---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, to follow one philosopher of distinction in a debate is lucky, but to follow two of the calibre of the noble Lords, Lord Parekh and Lord Plant of Highfield, is indeed a privilege. The question that law makers must ask themselves is quite simple: will this legislation help to prevent terrorism and to prosecute terrorists? Let me say at the outset that I hope it will enhance the ability of the security services in preventing terrorism, in so far as it is possible to do so through legal measures. I remain convinced that much prevention of crime comes through human intelligence, and much of that from the very people who might be affected by the sweeping powers in this Bill. The second part of the question is whether it will make it easier to identify and apprehend would-be terrorists. Here I have many doubts as the net is cast so wide in order to render the apprehension of so many that identifying the terrorist must become more rather than less difficult. Perhaps it would also be useful to spell out the underlying assumption of my question, which is that of proportionality. Will the legislation give the security services additional tools, but only at so great a cost to freedom and liberty that we need to proceed carefully? Does it go so far as to become counter-productive? I speak, some would say predictably, from the perspective of one who is from the community most affected by these measures—the Muslim community. But lest one gets accused of special pleading, let me say that my views on this Bill are shaped by a concern for the civil liberties of all. While it might be Muslims who are under suspicion today, it can be another group tomorrow, as Irish Catholics will testify. Many noble Lords have had briefings from civil liberties groups on the impact of the Bill. I wonder whether they have seen the briefing from Islamic Forum Europe. This body has produced a leaflet which is directed at Muslims. It is entitled Terrorism Bill 2005 Impact on British Muslims. It details in plain English what the implications might be for Muslims and refers to Clauses 1 and 2, entitled the ““Encouragement of terrorism”” and the ““Dissemination of terrorist publications””. The leaflet states:"““Under these clauses you could be prosecuted for: Careless talks/speeches if they are ‘interpreted’ as encouragement to attempt a terrorist attack . . . If retrospective search by police find that you have attended meetings/gatherings with suspects . . . Acts of generosity such as allowing someone, who later proves to be a suspect, to stay at a house or even giving them a lift in a car for their journeys . . . Speaking up for the right of the oppressed in Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir and elsewhere to use arms in self-defence””." On the extension of the grounds for proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000, covered by Part 2 of the Bill, it states:"““Non-violent Muslim organisations could be banned simply for their beliefs or views””." It points out:"““You can be prosecuted for wearing a range of Islamic symbols or logos that newly proscribed groups also use e.g. the black flag with the Shahada inscribed””." I shall explain for those noble Lords not familiar with the expression that shahada refers to the testimony of being a Muslim. It is the first verse of the Qu’ran and is to be found on a range of Islamic texts and symbols, including national flags. My point in mentioning this leaflet is to illustrate the effect that this Bill is already having on community relations. I am sure that the Minister will say that these interpretations of the Bill are incorrect. The point is that we cannot know if they are because the scope is so wide as to defy accuracy—legal certainty, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. The Bill’s tests in terms of indirect encouragement, relying as they do on persons,"““reasonably to be expected to infer””," or ““recklessness””, are deeply subjective. Moreover, referring to ““members of the public””, as they do, begs the question: which members of which public in which country? What might be acceptable behaviour to an Israeli may not be acceptable behaviour to a Palestinian. We politicians above all others must recognise that political and religious differences are deeply and sincerely held. Hence, criminalising speech through an offence of glorification or recklessness is not the solution; rather, it may exacerbate the very problem of extremism by giving the impression that the state does not tolerate dissent. A further issue with Clause 1 is the definition of terrorism itself. In Pakistan in the early 1980s, I witnessed the calls by the US and UK governments to Afghan and Pakistani Mujaheddin to rise up against Soviet forces in Russia. In the words of Ronald Reagan, they were ““proud freedom fighters””. I say to the Government that it would be morally suspect for them now to seek to criminalise activities that cannot properly be regarded as terrorism. There are still parts of the world where underground struggles for freedom are the only basis for fighting subjugation and oppression. One has only to look at the recent history of Europe to see that, in certain circumstances, there are no other choices. My final point concerns Clause 21—the grounds for the proscription of terrorist organisations. Those of us who work around issues to do with extremism know people in groups whose views we find deeply distasteful. Yet we accept the first rule of conflict resolution—that, in order to transform the situation from one of conflict to one of peace, we have to listen. When you say to people that their political ideology cannot be discussed, you are saying in effect that you are practising the state censorship of political views. This will not sit with the most minimum standards of freedom of expression. It will be seen as disproportionate and will drive groups underground. A consequence of that will be that the very intelligence needed to apprehend those who support terrorism will become harder to detect. In her opening remarks the Minister said that Clauses 1 and 2 came from an approach whereby a climate should not be allowed to take hold in which,"““impressionable people believe that terrorism is acceptable””." Indeed, there has been a tone in the wider public debate which somehow implies that all Muslims are terrorists, or that all terrorists are Muslim. I would argue that terrorists are terrorists, and to imply that there is somehow a malaise in a certain community from which this hydra has given birth is simply wrong. It is wrong today and it will be wrong tomorrow. I started with a question about whether this Bill would be helpful in deterring terrorism. If it goes through in the form that it has come to us, it will be of diminished value in so doing. Moreover, it will have so fundamentally altered the balance between liberty and democracy on the one hand and the duty of the state to protect its citizens on the other that it will undermine good relations between the communities for a long time to come. That is a legacy which would be most unwelcome.