Untitled Document
UK Home Secretary Charles Clarke yesterday announced plans to exclude or deport
individuals deemed to have encouraged terrorism via preaching, running web sites
or writing articles, and gave further details of plans for new terrorist offences
including "indirect incitement" of terrorism, which is likely to cover
similar territory.
The widening of Clarke's exclusion powers is aimed largely at moslem figures
deemed to be extremist, and Clarke's biggest personal difficulty here is most
likely to be in explaining to the popular press why he might not to deporting
a specific individual, rather than in justifying action against the ones he
does remove. Those subject to exclusion will have no statutory right of appeal,
but will be able to challenge decisions by Clarke or immigration officers (who
also have these exclusion powers) via judicial review.
Clarke himself will largely be dealing with high profile individuals who are
known to be planning to visit the UK or who are already here. For example he
named Yusuf Al Qaradawi, whose exclusion has been demanded by numerous politicians
and the press, and Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, a founder of the now disbanded
al-Muhajiroun group. Clarke also referred to "other individuals whose names
are in the public domain." As the Government says it has won the Jordanian
Government's agreement not to torture or execute people we send back there,
Jordanian citizens (including two subject to control orders, Abu Qatada and
Mahmood Abu Rideh) are likely to be early targets. Omar Bakri Mohammed, who
is Syrian, may be with us for some time yet, Syria being the place the United
States sends Canadian
citizens to be tortured, and therefore quite possibly not an entirely safe
destination.
Clarke also plans a far wider (and internationalised) application of exclusion
at ports of entry, where the immediate decision will be made by immigration
officers. These already operate exclusions based on a "warnings list"
of individuals, and Clarke intends these powers to be "applied more widely
and systematically" via the use of a far more comprehensive database of
target individuals.
Clarke will draw up "a list of unacceptable behaviours that fall within
[exclusion] powers — for example, preaching, running websites or writing
articles that are intended to foment or provoke terrorism", and says this
list will be "indicative rather than exhaustive", i.e. people could
be added to the list for rather wider reasons. The database of individuals will
initially be established by the Home Office, the Foreign & Commonwealth
Office and the intelligence agencies, and Clarke says he is "urgently seeking
agreement with EU and other countries on the mutual exchange of information
on exclusion decisions," so ultimately he envisages an internationally
agreed database of undesirables. It's worth noting that such a database would
require a very high degree of agreement on what constituted unacceptable conduct,
and that the widespread adoption of offences covering "incitement"
or "apologie du terrorisme" would almost certainly be a part of
this. At the same time, international exchange of information will quite likely
lead to people being excluded for conduct that is deemed unacceptable in some
other countries, but that is perfectly acceptable in the country they're being
excluded from. Which some interior ministries might find handy.
The new offence of indirect incitement, one of three new measures proposed
for the UK as part of the Counter-terrorism Bill, is in line with EU plans for
the extension of incitement laws, and although Clarke has agreement in principle
on the measures from the opposition parties, the wording is likely to be difficult
and contentious. The criminalisation of "acts preparatory to terrorism"
is arguably catered for in existing legislation (i.e., if police discover that
somebody's planning to plant a bomb, they already stop them), as is giving and
receiving terrorist training. Clarke says that more legislation is however necessary
to "close the gaps to make sure that anyone who gives or receives training
in terrorist techniques is covered." The offence of indirect incitement
is also an extension of existing legislation in that incitement is already an
offence in the UK. "The proposal," says Clarke, "targets those
who, although not directly inciting, glorify and condone terrorist acts, knowing
full well that the effect on their listeners will be to encourage them to turn
to terrorism. So indirect incitement, when it is done with the intention of
inciting others to commit acts of terrorism — that is an important qualification
— will become a criminal offence." The legislative progress of the
"important qualification" is worth keeping an eye on, and we should
also watch out that "glorify and condone" does not become glorify
or condone.
Clarke did not state yesterday that internet publications would be specifically
covered in any or all of these new offences, but it seems likely that the law
on indirect incitement will match the terms of the new exclusion policy, and
it has been previously suggested that reading terrorist web sites could constitute
receiving terrorist training. Use of the internet for research has also already
figured in several terror trials, in the UK and in other countries.
Yesterday the Prime Minister's Official spokesman (reported via the excellent
and useful Downing
Street Says) explicitly linked the legislation with exclusion policy by
saying, with reference to people who could not be excluded, that the Government
is "lowering the bar of incitement precisely so we could take action against
those in that position." It is "a multi-range kit."
The impact of the new offences will depend on how widely the Government draws
them, on how broadly it defines "acts preparatory" and receiving training
(e.g.
reading this explanation of TATP?), and on what it thinks indirect incitement
is. Clarke said yesterday that the Tory and Liberal opposition parties had "indicated
to me that they were in favour of proceeding straight to introduction, without
pre-legislative scrutiny, provided that they could have early sight of the draft
legislation and that the normal parliamentary procedures and timetable were
followed in both Houses". Clarke has agreed to making early drafts available
in September "more widely than simply to the opposition parties."
To some extent the opposition has bought a pig in a poke here. They have agreed
in principle that new legislation should be introduced, and expect to have some
involvement in the drafting of that legislation. But they don't know for sure
what's actually going to be in that legislation, and if it turns out to include
a lot of things they don't like, they'll find it difficult to extricate themselves
from the deal without being accused of breaking the consensus, playing politics
with national security, and being soft on terrorists. If Clarke wants them in
a trap, he's got them. ®