---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, I fully support the Government’s review of existing anti-terrorism laws, although it is a difficult trade-off between liberty and security. The Bill is clearly a reaction to the heinous and deplorable crimes of 7 July, but proposed law must have at its root the intention to stop further criminal acts. It must not encourage further crime through marginalisation and the squeezing of the space within which legitimate political debate can be held. There are fundamental weaknesses in the proposed legislation, from its unclear definition of terrorism to the superfluous clauses on encouragement and glorification of terrorism—as has been mentioned by many of your Lordships—at home and abroad by individuals and organisations in Part 1, Clause 1, Part 2, Clause 21, and the extension of custody periods without charge in Clauses 23 and 24. The definition of terrorism in its ordinary usage is the use of violence to achieve an end. Violence is used occasionally by us through war to achieve an end—in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example. The workability of the definition turns entirely on the current political judgment of whether the end is justifiable. Many of us here marched in support of the ANC. As was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stratford earlier, despite the ANC’s use of violence, we felt that the end was justifiable. We did so even though many in the then Conservative government believed that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. But in so marching and supporting, we were not guilty of criminal offences. No one would today disagree that Nelson Mandela is an international inspiration and legitimate leader. Our government at that time got it wrong, and in years to come we may feel the same about Iraq. History can teach us salutary lessons. The reason why I give those examples is that they prove that one generation’s terrorist is another generation’s head of state. Names such as George Washington and Prime Minister Begin come to mind. Under the Bill, for the first time, we in Britain are trying to create a law with international application that will effectively determine the legitimacy or illegitimacy of political disputes in the world. It will deem non-state actors involved in military conflicts against armies of oppression as terrorists, despite the states that they oppose being engaged in rape, torture and other abuses of human rights and where the UN has consistently failed to implement its resolutions. In her reply, will my noble friend the Minister say whether resisting state terrorism could be deemed to be being involved in terrorism and whether sympathisers of those legitimate struggles would fall foul of the Bill? That should not be the effect of the Bill. Its aim should be to protect our citizens, not to alienate communities through suppressing debate. Will my noble friend tell us whether those parliamentarians who have supported the legitimate right of self-determination in Kashmir and Palestine, in accordance with UN resolutions, being classed as sympathisers with terrorists, especially in the light of the statement made by the Prime Minister on his most recent visit to India, when he referred to the Kashmiri freedom fighters as terrorists? Many of your Lordships will be familiar with an organisation called Mujahideen al-Khalq, a proscribed organisation engaged in armed struggle against the Iranian Government. Indeed, many of us have been lobbied by it and some support its cause. The Bill would make such support criminal, as it would be deemed to be encouraging terrorists. Will those parliamentarians who have been supporting armed rebels from south Sudan engaged in a violent warfare with the Sudanese Government being classed as indirectly inciting terrorism? Do states engaging in terrorist activity also fall within the law? Will those individuals or groups who support such terrorist states be deemed to have committed criminal acts? This year, I stood in the cold while my granddaughter and her friends celebrated Guy Fawkes’ Day on November 5th. I wonder whether we were engaged in glorifying terrorism. After all, Mr Fawkes tried to bring down the very place in which we now sit, the very heart of our democracy. However, year in and year out, we spend millions of pounds celebrating November 5th. The boundaries of when a social event, academic research, healthy political debate or even a media slip of the tongue become glorification are dangerously blurred. Noble Lords will remember the Prime Minister’s wife making comments on the state of the Palestinians and the use of suicide bombing as a tool of war. Would Cherie Booth be guilty of a crime under the Bill? In this country, we may fundamentally disagree with certain political opinions, such as in the case of Hizb ut-Tahrir, but we surely all subscribe to the view that I may loathe what you say but will defend your right to say it. Gagging certain political views will only increase the sense of injustice felt by many young Muslims in this country, thus increasing frustration and animosity towards the state. At a time when we are working hard to encourage angry, disfranchised young men to come back into the political fold by engaging in democratic debate, we cannot also be squeezing the space and parameters of healthy debate. We cannot offer the hand of discussion and use the other hand to strangle political beliefs, however unsavoury they may be. There is an enormous leap between understanding why people become suicide bombers in Palestine and encouraging individuals to engage in such violence. The test should be that of intent. Finally, I turn to detention without charge. As a magistrate, I regularly heard applications for extension of custody time for further questioning. We heard the evidence and judged whether it would be appropriate for the police to detain further. To date, we have heard no evidence of a case where more than the current 14 days would have stopped a terrorist crime or lead to the charge of a terrorist suspect. Your Lordships may be aware of the figures under terrorism legislation to date. Although 895 people have been arrested, only 23 have been charged. The 872 who have been released back into the community have largely remained unheard of. That will not be the case if they are held for 28 days. A fortnight away from your home, community, family and job may be forgiven; a month may not be. It will be those people we release without charge after a lengthy detention who will be fertile ground for breeding resentment and terror. Whatever the legislation, whatever the investment in policing, I remain to be convinced that being tough on terrorism without being tough on the causes of terrorism will yield long-lasting peace and community stability.