intended to deter groups based in Britain from promoting
terrorist action abroad. This could, in theory, lead to the embarrassing
situation of the Iraqi National Congress, the London-based anti-Saddam
group, being prosecuted. The new Bush administration in Washington has
just given approval for the INC to spend about $30m (£20.7m) of
congressional aid for operations inside Iraq.

Speaking at the same meeting as someone from a proscribed organisation
will be a criminal offence, even if the speaker is there to oppose the
view of the proscribed group. Any gathering of of three or more people,
including, for example, an informal group in a pub, would constitute a
meeting.

Civil liberties groups say key passages in the Act have been copied
almost verbatim from the FBI. And the Home Office acknowledged it was
studying an US State Department list of nearly 40 "designated"
organisations to see which should be added to Britain's proscribed list
of 14, all of them Irish.

The US has banned groups such as the Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the Kurdistan
Workers Party (PKK) and the Tamil Tigers, all of whom have bases in
London. In Britain, the Sri Lankan and Indian governments have
complained of Tamil and Kashmiri separatists, and Egypt accused Britain
of giving the "hospitality of the taxpayer" to Islamists convicted, in
absentia, by courts in Cairo.

The Home Secretary said the new legislation strengthened civil liberties
at the same time as it increased police powers. He added: "In this
country we have a very clear tradition by which people are fully
entitled to engage is all kinds of peaceful, sometimes very noisy
protest. But they are not entitled to engage in seeking to disrupt the
way our democracy operates. People sometimes forget that all the
principal criminal offences which terrorists are charged with and
convicted of are offences in the main criminal code. What the Terrorism
Act does is give the police better powers of investigation than they
will have otherwise for ordinary criminals."

Roger Bingham of Liberty, said: "The new law means those who carry out
purely criminal acts, for greed or viciousness, will have more rights
than those accused of offences inspired by idealism who will have to
spend longer in custody and will have to prove their innocence rather
than the prosecution prove their guilt.

"We have also got a very disturbing situation that people who oppose
oppressive regimes abroad can now be deemed to be supporting terrorism.
This would have meant that it would have been a terrorist offence to
support Nelson Mandela if the law had been in force at the time. Most
members of this government would have fallen foul of that. And what
about the Iraqi opposition groups? They, too, could be prosecuted."

Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said he
feared the act "could prevent the activities of those seeking to work in
undemocratic countries to overthrow the regimes, or in democratic
countries to argue for minority rights".

There is also reservation in the Home Office. One senior source said:
"We also have the danger of double standards. Why shouldn't we prosecute
the INC? After all, they want to destabilise the government in Baghdad?
Where does one draw the moral line in this?"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/UK/Legal/2001-02/civil200201.shtml
=================================================