From: Ralph Smyth (by way of genetics<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) (by way of Agit-Prop) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, 13 January 1999 19:24 Subject: -ALLSORTS- HAPPY New YEAR -New UK legislation to brand activists as terrorists In 1994 the Tories criminalised us-now new Labour plan to brand us terrorists. Quotes, extracts, explanations and last, but certainly not least, a rant about this proposal. "Emmeline Pankhurst, leader of the suffragettes, found that argument alone won her only stormy denials. Peaceful mass protest turned heads but won her no vote. She was eventually reduced to the tactics of the urban terrorist to make even a dent in the resolve of male politicians not to give women the vote... [The right of women to vote] was won only by the determination of a woman prepared to starve, to be imprisoned and to be beaten for rights that we take for granted today." The Times, Editorial 24/12/98: People of the Century - Emmeline Pankhurst 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). These included attacks on abattoirs, laboratories, breeders, hunts, butchers, chemists, doctors, vets, furriers, restaurants, supermarkets and other shops. Some of the attacks were minor but others were not. Thankfully no one was killed but people were injured and the total damage done in 1997 has been estimated at more than £1.8 million. In previous years, the cost of the damage inflicted has been higher. For example in 1995, the cost of damage was estimated at nearly £4.5 million. 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. ... 3.15 The FBI's definition of terrorism is: "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 in order to promote political, social or ideological objectives." 3.16 The Government agrees that the new legislation should bite only on the use of serious violence. And it agrees that if there is any doubt that the definition in section 20 of the PTA covers the use of such violence by religiously motivated terrorist groups this should be remedied. It therefore sees some attractions in the FBI's definition. But it wonders whether this definition might also, as it stands, be both too broad and too narrow. Too broad because it includes the use of serious violence for "social" objectives. The latter could, for example, include crimes committed by criminals other than terrorists such as blackmail or extortion for gain. The Government does not believe that special powers are needed to deal with matters of that sort where there is no intent to disrupt or undermine the democratic process. The FBI definition may be too narrow, however, in that it appears not to cover the damage and serious disruption which might result from a terrorist hacking into some vital computer installation and, without using violence, altering, deleting, or disrupting the data held on it. Such activity might well result in deaths and injuries and, given the increasing reliance placed on computers and electronic forms of communication, the destruction or corruption of data held in such systems could also result in extensive disruption to the economic and other infrastructure of this country. Another example of an act which could cause serious disruption and harm without necessarily in itself being an act of serious violence would be contaminating a public utility system such as a water or sewage works. The Government believes that any new definition of terrorism should be sufficient to catch the potential for these kinds of activity by terrorists. 3.17 The Government therefore suggests that 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, as described in paragraph 3.16 above. 3.18 The Government recognises that there is a balance to be struck between too narrow a definition of terrorism (which could exclude some serious threats which fully justify the availability of special powers) and one that is too wide (and which might be taken to include matters that would not normally be labelled "terrorist"). The Government would welcome views on whether its proposed definition succeeds in striking that balance. Violence that can be described as "politically motivated" may arise in the context of demonstrations and industrial disputes. The Government has no intention of suggesting that matters that can properly be dealt with under normal public order powers should in future be dealt with under counter- terrorist legislation. [the full document is at <http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm41/4178/4178.htm> 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 extract that those campaigning against animal abuse, other than the welfarists, will soon be officially classed as terrorists. Following the Barry Horne saga, there seems no doubt about this. But many others will be caught too. The flier for the world-wide demonstrations planned for June 18 1999 mentions "sabotage" and "hacktivism". These two things would trigger the classification of "terrorists" for the "growing alliance of social and environmental movements" involved, were the new proposals law by June, though of course they won't be. At many demonstrations now, powers under s60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are used that allow police to undertake random stop & searches on anyone at the protest. The trigger for this power to be used is "serious violence", exactly the same words as proposed for the new definition of terrorism. While there would be technical legal arguments as to the parliamentary intent regarding the meaning of "serious violence", the courts are always extremely reluctant to intervene in state decisions involving national security. Furthermore, 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. This would make it very difficult to argue that the interpretation given to the new definition of terrorism was too wide in practice, i.e. that one is not a terrorist. One "problem" with the direct action movement (I haven't defined this in this e-mail but I hope you know what I mean) is that unlike many other radical( group)s, there are no members and certainly not any lists of members, let alone leaders. Everyone knows the problems this causes police who turn up at actions and ask alien-style to be taken to "the leader". In the Consultation Paper, the problem of 'front' organisations is discussed and it seems that the proposed legislation would make it easy to deem one group a front for another that was classed terrorist. Certainly my impression from much of the recent media coverage concerning the Animal Liberation movement was that things like 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. Recent history on the peace movement, miners' strike, etc., shows how scared certain elements of the state can be about movements for social and ecological justice and the lengths such elements will go to in order to neutralise progressive movements. Anyone who intends to disrupt or undermine the so-called democratic process (see the reference to this in para 3.16) we presently have by breaking the law is seen as a massive threat, worthy of intensive state scrutiny and control, and soon, possibly, classification as terrorist. Any involvement or support of even just a single incident of eco-tage, for example, would be enough, if the new proposals are allowed to become law, to bring groups within the scope of the new repressive legislation. With the challenges posed by Y2K for the present order, these powers could be extremely useful in the event of activists attempting to create temporary autonomous zones following disruption caused by the Y2K bug. I am wary of sounding too paranoid but it's worth being outraged publicly about these proposals as long as the outrage is well informed. Certainly Liberty are very concerned that environmentalists, etc., will be caught under the new proposals. In conclusion, I think it would not be difficult in the future for EF!, genetix groups, etc. to be caught, though of course the state would consider carefully in each case the likely public reaction to classification of any such group as terrorist. The state and others might 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 the movement 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. In the proposals the Government is considering extending the power of prescription to domestic terrorism, and this would allow the Home Secretary to prescribe any group concerned in terrorism, _or_ promoting or encouraging it. Belonging to such an organisation, soliciting support or funds for it, or displaying support for it in public would all be criminal offences, so wearing an "8 out of 10 cats prefer the ALF" or "Reunion Rampage" T-Shirt in public could become a crime. At present, the view of a senior police officer as to whether someone is the member of a prescribed organisation is admissible as evidence in court. Extensive powers regarding finances can also be used against terrorist organisations, but of course activists are invariably skint or very nearly so this is not relevant. However, one wide-ranging power proposed to be introduced (the present one contained in s14 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act does not apply to 'domestic terrorism') would allow police to stop, search and/or arrest anyone they have reasonable suspicion is "concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism", and then deny or delay many of the normal rights that one has when arrested. What makes this so frightening is that the absence of any requirement for reasonable suspicion _of a specific offence_ effectively allows the police free rein to arrest whomsoever they wish without necessarily having good reason. It is also proposed to make 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 etc which might be of material assistance in preventing an act of terrorism or in arresting someone carrying out such an act", but that is unlikely to become law on this island at present (it already is in N Ireland, though). 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 this would include "crimes" such as damaging weapons of oppression used by the occupying states in Kurdistan or East Timor. While there is the safeguard of needing the Attorney-General's consent for any prosecution, given our friendly relations with certain oppressive states, this safeguard is not as good as it looks and one won't know whether one will be prosecuted until after the AG has made a decision. The Government is now thinking about also making it a crime to merely incite others to take such action abroad. The creation of such a crime would have a dramatic chilling effect on support for oppressed people in other countries. Rant Obviously much of what results from these proposals and how much the state can get away with will turn on public opinion and in particular what our image is in the media. It would not be difficult to classify a small part of the animal liberation movement as 'terrorist' following the bad press concerning the Horne sage. But despite not for want of trying, such as the "Summer of Hate" article about road protests a few years back, that Inspector Wexford drama about eco-terrorists, etc., so-called environmental rights (!?!) activists are still not seen as terrorists. However, if eco- activists were classed as terrorists, much of the media would be unlikely to dissent. According to the dictionary, terrorism implies the use of fear and intimidation but the proposed legal definition covers mere 'coercion' as well. 'Coercion' covers the scenario where company or state body listens to money not morals and can only be persuaded from doing something wrong by concerned people taking direct action to make the cost of the wrong too great. This proposed over-wide definition, the fact that our society is, if anything less democratic than in the time of the suffragettes, and the many terrible things going on in the world are in my view the problems. Whatever classification of terrorism is finally adopted, I am sure beyond any doubt that in a hundred years those who broke the laws for the 'cause' of ecological justice will be seen as among the people of the millennium. Ralph The Law doth punish man or woman Who steals the goose off the common But sets the greater felon loose Who steals the common from the goose (Anon 17thC) - property is theft ***** "Messages sent on the IWW-news mailing list are the opinions of the individual senders; they do not necessarily represent the views of the IWW. IWW-news is for posting information which is relevant to the struggle of the working class against our bosses. Visit http://www.iww.org/ for more information." To subscribe/unsubscribe from the IWW-news mailing list please send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" as the subject of the message. Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html The Year 2000 Bug - An Urgent Sustainability Issue http://www.peg.apc.org/~psutton/grin-y2k.htm
