From: Andrew Johnson
Date: 2006-04-14 17:12:20
news.independent.co…. Anger as ban on glorifying terror comes into force By Robert Verkaik, Legal Affairs Correspondent Published: 14 April 2006 Controversial anti-terror measures planned in the aftermath of the July 7 bombings and brought into force yesterday have been given a hostile reception by MPs and civil liberty lawyers who branded them absurd and a curtailment of free speech. The new laws, included in the Terrorism Act 2006, make it a criminal offence to say or do anything that glorifies terrorism. They also give more powers to the Government to ban groups which publish material that seeks to support any form of terrorism. But MPs and civil liberty lawyers said the laws were unnecessary, as there was already legislation in place to combat terrorism. The Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn described the glorification ban as “absurd”. He said: “The legislation is misguided and the whole concept of glorification is frankly absurd, and will end up entrapping the innocent and preventing legitimate debate.” He argued that one person’s terrorist was another’s freedom fighter: “Nelson Mandela was branded a terrorist by Margaret Thatcher,” he added. He said arguing for campaigns such as that to free West Papua from Indonesian rule could leave people exposed to prosecution. Muslim groups appealed to the Government to exercise “maximum restraint and caution” over applying the new measures. The Muslim Council of Britain’s secretary general Sir Iqbal Sacranie said: “The fact that these laws are based upon a number of false premises and an unacceptably vague definition of terrorism makes them a recipe for disaster, as well as a huge blow to our freedoms. “The notion that the Muslim community somehow harbours a threat to the country and to society as a whole is wrong and offensive. The fact that a handful carried out the terrorist attacks on July 7 should not render the entire two-million-strong Muslim community liable to suspicion, censorship and persecution under these laws.” The shadow Home Secretary David Davis said he had concerns about the glorification of terror offence. “It is important to remember, however, that the fight against terror is not simply about introducing new laws, but also having the will to use them. Abu Hamza was eventually convicted, but it was under legislation that pre-dated 9/11 – in fact six of his convictions were under legislation dating back to 1861,” he said. Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, warned that the new law was not only oppressive but unworkable. The controversial anti-terror plans faced stiff opposition in the House of Lords before they became law, while some lawyers questioned the legal definition of glorification. Peers rejected the proposals five times before finally voting them through last month. A total of 17 Labour MPs voted with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to oppose the measures. On Wednesday the Home Secretary suffered a defeat in the High Court when a judge ruled that another key element of the Government’s anti-terror policy was incompatible with human rights laws. Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the control order imposed on a British citizen was “conspicuously unfair”. The ruling throws into question the system used by the Home Secretary to curb the movement and behaviour of individuals he suspects of being linked to terrorism. The suspect, known only as MB, was the first Briton to be made the subject of a control order when he was served with Home Office papers last year. The Government said it will appeal against the ruling. * A 20-year-old man was arrested yesterday in Alva, Clackmannanshire, under the Terrorism Act 2000. Student, 22, detained at Manchester airport: ‘I denied I was ever a terrorist’ MB, a 22-year-old student, was detained at Manchester airport by MI5 in March last year. He was questioned for several hours, and claims he was racially abused and threatened with torture. Then in September last year the Home Secretary served him with a control order, forcing him to report to the police regularly and surrender all his identification documents. “I denied the allegations that I was a terrorist or had ever been involved in terrorism activities or had any intention of indulging in terrorist activities,” he said. “I also pointed out that he had no right to threaten me with torture and death and that he was the terrorist terrorising me. They had deliberately made me miss my flight. “[After being released] I then headed off to the information desk … to refund my ticket. Whilst the lady was on the phone, the two men who escorted me out came over to the enquiry desk and told the lady that she was not to talk to or help me or else she might be arrested. To my astonishment, one off them turned towards me and said, ‘Fuck off, you Paki bastard’. “At present I am sharing a house with three other tenants who do not know about me being subject to a control order and I wish to keep it this way. It puts a great burden upon me as I always have to be available to attend the police station. Sometimes it is very difficult to try to explain to others where I am going. “I have this problem every day of my life at present and for the foreseeable future.” Controversial anti-terror measures planned in the aftermath of the July 7 bombings and brought into force yesterday have been given a hostile reception by MPs and civil liberty lawyers who branded them absurd and a curtailment of free speech. The new laws, included in the Terrorism Act 2006, make it a criminal offence to say or do anything that glorifies terrorism. They also give more powers to the Government to ban groups which publish material that seeks to support any form of terrorism. But MPs and civil liberty lawyers said the laws were unnecessary, as there was already legislation in place to combat terrorism. The Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn described the glorification ban as “absurd”. He said: “The legislation is misguided and the whole concept of glorification is frankly absurd, and will end up entrapping the innocent and preventing legitimate debate.” He argued that one person’s terrorist was another’s freedom fighter: “Nelson Mandela was branded a terrorist by Margaret Thatcher,” he added. He said arguing for campaigns such as that to free West Papua from Indonesian rule could leave people exposed to prosecution. Muslim groups appealed to the Government to exercise “maximum restraint and caution” over applying the new measures. The Muslim Council of Britain’s secretary general Sir Iqbal Sacranie said: “The fact that these laws are based upon a number of false premises and an unacceptably vague definition of terrorism makes them a recipe for disaster, as well as a huge blow to our freedoms. “The notion that the Muslim community somehow harbours a threat to the country and to society as a whole is wrong and offensive. The fact that a handful carried out the terrorist attacks on July 7 should not render the entire two-million-strong Muslim community liable to suspicion, censorship and persecution under these laws.” The shadow Home Secretary David Davis said he had concerns about the glorification of terror offence. “It is important to remember, however, that the fight against terror is not simply about introducing new laws, but also having the will to use them. Abu Hamza was eventually convicted, but it was under legislation that pre-dated 9/11 – in fact six of his convictions were under legislation dating back to 1861,” he said. Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, warned that the new law was not only oppressive but unworkable. The controversial anti-terror plans faced stiff opposition in the House of Lords before they became law, while some lawyers questioned the legal definition of glorification. Peers rejected the proposals five times before finally voting them through last month. A total of 17 Labour MPs voted with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to oppose the measures. On Wednesday the Home Secretary suffered a defeat in the High Court when a judge ruled that another key element of the Government’s anti-terror policy was incompatible with human rights laws. Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the control order imposed on a British citizen was “conspicuously unfair”. The ruling throws into question the system used by the Home Secretary to curb the movement and behaviour of individuals he suspects of being linked to terrorism. The suspect, known only as MB, was the first Briton to be made the subject of a control order when he was served with Home Office papers last year. The Government said it will appeal against the ruling. * A 20-year-old man was arrested yesterday in Alva, Clackmannanshire, under the Terrorism Act 2000. Student, 22, detained at Manchester airport: ‘I denied I was ever a terrorist’ MB, a 22-year-old student, was detained at Manchester airport by MI5 in March last year. He was questioned for several hours, and claims he was racially abused and threatened with torture. Then in September last year the Home Secretary served him with a control order, forcing him to report to the police regularly and surrender all his identification documents. “I denied the allegations that I was a terrorist or had ever been involved in terrorism activities or had any intention of indulging in terrorist activities,” he said. “I also pointed out that he had no right to threaten me with torture and death and that he was the terrorist terrorising me. They had deliberately made me miss my flight. “[After being released] I then headed off to the information desk … to refund my ticket. Whilst the lady was on the phone, the two men who escorted me out came over to the enquiry desk and told the lady that she was not to talk to or help me or else she might be arrested. To my astonishment, one off them turned towards me and said, ‘Fuck off, you Paki bastard’. “At present I am sharing a house with three other tenants who do not know about me being subject to a control order and I wish to keep it this way. It puts a great burden upon me as I always have to be available to attend the police station. Sometimes it is very difficult to try to explain to others where I am going. “I have this problem every day of my life at present and for the foreseeable future.”
