New Laws on "glorifying terror"
Nov 6 2005 15:53
Apparently the new laws to be promulgated against "glorifying terror" are as follows:
Quote:
It would, he (charles Clarke) said, make it an offence to "make a statement glorifying terrorism if the person making it believes, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that it is likely to be understood by its audience as an inducement to terrorism".
Terrorism? Would some forms of civil disobedience be included in this, what about rioting, if it has a political motivation, which much rioting could be contrued as having, would this be classed as terrorism? Pressumably this clears up the problem espoused by some that the original law could be used against someone who argues the defense of say Guy Fawkes or Guevara or the Zapatistas, though it still seems ambiguous enough to be abused pretty easily if the authorities so wish to do so, much like some of the other 'terror' legislation.
Nov 6 2005 16:48
#2
i think we should all start making citizens arrests on people who support the war after this law is in place 
Nov 6 2005 16:51
#3
Sorry this is a cut and paste, it is a legal opinion from Bob Marshall-Andrews QC on the effects of this legislation.
Clauses 1 and 2 create offences of issuing statements or documents
which the maker has reasonable grounds for believing may cause any
member of public to understand as an indirect encouragement to
terrorist acts. There is no requirement that the maker should intend
those consequences.
If they became law the following acts will undoubtedly become criminal.
1. A public statement that
“in view of the illegal occupation of Palestinian land I can well
understand how decent Palestinians become suicide bombers.”
2. A public statement that
“The campaign to destroy government property by the ANC fighting
against the Apartheid Regime is an example of justifiable violence
against oppressive and tyrannical government”
3. Proposing of a university debate that “This House would become a
suicide bomber to fight tyranny.”
4. A teacher or tutor distributing terrorist propaganda to a class studying
modern history in the Middle East.
5. A broadcaster or newspaper reproducing terrorist propaganda in order
to attack it.
Perhaps the important point is where it says, 'There is no requirement that the maker should intend those consequences.' A case of unwitting incitement.
Nov 6 2005 17:20
#4
nosos wrote:
I may be being slightly optimistic but surely "reasonable grounds for belief" would be a fucking difficult thing to establish juridicially in all but the most obvious cases?
this concept of reaonableness is used a lot in legal parlance is it not though
usually the onus is on the jury as 12 "reasonable people, good and true"
Nov 7 2005 11:19
#5
greets
if this becomes law - and that depends on all manner of parliamentary shenanigans - i suspect that:
1) the police will use it to the max to disrupt the publication of anything their masters tell them to go after
2) the legal boundaries will eventually be determined by case law, results of appeals to the lords and european courts etc. in short it's anybody's guess what will get you banged up (let alone convicted)
mal
Nov 7 2005 21:12
#6
Blair in an attempt to stop the opposition to the Terrorism Bill said,
‘This is not a plan dreamed up by me or with its origins in the government. It is what the most senior police officers in the country have asked us to do.’
There, we can all sleep easily in our beds now. We'll be safe in police hands, or is that custody?
Nov 7 2005 21:29
#7
Quote:
‘This is not a plan dreamed up by me or with its origins in the government. It is what the most senior police officers in the country have asked us to do.’
surely the logic behind this statement is absurd even for those politicians of the centre?! If its what the police want then we must do it, in that case why dont the government listen to firefighters when they say that the restructuring of the fire service will put lifes at risk? Should all political policy actually be devised by those who work in such and such a sector? The nurses and doctors say that the strains being placed on them through long shifts and staff shortages are simply untenable and putting peoples lives at risk....we must therefor do as the nurses say and increase staffing and cut working hours so to protect the wellbeing of patients.
If police were to make the fucking laws most drugs would probably be decriminalised in order that police time isnt spent dealing with paperwork concerning some kid whose been caught smoking a joint. The idea that if the police want it they should get it is surely the most draconian and absurd idea thats ever spilled forth from this morons lieing little gob.
Nov 8 2005 17:42
#8
How convenient.
Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair said there was "chilling" evidence of new terrorist plots, as he stated the case in support of increased detention powers.
It really is a case of rule by fear. Nevermind bird flu, this lot want us all to go down with Terrorphobia, then they can impose whatever sanctions they like.
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4418808.stm
Nov 8 2005 18:31
#9
here in denmark it's an offence to say anything which may suggest that terrorists have some kind of reason for doing whatever they do. so any form of criticism of the War on Terror or the Israeli occupation etc etc becomes very risky indeed. because we are at war, aren't we?
Nov 9 2005 10:48
#10
creepyoller wrote:
How convenient.Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair said there was "chilling" evidence of new terrorist plots, as he stated the case in support of increased detention powers.
Odd that, isn't it? It seems that the terrorists make their plots to coincide with bits of anti-terror legislation passing through parliament. It was just the same with the "terrorist plot" to blow up Old Trafford, which turned out to be a bunch of football-loving Asian lads planning a trip to see Man U.
Nov 9 2005 17:45
#11
Fair's fair, this law will make holding loud fundamentalist rallies outside police stations a pain in the arse and no mistake. And when you think of that, what's a little fascism between friends.
Nov 14 2005 19:58
#12
In 1939 and 1940 the Emergency Powers Acts were promulgated allowing the government to weild powers of the most dictatorial character. Regulation 18B allowed the power to imprison without charge or trial (sound familiar?).Regulation 2D allowed the power to suppress newspapers without appeal.
18B was used to intern and transport anti-fascist refugees and imprison militant shop stewards. One Johny Mason was imprisoned July 1940 and held indefinately (i'm guessing they let him out eventually!) on the charge of 'hampering war production'.
The government had previously assured the unions, who were at the time becoming more and more collaborationist and timid, that such legislation would not be used with regards labour disputes, which was effectively a lie.
The legislation passed put britain in line with much of the industrial legislation that was in practice in nazi germany at the time, apparently leading to hugely increased profits at a time when the standard of living was falling and the cost of goods rising, needless to say many companies made a killing from the situation.
Now of course the phoney 'War on Terror' hasnt had quite the same effect on british labour as the second world war, the deaths caused by the war are hardly going to present british labour with a good bargaining position as was the case with the second world war, however if the ol bird flu turns out to be as cataclysmic as suggested by some doom merchants (50-100,000 dead), would this provide tony with the impetus (together with the legislation that has already been drafted curtailing free speach and ushering in greater surveilance) to have a crack down on labour in Britain?
I may be being slightly optimistic but surely "reasonable grounds for belief" would be a fucking difficult thing to establish juridicially in all but the most obvious cases? I can't see this extending the government's powers in practice to any huge degree although thin end of the wedge and all that.