UK: "The rules of the game are changing" (Tony Blair)
01 May 2005
Extending the "war on terrorism" to a "war on (Islamic) extremism"
On 7 July 2005 came the terrorist attacks we had long been told were inevitable. The real shock came several days later, when it transpired that the “suicide bombers” were young British men. The issue of “why” they bombed London, however, has proved dangerously divisive. While pretty much everyone accepted that the decision to go to war in Iraq made London at least a more likely target, the government and its supporters have, predictably denied this at every opportunity.
For the Home Secretary, “the view that the decision to go to war in Iraq turns you in to a potential terrorist” target is: “completely fallacious”. For Tony Wright MP (Labour) it is “dangerous nonsense”. Anyone who says otherwise is “on the train to terrorism”, said the Prime Minister. It is ironic that that a government that has defined terrorism so broadly as to cover almost any act of
political violence – to the point that the concept of actually causing “terror” is lost – has, in the face of that terror, denied that it could have had anything other than a religious or “extremist” motivation. Within the “war on terror”, this paves the way for a new “war” on Islamic extremism. The “rules of the game are changing” said Blair chillingly announcing the latest in a developing raft of proposals to “fill in the gaps” on an already crowded statute book.
Three new offences
On 18 July 2005 the Home Secretary met with his counterparts from the two main opposition parties to discuss the intention to introduce three new terrorism offences when parliament reconvenes in October. Parliament was dissolved two days later with the three main parties having reached a “consensus” on new laws to prosecute “acts preparatory to terrorism”, “terrorist training” and “indirect incitement to terrorism”. The Home Secretary also announced the government’s intention to deport “extremists” irrespective of any prohibition from doing so under the Human Rights Act.
The reason for creating new offences of “acts preparatory to terrorism” is still quite unclear. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the “possession of an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that [it] is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism” already carries a ten year jail sentence (s.57). It is an equally serious offence under the Terrorism Act to “collect information” or “possess documents” that could be used for terrorism (s.58). The Home Secretary has stated that “the new offence will
lead to the capture of those planning serious of acts of terrorism”, implying surveillance powers rather than additions to an already broad offence [1]. It is also possible that visiting a “jihadist” website could also be in some way criminalised, notwithstanding the fact that visiting a website is obviously quite different to planning “a serious of act of terrorism”.
A “new offence” of “terrorist training” can similarly add little to the existing Terrorism Act under which those who give
or receive training in the making or use of weapons or explosives, or recruit persons for this purpose, are also liable to ten years in prison (s.54). The scope for “new” offences appears to be limited to visiting “training camps” in another country, or a wider concept of “recruitment” (which is arguably covered by existing UK laws on conspiracy and incitement), both of which have been mentioned. Things are clearer as far as “indirect incitement to terrorism” is concerned since the Home Secretary has announced that this will allow the UK to implement the Council of Europe convention on the prevention of terrorism agreed in April 2005. Article 5 of that Convention defines “public provocation” as:
the distribution, or otherwise making available, of a message to the public, with the intent to incite the commission of a terrorist offence, where such conduct,<