Here's A Better Survey

URGENT CONSULTATION ON THE TERRORISM BILL

Next Wednesday 9th of November the Terrorism Bill is coming back before the Commons. Compass is carrying out an urgent consultation in order to contribute to the debate. In particular an amendment proposed by Labour backbenchers reducing the period of detention from 90 days to 28 was withdrawn on the basis that there would be wide consultation and discussions on this issue. If no compromise is agreed it is proposed that this ammendment will be put before the House again on Wednesday for a vote.
The results of this survey will be sent to Compass supporting MPs and the National Media and put on the Compass Website.
This will take you 30 seconds to complete please do so now – cut and paste and email your completed survey to gavin@compassonline.org.uk.

There is further background information which we aimed to set out in a balanced way below the questionnaire – please do forward this survey on to as many people as possible. <
Questionnaire

1. Do you think there should be a new offence of encouraging or glorifying terrorism? The terrorism Bill contains such an offence. Please answer - Yes or No.

2. How long should the police be allowed to detain terrorist suspects without charge? 14 days is the current maximum. The government wants 90 days and some backbench Labour MPs are supporting an amendment to the bill that would allow 28 days. Please choose ONE of the following:

a) 14 days

b) 28 days

c) 56 days

d) 90 days

e) Indefinitely

3. Do you believe that the Terrorism Bill in its current form will increase or decrease the chances of further terrorist attacks in the UK? Please answer - Increase or decrease.

4. Please put any further comments you may have here.

Background Information

The controversial issues - the Terrorism Bill would:

• Create a new offence of encouragement to terrorism. This offence would be committed if "the person publishing a statement or causing a statement to be published either knows or believes, or has reasonable grounds for believing at the time of publication or causing to publish, that members of the public seeing or hearing the statement are likely to understand it to be an encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism". The encouragement can be either direct or indirect. "Indirect encouragement of terrorism" includes statements that glorify the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism if a member of the public could reasonably infer that the glorification is of conduct that should be emulated. The encouragement need not relate to a specific act of terrorism.
• Extend the maximum period of detention that terrorist suspects can be held from 14 days to 90 days, subject to the agreement of a circuit judge. Until January 2004 terrorists could be held for a maximum of 7 days. The maximum period had been increased to 14 days by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Further detail on the contents of the Terrorism Bill is available by >>clicking here.

For

The government argues that the increased threat from terrorism has ‘changed the rules of the game’. The threat from terrorism is now greater, and different, from that posed by the IRA and so stronger terrorism laws are needed. They argue that preventing those from publishing material or speaking in favour of terrorism will help marginalise terrorists and make it harder for them to recruit.



The government argues that the police should have greater powers to detain terrorist suspects without charge because terrorist offences are different from ordinary offences. With the advent of suicide bombers, the Police often have to intervene earlier than in other cases because of the threat posed to the public. This means that collecting evidence is more difficult and the police need more time to get the evidence and then question the suspect before bringing charges. Time may for instance be needed to search CCTV footage for evidence, get access to mobile phone records or to establish the identity of suspects due to the use of forged documents. The results of forensic examinations may also take a long time to be known if, for example, access to a site is not safe or a terrorist attack has damaged much of the evidence. Further, because terrorism is increasing international and more sophisticated time may be needed to collect evidence internationally, translate documents o
r break computer codes. The Metropolitan Police also argue that they need more time to allow regular religious observance by terrorist suspects – and for the fact that one firm of solicitors may represent many of the suspects so that the process is delayed due to the need to consult with multiple clients.



Charles Clarke and Tony Blair are in favour of the proposals. You can read Charles Clarke’s views by >>clicking here read Tony Blair’s 5th of August speech by >>clicking here.



The changes come on the recommendation of the Metropolitan Police. Their views can be read by >>clicking here.

Against

The proposals are being opposed by a number of backbench Labour MPs, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Amongst those opposing at least some of the measures is John Denham, the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee and senior backbencher David Winnick, another member of the Home Affairs Select Committee and many others.

Those opposed to the glorifying terrorism provisions oppose them on a number of grounds. They argue that they would curtail freedom of speech and academic debate. They believe that the result would be to drive discussion underground where it is likely to be more dangerous. With the advent of the internet they believe that in practice the result would be to drive young Muslims away from debating issues in formal institutions to the internet and underground groups where they are more likely to fall prey to terrorist influences. Terrorist groups will be able to use the law to argue that mainstream British society is not interested in the views of British Muslims and that therefore the only route to political expression is through political violence. A further criticism of the debate is that it does not pass the ‘Nelson Mandela test’. That is to say that under this law it would have been illegal to praise Nelson Mandela – who as a member of the ANC advocated
the use of violence against the South African state to overturn apartheid.

Those against argue that it is in principle wrong to detain someone in police custody when there is not sufficient evidence to charge them. They also argue that the law would disproportionately affect Muslim communities. This would damage community relations and provide a recruiting sergeant for terrorist groups. They point to the experience of Northern Ireland where internment is generally considered to have increased the danger of terrorism and alienated communities from the Police.

They argue that the police already have significant powers particularly compared to other countries. In Australia for example the government is currently introducing a terrorism law that would increase the maximum period of detention to 14 days – the same as it currently is here. The Police can hold terrorist suspects for 14 days, compared to maximum of 96 hours for normal offences.

The Police can also get control orders against those thought to be a terrorist threat. Control orders are preventative orders, which impose obligations on an individual, which are designed to prevent, restrict or disrupt his or her possible involvement in terrorism-related activity. Control orders could include measures ranging from a ban on the use of communications equipment to a restriction on an individual’s movement. Breach of a control order is a criminal offence.

Those who oppose the extended detainment, point out that the main case the government has used to justify the changes resulted in those accused being acquitted after 2 years being held on remand. Further, more than half of the Metropolitan Police document justifying the changes a fictional ‘theoretical case study’. Finally, they argue that if the basis upon which the police are to be given power to detain, is how long it takes for them to investigate CCTV and encrypted computers, then exactly why is three months the time required given that every case is different.

The Guardian – read its editorial against the proposals by >>clicking here.

Liberty opposes the plans. Read their briefing by >>clicking here.

Amnesty International opposes the plans – read their briefing by >>clicking here.

The AUT opposed the plans. Their press release can be read by >>clicking here.

Other Resources/views:

The Terrorism Bill is available by >>clicking here.

Get the Committee Stage Debate in the House of Commons on the Terrorism Bill by >>clicking here.

FCO guide to terrorism laws in other countries by >>clicking here.

Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, has produced a report on the proposed changes. He thinks that there may be a case for a longer period of detention but wants much stronger safeguards built in to protect suspects. You can read his report by >>clicking here.

The Attorney General – there are reports that the Attorney General is unhappy with the proposals. Reports suggest he sees a case for an increase, but not to 90 days. Brian Paddick also seems to be somewhat ambivalent about the effect of the proposals in community relations. You can read the BBC report by >>clicking here.

Home Office Terrorism Website by >>clicking here.

To find out more about what Compass is doing over the coming months, to join us, or to find out how to get actively involved, visit the website at compassonline.org.uk or e-mail gavin@compassonline.org.uk.