Not In Our Name

Not In Our Name

I have just been reading the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 because I got the impression from newspaper reports that the House of Lords did not go far enough in the Control Orders cases JJ and others, MB, and E and another. There is much in the Act and the HofL judgments to give me cause for concern. I don't mind telling you, I fear the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 far more than I fear any potential act of terrorists. I believe that the Act is unlawful notwithstanding its purported justification, that is, "protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism". It would appear that the public is prepared to allow the government to do anything, supposedly in their name, if the government first issues those magic words "public protection". In the last World War the Nazis herded 6 million people into gas chambers after telling them that they were getting showers. Amnesty International observes that we have been lied to:

"Citizens should have statutory rights to enforce their human rights in the UK courts. We will by statute incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law to bring these rights home and allow our people access to them in their national courts. The incorporation of the European Convention will establish a floor, not a ceiling, for human rights. [emphasis added]

1997 Labour Party’s General Election Manifesto

Should legal obstacles arise we will legislate further, including, if necessary, amending the Human Rights Act in respect of the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Prime Minister Tony Blair, 5 August 2005".

What stands out for me is that there is no universal definition of what is terrorism, therefore it is difficult to define what constitutes "terrorism-related activity" which the Act is designed to curb. According to Section 1 subsection (9):

"For the purposes of this Act involvement in terrorism-related activity is any one or more of the following—

(a) the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism;

(b) conduct which facilitates the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts, or which is intended to do so;

(c) conduct which gives encouragement to the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts, or which is intended to do so;

(d) conduct which gives support or assistance to individuals who are known or believed to be involved in terrorism-related activity;

and for the purposes of this subsection it is immaterial whether the acts of terrorism in question are specific acts of terrorism or acts of terrorism generally".

It would appear that a suspected terrorist is anybody whom the Home Secretary thinks is one, and a terrorism-related activity is anything that the Home Secretary says it is. And a suspected terrorist's “apparatus” "includes any equipment", for example, "any wire or cable", therefore a innocent Brazilian electrician...

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 grants the Home Secretary power that is too wide in scope that abuse of power is inevitable. When I first read the Human Rights Act 1998, I was disappointed that s.4(2) only allowed a court to make a declaration of incompatibility with the Act rather than allow a court to strike down the offending statute or section of an Act.

Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, a blogger could be deemed to be a suspected terrorist and subjected to a control order. So too could 3 year old Madeleine McCann if she was still alive. Rather than create an Act to prevent terrorism, the government has succeeded in creating an Act of terrorism.

UPDATE: Home Secretary's statement

Head of Legal has covered this case rather extensively here, here, and here.