Advertisement
X

The Loss of Haven

Many nations, India included, may get a respite as the UK enforces a new anti-terrorist Act

For far too long, Britain had been a haven for myriad terrorists groups who could collect funds to assist their comrades fighting foreign governments and direct and initiate terror campaigns in countries thousands of kilometres away. All these groups had to ensure was that they didn't violate the law in Britain. But this changed on February 19, when the new Terrorism Act 2000 came into operation. The new Act proscribes the use of British soil for launching terrorism abroad and widens the ambit to include any religious motivation for undertaking violent activities. The Act also empowers the government to tackle money-laundering and other methods of financing terrorist groups. Hitherto, British laws banned only those groups which were connected to terrorist activities in Northern Ireland.

Says home secretary Jack Straw, "A revised definition of terrorism and extension of the powers to proscribe organisations concerned in terrorist activities would send a clear message to terrorists that the UK government will not put up with organisations or individuals who use violence for their cause." Significantly, the new British law will be permanent. Earlier laws on terrorism have been renewable annually depending on the situation in Northern Ireland.

The extremist groups, though, are not yet on the run, nor have they gone underground. But this might happen soon considering that the home office is preparing to add to the existing list of proscribed organisations which are linked to terrorism in Northern Ireland. "I cannot say when the new list will be published but we will go beyond the old one," a home office spokesman told Outlook. Once a group figures on the proscribed list it would become an offence for a British citizen to become its member or supporter, or even donate money to it. The Act, in fact, makes it illegal even to plan violence abroad, and includes under this category the growing menace of "cyber-terrorism."

The new Act will now make beleaguered foreign governments hope that the flow of money, arms and, in some cases, new recruits from Britain to their territories would be stemmed. Particularly relieved would be India and Sri Lanka who have ineffectually watched terrorist groups exploit British laws to launch their hate and terror campaign from here. But perceptions about what constitutes terrorist activities differ. For instance, Islamist groups that recruit and train mujahideen insist they are only training freedom fighters to wage justifiable and worthy battles in areas of conflict. "If the British government acts against such groups that will mean they are taking sides in a conflict," says Omar Bakri Mohammed of the Al-Muhajiroun. "If they do take sides we will go underground, and then god help the government." He then argues, "We have the right to support mujahideen in areas of conflict. The struggle in Kashmir is not a terrorist movement."

The new Act is clearly aimed at Islamic groups like the Al-Muhajiroun which have been recruiting mujahideen for terrorist actions abroad. Omar had earlier told Outlook that his group raises money for mujahideen fighting in Chechnya and Kashmir. Similarly, a spokesman for the group Al-Madad said that it had, over the last five years, sent 1,000 recruits to their two training camps abroad. But Islamic groups are not the only section in Britain opposed to the Act. Civil liberty groups like the Liberty plan to challenge the Act, particularly clauses 55 and 56 which give the government sweeping new powers.The Liberty argues that these two clauses might contravene European Law to which Britain subscribes.

The two clauses make it an offence to collect or make a record of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or to possess a document containing such information unless the defendant can establish reasonable reason for the allegedly criminal possession. It would be for the accused to prove that such possession did not amount to an offence under the Act. Since Article 6(2) of the European Convention provides that "everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law", clauses 55 and 56, says a Liberty spokesman, "place a reverse onus on an accused to prove innocence rather than on the prosecution to prove guilt."

The provisions in the bill will "create twin track systems of justice," the Liberty spokesman said. "People suspected of 'terrorist' offences would have fewer rights than other criminals. Those motivated by political or religious factors when committing a crime will have fewer rights than a person who assaults another for revenge or greed." Liberty director John Wadham described it as "one of the worst measures I've seen for many years." As a concession to political and civil liberty groups, the new Act makes two changes to the old Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1989. Extensions of detention will now be determined judicially, and not by the secretary of state. Also, provisions for issuing exclusion orders, which in effect meant that a person could be exiled internally in Britain, have been dropped altogether. These changes along with the new powers mean "we have got the balance right," Straw said in defence of the new Act.

Opposition to the Act apart, what stood out last week was the government's resolve. As Straw said on February 19, the day the law took effect, "From today we have a single UK-wide piece of counter-terrorism legislation. This Act strengthens the powers of the police and other enforcement agencies in the fight against terrorism, and is fully consistent with our obligations under the Human Rights Act." The scope of the law had been broadened, Straw said, because terrorists "are no respecters of borders and are continuously developing new approaches and techniques. It is very important that we should have powers similar to those of other countries."

The new law was introduced following pressure from many governments including India, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and France. For a long time militants had based themselves in Britain under protection of provisions that they would be persecuted if sent home. The new Act deprives terrorists of such privileges. Straw told MPs in Parliament that "the government is determined that the UK isn't used as a base for the planning and preparation of terrorism here or abroad."

The Indian government had for long asked the British to check recruiting, training and funding of terrorists in Britain. There have been several indications that many British Muslims are involved in 'jehad' in Kashmir, apart from the claims of British Islamic leaders. For instance, Omar Sheikh, a British Muslim, was arrested for terrorist actions in India before his release during the Kandahar hijacking episode. Sri Lankan foreign minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, too, had made a strong appeal to Straw on a visit here in November to stop fund-raising activities of the ltte. With the British government now preparing to take action under the Act, it is now to be seen whether the terrorist groups will be squashed or, as they claim, just go underground.

Show comments
US