OPPPOSE YET MORE 'ANTI-TERROR' POWERS!

Speakers include Dough Jewell, CAMPACC, Asim Qureshi. CagePrisoners; Paddy O'Keeffe, Save Omar Campaign; Paul Donovan, NUJ member, freelance writer and columnist

The government has yet again proposed a sweeping extension of 'counter-terrorism' and 'security' measures, which will go to Parliament in the autumn. These measures include the power to detain 'terror suspects' without charge for up to 56 days (double the current 28-day limit), post-charge questioning, and more severe sentences for any 'terrorist-related' crime. Also proposed is the new criminal offence of seeking information which could be useful for terrorism, whether or not the seeker intends such a use. For mere suspicion of involvement in terrorism, anyone could face travel restrictions and be deprived of their passport; this punishment could be imposed, for example, on travellers to international demonstrations.

Even worse, all these special powers relate to a broad definition of 'terrorism' - including any activity which poses a threat of damage to property in pursuit of a political cause (as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000). Such powers can be triggered and justified by any suspicion of a political motive. They can and have been used against peaceful protest which posed no threat to anyone - for example, people standing outside the arms fair in Docklands or residents opposing the loss of their homes for a 3rd runway at Heathrow airport.

The new proposals extend the injustice of measures already in force. Previous anti-terror laws already authorised arbitrary stop-and-search and punishment without trial through 'control orders', a form of house arrest. To justify detention without trial, in 2001 the government claimed that we faced a national emergency, as a basis to claim exemption from the European Convention on Human Rights. Now similar threats are supposed to justify more severe powers than during the violent conflict in Northern Ireland. Combined with the broad definition of terrorism, these measures are well suited for harassing, punishing and criminalising political protest of all kinds.

All these powers aim to protect the government from dissent, not to protect the public from violence. Ordinary criminal law is adequate to protect us but it is not adequate for the government's political aims. These are clearly demonstrated by the broad definition of terrorism, linked with special powers regarding mere suspicion.

Using terrorist threats as a pretext, the government is trying to establish a permanent state of emergency. Under special powers, the government readily creates more 'terror suspects' and treats them as guilty. This trend towards a police state can be stopped only by claiming the rights that would be taken away from us. We need stronger ways to deter the use of 'anti-terror' powers and to dissuade MPs from voting for their extension.