14th October 2005

Labour's latest anti-terrorism legislation is deeply worrying and will do little to prevent attacks like 7th July in London. Indeed they look more like an attempt to suppress political expression rather than to prevent violence (i).

We should not forget terrorism was illegal long before President Blair declared war on it and that years ago he acknowledged we already have some of the "toughest" anti-terrorist laws in the world. Indeed sufficient powers to charge people under most situations already exist. Incitement to murder, for example, has been a crime punishable by life imprisonment since the Offences Against the Persons Act, 1861.

Tony Blair now uses Britain's police forces as private security guards, keeping dissidents away from sensitive areas such as Westminster and Gleneagles with laws so encompassing as to criminalize virtually any form of unauthorized protest.

Walter Wolfgang is just the latest example of the government's policy on dissident voices. Who could have foreseen that when the last Prevention of Terrorism Act was passed it would be used to prevent a pensioner from re-entering his own party conference?

Despite government assurances, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, along with numerous others, have been used largely to persecute peaceful protesters. The police always want the widest possible powers; it is for the rest of us to ensure they are limited to those which are strictly necessary.

Carol Kambites,
Stroud District Green party



Notes:

(i) The proposed extension of the time a suspect can be detained without charge is wrong in principle and unlikely to make a difference in practice. The proposal to ban a variety of groups, which however unappetising some of their views do not amount to an incitement to murder, is an infringement of the freedom of speech and likely to drive them underground rather than enabling an open debate which is an essential element in combating real terrorism. The extremely wide definition of terrorism remains an underlying problem, which coupled with the uncertainty of the meaning of “intending to incite”, means the new law can be used in entirely inappropriate circumstances.