Beyond Credulity
The Terrorism 2006 Act which came into effect yesterday, is so pernicious and subjective that it quite beyond credulity. There are several criminal offences relating to terrorism, yet the word terrorism is not defined in the act. Consequently, it is not clear what it is or is not unlawful conduct; one might presume that terrorism refers only to political violence, yet this has not been the case with previous terrorism legislation, where the defintion has been far more pervasive. In fact, any public expressions of political dissent could conceivably be construed as terrorism under this act.
It is left to the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, judges and ultimately a jury to do what this act conspicuously does not: define terrorism. Decision to prosecute and convictions will be highly subjective and politically motivated.
The whole act is befuddling: it is a criminal offence to glorify or incite terrorism, yet within this Act these definitions also prove elusive. So we are left with questions but no answers. Is it for instance unlawful to endorse the right of Palestinians to resist occupation and genocide by all means necessary or to suggest that Hamas is a legitimate and praiseworthy resistance organisation and that the killing of occupiers is a moral, legally and logically justified? What about to suggest that the Madrid and London bombings were reciprocity for the slaughter in Iraq and that therefore are morally more justifiable since they were defensive acts and the invasion of Iraq was an act of aggression?
There is of course an issue to this law that has not been discussed, Britain is ruled by a balance of Royal Prerogative and Parliament, with the balance firmly in favour of the Royal Prerogative. The reigning monarch is the official head of State, head of the established Church, head of the judiciary and head of the armed forces, yet she is unelected as is the Prime Minister (the de facto head of State), ministers, privy councilors, the Government and even Parliament is only partially elected. Despite claims of democracy there is nothing remotely democratic about the British system of governance, to suggest otherwise is fallacious. Furthermore, in the 2005 General Election, candidates for the ruling Labour party were unable to muster more than 22% of the potential vote, less than the total number of abstentions.
Thus, given the complete lack of a political mandate and a complete lack of a democratic process or participation; it is not unreasonable to argue that the right of an individual to defend themselves against State is an essential counterbalance to authority of the state. For the state to outlaw the right to advocate this principle is in effect a denial of this right and a blueprint to tyranny.
2 comments:
Is it inciting terrorism to say I sympathise with the Chechen separatists?
If you were to sympathise with their right to resist it could be so argued even if you were to sympathise with their plight in a manner that might be interpreted as glorifying or encouraging active or passive resistance, then yes it might.
For example, you may well fall foul of the law if you were supportive of "terrorist" actives such as heckling the Foreign Secretary and would almost certainly fall foul of the legislation if you endorsed protesting inside an exclusion zone. Again if you quoted or distributed literature by an individual or organisation considered to be terrorist then again yes you might. So I would imagine that Vanessa Redgrave's previous comments and activities would fall foul of the legislation. However, I very much doubt that the Government is at this stage preparing to prosecute to the full extent of the legislation, I imagine that they shall target Muslim dissidents and animal rights activists. As you are aware the Government wish to ban Hizb-ut Tahrir, which is very much linked to the Chechen separatist movement and indeed the wider Central Asian Islamic separatist movement.
Our liberties are in the hands of geriatrics in wigs, stockings and robes.
Post a Comment