The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 96: 11 October 2005

Contents

Repression - New Laws Reduce Security

Repression - Not Very Liberal Democrats

Repression - 15 Groups Banned

Repression - That Blears Letter Again

REPRESSION

REPRESSION - NEW LAWS REDUCE SECURITY

On Sunday 9 October, Panorama ran a programme about some of the new 'anti-terror' laws. Entitled 'Blair vs Blair', the central conceit was a series of reconstructed arguments between human rights lawyer Cherie Blair and her husband, the Prime Minister. The arguments were based on their public statements about the new repressive laws that have been brought in since 7/7. (You can watch the programme online.)

The programme as a whole was interesting and useful, though narrowly focused.

From our point of view, the key interview was with David Bickford, legal adviser to MI5 (internal security service) and MI6 (external security service) for the period 1987 - 1995. (22 minutes into the programme.)

Mr Bickford has strong views on the new offence of 'glorifying' terrorism:

Bickford: 'They [the Muslim community] will be less willing to assist the intelligence agencies. Within terrorism, you have the terrorists themselves, you have their immediate supporters, you have their sympathisers, and you have those on the outside who are politically sympathetic but don't want to get involved.'

'When you have an offence of "glorification", in my view, that will extend the rings. So sympathisers become more than sympathisers, political sympathisers become more than political sympathisers, you lose their trust if you like.'

Panorama: 'So, to that extent, is it your view that this aspect of the Government's Terrorism Bill may make us less safe?'

Bickford: 'Yes. Certainly.'

Panorama: 'Well, that's quite a severe charge.'

Bickford: 'Yes, it is, and I think they should have thought about it properly before they introduced it, and they haven't.'

Now we do not have as low opinion of the intelligence or foresight of the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Home Office, the intelligence services or their current 'legal advisers'.

These laws as a whole do not increase national security, they diminish it, for precisely the reasons given by Mr Bickford. This is perfectly foreseeable, and no doubt has been foreseen by all those involved.

It doesn't matter. National security is not the prime mover in national security policy.

When Tony Blair invaded Iraq, the intelligence services told him straightforwardly that the greatest threat to Britain came not from Saddam Hussein, but from Osama bin Laden and those who follow him. They told him that he was undermining national security by invading Iraq.

He invaded anyway.

National security was not the priority then, and it is not the priority now.

These laws were introduced in a hurry to try to get Tony Blair out of a jam, as he was being forced into a corner over the connection between the war in Iraq and the 'heightened threat' of terrorism in Britain.

No doubt the Prime Minister also likes proposing these laws to look tough on terrorism (though not on the causes of terrorism). No doubt he also likes bullying weak victims /petty figures (like Omar Bakri Mohammed, chased away to Lebanon). No doubt he also likes taking revenge on those who got away (the Belmarsh detainees and those acquitted in the 'ricin'/'no-ricin' case). No doubt the Prime Minister also relishes these battles with human rights lawyers, liberals, judges, and other outmoded elements of the Establishment.

Mr Blair has a lot of reasons for the new laws. He just doesn't have any justifications. Especially not national security.

REPRESSION - NOT VERY LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

Mark Oaten has an article in the Guardian today (page 32) with promising headline: 'Internment will backfire: Extending detention without charge to three months will boost the recruitment of terrorists'.

Unfortunately, the only mention of this problem is very brief: detention without charge for this period of time

'amounts to internment, which will result in the recruitment of more terrorists if it becomes law.'

Even more unfortunately, Mr Oaten's solution is to use other lesser charges 'to secure a custodial remand while investigations into the main charge go on.' This looks very much like using the 'acts preparatory to terrorism' charge to bring in internment by another name. Not very liberal.

Even more unfortunately, Mr Oaten indicates that if the Government give way on this 'one major sticking point', it might be possible to 'maintain the cross-party consensus on the good proposals contained within it'.

Which good proposals would they be, Mr Oaten?

The new offence of indirectly inciting terrorism with what Liberty calls 'a very broad definition'?

The new offence to tackle dissemination of radical written material by extremist bookshops - publications that 'indirect incite' terrorist acts or are 'likely to be useful' to a person committing or 'preparing' an act of terrorism?

The new offence of giving training which you 'suspect' might be used for terrorist purposes?

The new power to proscribe groups which are not engaged in violent action themselves?

The new offence of wearing an item of clothing, or to wear or display any article which could give rise to reasonable suspicion of membership or support of a proscribed group?

What is happening is that the fake liberals (extending far beyond the Liberal Democrat party) are drawing the line at three month detention without charge, and 'glorification', and letting everything else go.

For a thorough discussion of the new Terrorism Bill, please see this briefing from Liberty (pdf).

REPRESSION - 15 GROUPS BANNED

The Liberal Democrats have at least demurred at the speed with which the Home Secretary is banning 15 'terrorist' groups:

'David Heath, for the Liberal Democrats, protested at the speed with which the order proscribing the groups was being rushed through Parliament. He said: "This is a single order — dealing with 15 organisations (and) incapable of amendment. This does not allow for proper and separate consideration of the different organisations involved and dealing with them on the merits which might be appropriate in this case." ' (Times, page 4)

The Independent reports (page 11):

'The list of organisations banned by Mr Clarke will almost double the number of Islamic extremist groups outlawed in this country, reflecting concern that al-Qa'ida is breaking down into an ever more diffuse network of terrorist groups sympathetic to its aims.'

'The Home Secretary said proscription was intended to send out the message that violent attacks would not be tolerated anywhere in the world. Being a member of a banned organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000 can be punished by 10 years in jail.'

Violent attacks not tolerated anywhere in the world? Tell that to the people of Fallujah, among many other places.

Banning foreign political groups to stop al-Qaeda? What foreign political party has yet been linked to 7/7 or 21/7? Al-Qaeda is a spirit, not a coalition of parties. Wherever angry young Muslims sit down to watch videos of the brutality of Chechnya, or the destruction of Fallujah, that spirit will grow. Banning parties is irrelevant to that process, as the Home Secretary well knows.

REPRESSION - THAT BLEARS LETTER AGAIN

There are a flurry of letters in the Guardian today about Hazel Blears' apologia for the use of section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 against Walter Wolfgang. Lots of good points made, but the most obvious point (which we also forgot to make at the time) is not there.

Ms Blears apologises for the use of anti-terrorist legislation against Walter Wolfgang, but she does not mention the 600 other activists detained under exactly the same legislation around the Labour Party Conference.

They didn't catch the attention of the media. They didn't generate bad PR for the party. So they don't count. They don't even exist.

JNV welcomes feedback.