The Iniquities of Justice
The Iniquities of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice has quashed the convictions of five young Muslim men who last year were jailed for between two and three years on terrorist offences
The five men all Asian and four being at Bradford University, had been charged of being in possessing of material likely to lead them into terrorist action. Their case came under what is known as Section 57 of the 2000 Terrorism Act. This law makes it a crime to possess articles for the purposes of terrorism.
The prosecution had claimed these people had plans to go to train with militants in Pakistan. These plans were progressed through extremist chat rooms on the internet. The men said they had no terrorism links and were driven by intellectual curiosity.
In their ruling, the three appeal lords said the jury should have been told to decide whether there was a connection between the extremist literature and a clear terrorist plan. The court did not accept the defence argument that that the prosecution did not prove the material was directly connected to something that was clearly about to happen - rather than something that could possibly happen in the future.
It said "We doubt whether the evidence supported such a case," said Lord Phillips. "Difficult questions of interpretation have been raised in this case by the attempt by the prosecution to use section 57 for a purpose for which it was not intended."
While Section 57 talks of possessing articles "for the purpose of terrorism", Section 58 concerns having information "useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".
The judges said that Section 58 is a valid charge where a defendant holds information that "calls for an explanation". This charge could not be used if the defendant can show the information was for another purpose such as a criminal act or research not related to actual carrying out of a terrorist act. The problem and danger with these sections is that the distinction between what is terrorism and a proposed criminal act or a planned organised disruption; is that while such actions may cause damage the intent in gathering of information and the ‘proposed’ use of it is very unclear and is open to the states interpretation of intent, without actual proof of a terrorist act. Such interpretation can be used to suit its own agenda complicit with the terrorism act in the pursuit of controlling descent or even public disorder, i.e. it is one thing to talk about shooting a person without a gun in hand but a different order of intent with the physical gun in hand. This scenario may or may not be a criminal act and of doubtful terrorist influence. Section 57 looks for “articles” (hardware) that directly leads to an act of terrorism whereas section 58 looks for “information” to support commitment to terrorism. See “Terrorist” article 21.12.07.
The problems that are thrown up by this case are multifarious and indeed the whole intent and practicalities of the terrorism act is fractious. There can be little doubt that these five knew what they were doing at the time in gathering such information, they had discussed amongst themselves the cause of terrorism, the intent to progress matters was obtainable, albeit that they did not at the time of charging assemble any hard wear to project an effective action. Never the less the fight against terrorism and the associated laws as applied by the police / MI6/MI5 do not make a distinction between the thought or verbiage of an action as in perhaps being curious and the actual carrying out of it, withholding information or assisting such action; in fear that self indoctrination radicalises individuals to action.
The use of miss-application of the terrorist laws and selected section of it, such as section 57 – 58 to prosecute individual based on tenuous arguments that verges on the hypothetical, does nothing to safe guard the general public or protect civil liberties and the number of cases that appertain to terrorising under section 57 or 58 or others acts should be reassessed. In particular as an example of the perversity of the whole act compare the charge against the five and the case of the ‘lyrical terrorist’ and how she was made guilty for her paper efforts! Her case was recently thrown out by the lords as being “unsafe”.
Such ambiguous created laws designed to make certain action unacceptable and such activities not in accordance with what is perceived to be in the interest of the state, may be initially reactionary to unusual circumstances and superficially tolerable but it does not make the enforcement of ambiguous laws right. Any sort of pre-emptive open ended interpretive laws designed without proper scrutiny are not healthy in a democratic country. It may be unacceptable to some people that there are those that seek, for whatever reason informative stimulation that may be considered unhealthy / perverted / dangerous etc yet those elements that are being caught curious and besieged by such laws, are only an echo of that which is in society as a whole.
Providing that the access and obtaining of such stimulating information is not acted upon to physical actions, or propagate general coercion, or such deviant(?) ideology forced on another, then who is in danger from the actual comment of a crime, the individual for what they think, things read and said; others unknown, or the state for what it thinks the individual thinks and conceivable might do? It cannot be wise to have ‘just in’ case laws.
Such progressions of laws pre-empting action is not acceptable and is dangerous to any govern system. It has the immediate potential of increasing the allowance of laws to be used against any possible non materialised cogitation, supported by text or verbal means, to become an offence against the state if it decides to make an example of its authority onto ‘offenders’ that challenge its statutes.
Here is the essence of George Orwels 1999 and the thought police and new speak in action and it makes a mockery of justice in that laws are rush into existent without due consideration, enforced knowingly that they are not compatible and open to be challenged. But for states in weak positions this does not matter as the intent is to have some form of force to slow the demand of unacceptable activities. The problem is that interpretation of such activities will be at the behest of the state in deciding just what action it will allow.
Although such action of say investigation and perhaps protest may be acceptable on current terms now, they will not be as such with the political expediencies of the future changes. Most people do not give much thought to laws that governs the behaviour of people of the country. Most do not have a need to participate or ferment a conflict. It is when an action which is so unusual occurs, one that has an inordinate affect on the perceived stability of the country that such draconian laws, which may have been initially seen to be acceptable by the population to maintain ‘law and order’ are put into effect. Any protesting action not acceptable by the state is in danger so that the rule of such laws becomes oppressive and used out of the context for which they were originally designed and may over ride democratic principles.
As a precursor to the future corruption of state action conflicting with democracy the current discussion of the issue surrounding the 42 day extension to the terrorism act that allow the state to hold without charge, or knowledge of the charges against a person, virtual incognito. On 11.6.08 the government won a vote on the extension (28 to 42 days) with the help of the as usual bribed DUP. It will now go to the lords, be rejected, back to parliament, possibly amended and further examination axed with the ‘parliament act’ to try get it implemented and clear it out of the way before the run up to the next election.
It is amazing that so little protest is made of the creeping dismantling of laws protecting civil rights, dismantled in the name of terrorism which conflicts with the fundamental of English law stemming from Magna Carta and EU constitution. From all informed quarters there is no evidence to support the call for this extension despite the apparent support of suspect ‘public sample’ surveys. The consistent argument presented by the government is that the whole terrorism act and its extraordinary terms are needed to keep the UK citizens safe, allow time to investigate a range of captured material and will only be used in limited cases in the future if and when it is required. If one is law abiding and is doing nothing wrong there is nothing to fear. Why the government persist in such duplicity is open to debate but it does not take much elaboration to exemplify scenarios under which one can see a use for the assortment of restraining laws and detention.
Laws do not make people safe. Bad laws create uncertainty, ridicule and destroy trust in the sensibility of justice eventually helping to harbour criminals or terrorists. For example take the plane hijackers from Afghanistan to the UK in 2000. 14 people were charge with the forceful hijack and 77, some of whom are family members of the hijackers, are all seeking asylum. They cannot be deported as it infringes their human rights under the EU charter. One could clearly say this was a terrorist act in that it terrorised people, or it could be labelled as a crime, on both counts it was not an acceptable action under any laws but despite this none of them are treated as terrorist or jailed even though they had the tool and weapons for carrying out a destructive act. As it stands the UK is unlikely to be able to get rid of such wholly illegal and undesirable foreigners yet it can incarcerate anyone for unsubstantiated non violent ‘terrorist’ acts.
© Renot 2008
25.6.08 1322
The Lord Chief Justice has quashed the convictions of five young Muslim men who last year were jailed for between two and three years on terrorist offences
The five men all Asian and four being at Bradford University, had been charged of being in possessing of material likely to lead them into terrorist action. Their case came under what is known as Section 57 of the 2000 Terrorism Act. This law makes it a crime to possess articles for the purposes of terrorism.
The prosecution had claimed these people had plans to go to train with militants in Pakistan. These plans were progressed through extremist chat rooms on the internet. The men said they had no terrorism links and were driven by intellectual curiosity.
In their ruling, the three appeal lords said the jury should have been told to decide whether there was a connection between the extremist literature and a clear terrorist plan. The court did not accept the defence argument that that the prosecution did not prove the material was directly connected to something that was clearly about to happen - rather than something that could possibly happen in the future.
It said "We doubt whether the evidence supported such a case," said Lord Phillips. "Difficult questions of interpretation have been raised in this case by the attempt by the prosecution to use section 57 for a purpose for which it was not intended."
While Section 57 talks of possessing articles "for the purpose of terrorism", Section 58 concerns having information "useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".
The judges said that Section 58 is a valid charge where a defendant holds information that "calls for an explanation". This charge could not be used if the defendant can show the information was for another purpose such as a criminal act or research not related to actual carrying out of a terrorist act. The problem and danger with these sections is that the distinction between what is terrorism and a proposed criminal act or a planned organised disruption; is that while such actions may cause damage the intent in gathering of information and the ‘proposed’ use of it is very unclear and is open to the states interpretation of intent, without actual proof of a terrorist act. Such interpretation can be used to suit its own agenda complicit with the terrorism act in the pursuit of controlling descent or even public disorder, i.e. it is one thing to talk about shooting a person without a gun in hand but a different order of intent with the physical gun in hand. This scenario may or may not be a criminal act and of doubtful terrorist influence. Section 57 looks for “articles” (hardware) that directly leads to an act of terrorism whereas section 58 looks for “information” to support commitment to terrorism. See “Terrorist” article 21.12.07.
The problems that are thrown up by this case are multifarious and indeed the whole intent and practicalities of the terrorism act is fractious. There can be little doubt that these five knew what they were doing at the time in gathering such information, they had discussed amongst themselves the cause of terrorism, the intent to progress matters was obtainable, albeit that they did not at the time of charging assemble any hard wear to project an effective action. Never the less the fight against terrorism and the associated laws as applied by the police / MI6/MI5 do not make a distinction between the thought or verbiage of an action as in perhaps being curious and the actual carrying out of it, withholding information or assisting such action; in fear that self indoctrination radicalises individuals to action.
The use of miss-application of the terrorist laws and selected section of it, such as section 57 – 58 to prosecute individual based on tenuous arguments that verges on the hypothetical, does nothing to safe guard the general public or protect civil liberties and the number of cases that appertain to terrorising under section 57 or 58 or others acts should be reassessed. In particular as an example of the perversity of the whole act compare the charge against the five and the case of the ‘lyrical terrorist’ and how she was made guilty for her paper efforts! Her case was recently thrown out by the lords as being “unsafe”.
Such ambiguous created laws designed to make certain action unacceptable and such activities not in accordance with what is perceived to be in the interest of the state, may be initially reactionary to unusual circumstances and superficially tolerable but it does not make the enforcement of ambiguous laws right. Any sort of pre-emptive open ended interpretive laws designed without proper scrutiny are not healthy in a democratic country. It may be unacceptable to some people that there are those that seek, for whatever reason informative stimulation that may be considered unhealthy / perverted / dangerous etc yet those elements that are being caught curious and besieged by such laws, are only an echo of that which is in society as a whole.
Providing that the access and obtaining of such stimulating information is not acted upon to physical actions, or propagate general coercion, or such deviant(?) ideology forced on another, then who is in danger from the actual comment of a crime, the individual for what they think, things read and said; others unknown, or the state for what it thinks the individual thinks and conceivable might do? It cannot be wise to have ‘just in’ case laws.
Such progressions of laws pre-empting action is not acceptable and is dangerous to any govern system. It has the immediate potential of increasing the allowance of laws to be used against any possible non materialised cogitation, supported by text or verbal means, to become an offence against the state if it decides to make an example of its authority onto ‘offenders’ that challenge its statutes.
Here is the essence of George Orwels 1999 and the thought police and new speak in action and it makes a mockery of justice in that laws are rush into existent without due consideration, enforced knowingly that they are not compatible and open to be challenged. But for states in weak positions this does not matter as the intent is to have some form of force to slow the demand of unacceptable activities. The problem is that interpretation of such activities will be at the behest of the state in deciding just what action it will allow.
Although such action of say investigation and perhaps protest may be acceptable on current terms now, they will not be as such with the political expediencies of the future changes. Most people do not give much thought to laws that governs the behaviour of people of the country. Most do not have a need to participate or ferment a conflict. It is when an action which is so unusual occurs, one that has an inordinate affect on the perceived stability of the country that such draconian laws, which may have been initially seen to be acceptable by the population to maintain ‘law and order’ are put into effect. Any protesting action not acceptable by the state is in danger so that the rule of such laws becomes oppressive and used out of the context for which they were originally designed and may over ride democratic principles.
As a precursor to the future corruption of state action conflicting with democracy the current discussion of the issue surrounding the 42 day extension to the terrorism act that allow the state to hold without charge, or knowledge of the charges against a person, virtual incognito. On 11.6.08 the government won a vote on the extension (28 to 42 days) with the help of the as usual bribed DUP. It will now go to the lords, be rejected, back to parliament, possibly amended and further examination axed with the ‘parliament act’ to try get it implemented and clear it out of the way before the run up to the next election.
It is amazing that so little protest is made of the creeping dismantling of laws protecting civil rights, dismantled in the name of terrorism which conflicts with the fundamental of English law stemming from Magna Carta and EU constitution. From all informed quarters there is no evidence to support the call for this extension despite the apparent support of suspect ‘public sample’ surveys. The consistent argument presented by the government is that the whole terrorism act and its extraordinary terms are needed to keep the UK citizens safe, allow time to investigate a range of captured material and will only be used in limited cases in the future if and when it is required. If one is law abiding and is doing nothing wrong there is nothing to fear. Why the government persist in such duplicity is open to debate but it does not take much elaboration to exemplify scenarios under which one can see a use for the assortment of restraining laws and detention.
Laws do not make people safe. Bad laws create uncertainty, ridicule and destroy trust in the sensibility of justice eventually helping to harbour criminals or terrorists. For example take the plane hijackers from Afghanistan to the UK in 2000. 14 people were charge with the forceful hijack and 77, some of whom are family members of the hijackers, are all seeking asylum. They cannot be deported as it infringes their human rights under the EU charter. One could clearly say this was a terrorist act in that it terrorised people, or it could be labelled as a crime, on both counts it was not an acceptable action under any laws but despite this none of them are treated as terrorist or jailed even though they had the tool and weapons for carrying out a destructive act. As it stands the UK is unlikely to be able to get rid of such wholly illegal and undesirable foreigners yet it can incarcerate anyone for unsubstantiated non violent ‘terrorist’ acts.
© Renot 2008
25.6.08 1322
posted by Renot at 5:35 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home