Britain Puts New Anti-Terror Law Into Effect

**kadafi** · 03-12-2005

LONDON, March 12, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – No sooner had the British parliament passed the controversial anti-terror bill, than Home Secretary Charles Clarke signed control orders Saturday, March 12, to restrict the movements of 10 foreign terror suspects under the new legislation.

The recently released men will be confined to their private addresses and must observe a 7:00 pm to 7:00 am curfew, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).

They will also wear an electronic tagging device, have no access to mobiles phones or the Internet and will be allowed only limited outside contacts.

Nine of the men were released from Belmarsh high-security custody on Thursday and Friday, while the 10th has been remanded on bail for health reasons and confined to his home since last April.

The new legislation gives Home Secretary Charles Clarke the power to issue the so-called control orders as long as a high court judge is able to confirm them within seven days, Britain’s daily The Guardian reported on Saturday.

The suspects will be given a Home Office telephone number to ring so they could ask for permission before meeting anybody outside their homes.

They will only be able to make “health, educational and welfare” appointments with the prior approval of the Home Office.

Controversial Law

The new orders apply under the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Bill which Prime Minister Tony Blair's government finally pushed through parliament Friday, March 12, following a two-day, round-the-clock debate and tussle with the upper house.

The parliamentary ping pong had been to find a balance between ensuring maximum national security against a perceived major threat of terrorism and preserving citizens' liberties.

An independent monitor will be appointed to oversee the new law and will early next year publish its first report before the counter-terrorism bill is introduced into the Commons, according to The Independent.

The House of Lords had repeatedly tried to change the law to make it automatically expire within a year through a so-called “sunset clause”.

Blair said that this would seriously undermine the measure, because it “would send a signal of weakness at the very time we should be sending a signal of strength.”

However, in the end the government partly backed down by promising a major parliamentary review of the law in a year, which satisfied opponents, while the opposition agreed to drop demands for a higher standard of proof, paving the way for the anti-terror bill to be passed by both houses.

On March 8, the Lords voted against the new law with peers accusing Blair of playing politics and toying with the country’s civil liberties.

British Muslims were infuriated by statements from Home Office Minister Hazel Blears and the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that the Muslim minority will be the main target of the new legislation. Muslims have repeatedly complained of maltreatment by police for no apparent reason other than being Muslim, citing the routine stop-and-search operations.

Senior British parliamentarians admitted last August that anti-terrorism laws are being used “disproportionately” against the Muslim minority.

The government had been desperate to push through the control orders to replace an earlier law authorizing the indefinite detention without charges of foreign terror suspects, which was recently ruled illegal by the House of Lords.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-03/12/article03.shtml

**root** · 03-13-2005

New draconian anti-terror legislation in the UK that abandons principles that are the cornerstone of western societies once again exposes the deficiencies in the ideology of western governments.

I suppose you could call the British justice system deficient. I would actually agree with this point. The British Criminal law is exactly that, A "Criminal" justice system. And as such not designed for terrorism for a "Criminal" is not a "Terrorist" and visa versa. The notion that we can bring to justice "Terrorists" under the "Criminal justice system" poses a great security threat to the UK. The policies at present are not adequate and will remain inadequate until the UK suffers a terrorist strike that exposes how easy terrorists are able to operate within a criminal law framework.

**Genius** · 03-13-2005

Terrorists are criminals so they should be given a fair trial, regardless of their crimes.

**Sahabiyaat** · 03-14-2005

hm.....i think u shud consider how the kuffar define a 'terrorist'
it may be quite different from a muslims definition.

**root** · 03-14-2005

Originally Posted by Genius

Terrorists are criminals so they should be given a fair trial, regardless of their crimes.

No, Terrorists are not criminals. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

A Terrorist uses Terrorism.

"the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives. (FEMA-SS)

An example would be phone tapping. If a telephone conversation was tapped in the US or UK for example and during a recorded conversation the bombing of the london underground was discussed with details. The British Government could act upon this information and intervene. A subsequent trial under criminal law would not allow the phone conversation to be used as Evidence, this is just one example.

**Genius** · 03-14-2005

Originally Posted by muslimahimprovin

hm.....i think u shud consider how the kuffar define a 'terrorist'
it may be quite different from a muslims definition.

Someone who kills non combatants as a political or millitary statement, see these attacks; 9/11, Madrid, Bali, Istanbul, Casablanca, Iraq, Karachi, Riyadh etc , anyone who participates in them is a terrorist, anyone who participates in planning future attacks is also a terrorist, someone who sympathise's with their methodology is a terrorist sympathiser, i don't think it can be made any clearer.

And Root, what would happen if special branch tapped the phones of a suspected bank robber, would that not be used as evidence against him, does his right to trial dissappear cos the evidence against him is too secretive to reveal in a public court?

**aamirsaab** · 03-14-2005

All this anti terror law does is give the US and UK an excuse to further bomb the crap out of countries that claim to harbour so called terrorists (i.e. any dark skinned guy with a beard)

wot many of u may have failed to realise is that this anti terror law is pointless - the US and Uk have been using it since sep 11 and now the law finally passes so that they conveniantly can say: o we have a law that says we CAN bomb ur house and if u attakc us we will further BOMB ur house'
anyways, time 4 me to go.
inabit

**root** · 03-14-2005

All this anti terror law does is give the US and UK an excuse to further bomb the crap out of countries

the UK anti-terror law is very different than the US.

If you see this as you quoted, their is little point moving an otherwise good discussion forward.

**root** · 03-15-2005

And Root, what would happen if special branch tapped the phones of a suspected bank robber, would that not be used as evidence against him,

No it would not be used against him and a jury would never know about the phone tap. Phone tapping evidence is not allowed in a criminal court of law

does his right to trial dissappear cos the evidence against him is too secretive to reveal in a public court?

Phone tapping is not secretive in a court of law. It is simply not allowed to be used as evidence. Even if the whole plan of the robbery was on recorded phone conversations.

Regards

Root

**aamirsaab** · 03-15-2005

Originally Posted by root

the UK anti-terror law is very different than the US.

If you see this as you quoted, their is little point moving an otherwise good discussion forward.

dont get me wrong - this is a good discussion. i dont have 2 tell u how clever u r root, im sure ur very aware. but may i remind u that this so called anti terror law is simply an excuse - it gives justification for their actions - which by no means are justified.
im not questioning ur intelligence root so dont feel offended. i am merely commenting on the topic (is that a crime...if so then i am guilty)
Hash, again i agree with most of ur points, but u cant really blame bush and blair - they are puppets doing their job. Sharon i a different matter but we can discuss him on a different topic - hes so fat he desrves a whole page.

anyways, back 2 the anti terror law. i dont agree with it cus usually they pick the wrong person.

so root, i take it u know some asian ppl - some of them maybe ur friends. what if one day the police arrested him on suspicion of being a terrorist. would u think differently of him because of this? Would u think: yes he did it.would u think: yes the world is now a safer place because my asian m8 has been locked up..
if the answer is yes u might aswell leave - there is no point in me explaining it any further. if the answer is no then u will understand y many of us on this forum dislike this anti terror law and the media.
i shall not bore u any further. my eyes are tired now and i have plenty of work to do. i shall return soon.

peace out

**root** · 03-16-2005

HHmmmm, Asian freinds!

I am from Scotland. Their are no asians or black people where I live, barring my corner shop. Out of 17,000 people in my town I would estimate around 20 would be Asian & 1 or 2 black.

I appreciate what your trying to say. But it is quite irrelevent really since I am merely reflecting upon the debate that "terrorism" cannot be managed under a "criminal law". I don't think the current situation for the terrorist bill is adequate neither and is quite flawed, however the threat is a real one.

maybe "Treason" should be overhauled and applied here. I predict that the issue will become further comlex and strictor in the future, I don't wish for any innocent person to be held without trial and the future path of the anti terrorist bill is very much subject to change sine I personally beleive that "When" the terrorists strike and "if" it was a known terrorist to which the state was powerless to act due to "criminal law" things will only get worse.

**bdb08** · 03-16-2005

These anti-terror laws we have in the USA have done nothing more than make it harder for law-aviding citizens to live their lives; and threatens our Constitutional liberties. Governments ALWAYS love to use fear as a tool for interfering with people's lives. Suspending habeus corpus and tearing up the Bill of Rights is no way to fight terrorism.
You know whats really rediculous? The law is no such that my own parents cannot see my academic, medical, or library records without my permission, but the CIA, FBI, and the Department of Justice can.
Only in America! :confused:

**Ansar Al-'Adl** · 03-17-2005

...and hate leads to the dark side!

But Hash, you can't label a country that way. If you don't like their foreign polcy, then label that. Don't label a nation.

**aamirsaab** · 03-17-2005

Originally Posted by root

HHmmmm, Asian freinds!

I am from Scotland. Their are no asians or black people where I live, barring my corner shop. Out of 17,000 people in my town I would estimate around 20 would be Asian & 1 or 2 black.

I appreciate what your trying to say. But it is quite irrelevent really since I am merely reflecting upon the debate that "terrorism" cannot be managed under a "criminal law". I don't think the current situation for the terrorist bill is adequate neither and is quite flawed, however the threat is a real one.

maybe "Treason" should be overhauled and applied here. I predict that the issue will become further comlex and strictor in the future, I don't wish for any innocent person to be held without trial and the future path of the anti terrorist bill is very much subject to change sine I personally beleive that "When" the terrorists strike and "if" it was a known terrorist to which the state was powerless to act due to "criminal law" things will only get worse.

i agree with u 100% on that. the only problem i have with this "terrorism" law is that its gonna be misused. and like bdb08 also stated: it makes it harder for law abiding citizens to live their life. i only wish that they use their new law properly - in an ideal world this would happend and unfortunately we dont live in an ideal world.thats all im sayin. so yeah, have ur anti terror law but at least play by ur OWN rules.