From Criminals To Terrorists?
In 1994 the Tories criminalised us - now New Labour plan to brand us terrorist....
Extract from "Legislation Against Terrorism"
- a Consultation Paper just published by the Government
3.10 Animal rights, and to a lesser extent environmental rights activists, have mounted, and continue to pursue, persistent and destructive campaigns. Last year, for example, more than 800 incidents were recorded by the Animal Rights National Index (ARNI)...
3.11 While the level of terrorist activity by such groups is lower, and the sophistication of their organisation and methods less well developed, than that of some of the terrorist groups in Northern Ireland, or of some of the international terrorist groups, there is nothing to indicate that the threat they pose will go away. Acts of serious violence against people and property have undoubtedly been committed in the UK by these domestic groups.
3.16 The Government agrees that the new legislation should bite only on the use of serious violence...The Government does not believe that special powers are needed to deal with matters [such as blackmail or extortion for gain] where there is no intent to disrupt or undermine the democratic process...terrorism should be redefined as "the use of serious violence against persons or property , or the threat to use such violence, to intimidate or coerce a government, the public, or any section of the public for political, religious or ideological ends". The term serious violence would need to be defined so that it included serious disruption, for instance resulting from attacks on computer installations or public utilities...
[the full document is at http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm41/4178/4178.htm and consultation deadline is 16 March 1999]
Who will fall within the new definition of "Terrorist"?
It seems clear from the above that the state intends to deal with a significant section of activists as terrorists. Particularly, damage to property, which most activists view as non-violent action, is included as terrorist activity alongside violence to people. For example, the flier for the world-wide demonstrations planned for June 18 1999 mentions "sabotage" and "hacktivism". The planning of these two activities would trigger the classification of "terrorists" for all of the "growing alliance of social and environmental movements" involved, were the new proposals law by June, which of course they won't be.
If the state wants to proscribe a group (see below) it will be hard to argue against the decision. As was seen in the recent "GAndALF" case, the state and its organs are likely to make great use of Public Interest Immunity certificates in any cases involving radical activists, and the courts shy away from overturning any decision affecting national security. The trigger term "serious violence" is hard to define; the same term is used in section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which is often used by police at demonstrations to carry out random stop & searches.
It would not be difficult for many EF! groups, or even Genetix Snowball, to fall within the new classification; support for actions involving eco-tage would be enough. It is likely that liberties will be taken in deciding which groups are connected with which others and in glossing over the fact that few have concepts of 'membership'. Certainly the impression from much of the recent media coverage concerning the animal liberation movement was that groups such as the ALF were described as organisations with members; their loose structure was seen as existing merely to make it harder for police to deal with them rather than being there due to belief in libertarian/anarchist principles of (dis)organisation.
The state and indeed others might even be tempted to follow the FBI's tactics and try a Judi Bari-style bombing so that they could have the necessary evidence to class movements as terrorist.
What Difference Will It Make?
There are a number of powers that can be used against organisations deemed terrorist, though at present they can only be used against organisations engaged in international terrorism or terrorism relating to the affairs of Ireland, as opposed to domestic terrorism. Here are some of the powers proposed:
Proscription - the Home Secretary could proscribe, i.e. ban, any group concerned in, promoting or encouraging terrorism. Belonging to a proscribed organisation, soliciting support or funds for it, or displaying support for it in public would all be criminal offences. At present, the view of a senior police officer as to whether someone is a member of a proscribed organisation is admissible as evidence in court.
Finances - proscribed groups' funds could be seized and fundraising for such groups made illegal.
New Arrest/Stop & Search Powers For Police - against anyone they have reasonable suspicion is "concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism". The absence of any requirement for reasonable suspicion of a specific offence effectively allows the police free rein to arrest whomsoever they wish. Normal rights under PACE (e.g. legal advice, detention time limits) would not apply.
Information - Making it an offence to collect, record or possess any information which might be useful to terrorists. This could mean the end of the Corporate Watch address book, or even lists of fields with GE crops.
There is a proposal to make it an offence "to fail to report information to the police which might be of material assistance in preventing an act of terrorism or in arresting someone carrying out such an act". While this is unlikely to become law at present on this island, it already is in N Ireland.
The recent Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 makes it a crime to conspire with others to commit any crime abroad that would also be a crime in the UK if committed there, and there are now proposals also making it a crime to merely incite others to take such action abroad. This would include "crimes" such as damaging weapons of oppression used by the occupying states in Kurdistan or East Timor, and the creation of these offences would have a dramatic chilling effect on support for oppressed people abroad.
Conclusions
One of the biggest problems with the new definition for ecological, social and animal rights activists is that it includes activities that just cause economic damage as opposed to only those creating fear or terror.
The legal definition of terrorism will thus be far wider than the dictionary definition. That said, it would be wrong to become too paranoid about the proposed legislation. The Criminal Justice Bill seemed like the end of the world to many, yet we came out not only far stronger and more united, but also more liberated from the law's interpretation of right and wrong.