Terror Bill to target dissidents

Recently a new form of protest has rattled the composure of governments across the world. J18, Seattle, and May Day have all seen disparate groups put aside single issue politics and unite against what is increasingly being seen as the underlying enemy: capitalism.

It is not surprising that these protests have governments worried. For too long activists stuck to their particular area of concern. Animal rights protesters, unionists, pacifists, environmentalists - all seemed almost unwilling to co-operate. But not anymore. The streets of Seattle saw steelworkers stand side by side with dreadlocked greens in unity against a common enemy.

This new unity brings a corresponding increase in numbers. And it is also accompanied by an increasing willingness to use direct action. People are no longer content with waving placards and even pensioners were willing to lie in front of the wheels of a lorry at Shoreham to protest against live animal exports.

But in Britain at least, the government has an answer in one of the most Draconian pieces of legislation ever seen outside an openly totalitarian state.

The Terrorism Bill is not about stopping paramilitaries using bullets and bombs. It is about stifling dissent and smashing opposition. Its clauses pose a direct threat to anyone who has ever taken part in any form of direct action, and the powers it will confer on the state could be used to curtail any from of radical political activity.

The Bill defines terrorism as

"the use or threat, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, of action which:

involves serious violence against any person or property

endangers the life of any person, or

creates a serious risk to the health and safety of the public or a section of the public".

By including a threat to property and a vague clause on public safety, the Bill opens the door to making terrorists out of road protesters, arms trade protesters, animal rights protesters, GM protesters, community action groups, even conceivably trade unionists. And as "action" also includes activities outside the UK, it threatens anyone supporting any group fighting oppression abroad. Supporters of the EZLN, the Kurds, or Chinese democrats, beware.

Once the government decides you are terrorists, your organisation can be proscribed. You don't need to be making bombs for this to happen. If you "promote or encourage terrorism" you fall within the Bill's remit.

Take the fictional example of a "Bradford Friends of the Zapatistas" group who find themselves proscribed for promoting terrorism overseas. Its members then face up to 10 years in jail. To defend themselves, they have to actively prove they were not involved - there is no assumption of innocence.

If you take pity on the poor imprisoned campaigners and try to raise funds for their appeal you stand the chance of ending up in the dock yourself. Fundraising for a proscribed organisation carries a five year sentence, as does giving money. Indeed, you don't even have to give it - just possessing money that you intend to give can land you with a five-year stretch.

And don't go thinking you can talk about what's going on. If you organise, assist with, or address a meeting (which is defined as more than two people) in support of the group you can be jailed for up to 10 years. Laughably, this clause applies to any speakers at the meeting, so don't think you'll get away with it if you're speaking against the "terrorists".

And whatever you do, don't wear a "Friends of the Zapatistas" t-shirt. Wearing an item of clothing which creates a "reasonable suspicion" that you are a member or supporter of a proscribed group also carries a ten year jail sentence.

If you're arrested under any of these clauses you can be held up to 48 hours without contact with a solicitor and even without anyone being told of your arrest. The police can apply to hold you for longer and can ask that you and your solicitor are excluded from that hearing.

Other clauses of the Bill make it an offence not to pass on to police suspicions about terrorism that have arisen because of information acquired through your trade, profession or employment; an offence to possess anything which police suspect could be connected with acts of terrorism (and to find it they can search your home or office without needing to suspect an offence has taken place); and an offence to collect, record or possess any information which could be useful to a terrorist.

The only safeguard the Bill leaves civil liberties is an assurance from Jack Straw that the law would never be used in this way. Whatever value you put on this assurance, Mr Straw cannot speak for the actions of future governments and Home Secretaries.

Moreover, the nature of the Bill itself and the fact that it ignores the definition of terrorism in the Geneva Convention and contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights, suggests that it is designed specifically to target direct action protests.

The men in masks with guns and bombs can be jailed for murdering and maiming. This law isn't necessary to combat them. It is designed to turn protesters who damage or threaten the property from minor offenders in the magistrate's courts into category-A prisoners.

Last year, a small group of protesters met at the 1in12 Club before going to Halifax to target the Nestle factory. Fifteen of them were charged with burglary after the company said they caused £5,000 worth of damage (take not that Prince Philip didn't get charged when he ruined a factory's entire run of cheese because he refused to wear a hat). The charges were dropped by an embarrassed CPS. Under this Bill those 15 people could have been charged as terrorists (and the 1in12 Club along with them for "supporting" them).

Like the ridiculous burglary charges, many charges brought under this Bill will probably be dropped or thrown out of court. But by then the damage will have been done. The police will use these powers to prevent demos, harass current activists and deter others.

A civil liberties pamphlet issued to Republicans in Northern Ireland about the Prevention of Terrorism Act, warned them: "your detention will probably have little to do with being a 'suspected terrorist' and more to do with general information gathering and intimidation of the Irish community".

If this Bill becomes law in its current form, we can assume the same will be true of the political community here.

Already, a member of the House of Lords has proposed adding the name of the Animal Liberation Front to the schedule of proscribed organisations - currently all Irish paramilitary groups.

This is not just the thin end of the wedge. The government has already begun to hammer that wedge home.

Check out the following sites for further info:

• Are you a terrorist? (the Home Office tried to shut this one down within 24 hours!)
• Defining Terrorism
• Amnesty International briefing

Back to KDIS Online