Will the new counter-terrorism bill really make Britain a safer place, asks Doaa El-Bey Amid wide opposition, the British government published the new draft anti-terrorism bill. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the bill would "change the rules of the game" of facing terrorism. However, the government was criticised by major political groups for being vague, violating human and citizens' rights and failing to tackle the real causes behind terrorism. The bill will no doubt be debated in parliament over the next few weeks. While Blair hopes that it will be approved as a law by the end of the year, the bill is likely to face tough resistance from major opposition parties, Muslim groups and human rights organisations. The most controversial point in the bill relates to extending the period of detention of terror suspects without charge to 90 days. Under existing laws, police can detain terror suspects for up to 14 days, but police say they need more time to cope with the number of cases, examine evidence and liaise with overseas intelligence agencies. The main opposition Conservative Party leader Michael Howard says the extension is too simplistic and is not the most effective way of dealing with terrorism. Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, described the bill as wrong and lacking consensus within the government. On the other side of the political spectrum, independent British politicians and Muslim groups have expressed their own staunch opposition to the extension. They have pointed out that more than half of the people arrested so far under the terrorism act were released without charges. Last week, Mayor of London Ken Livingston organised a major rally in a hall situated just opposite the Houses of Parliament. All major political groups and human rights organisations attended the meeting. Speakers criticised the bill and called for unity among all communities against terrorism. Azzam Tamimi of the Muslim Association of Britain who attended the rally regarded extending the period of detention as a dangerous breach of the basic human rights guaranteed by the international and European conventions. "Once implemented, this measure is likely to exacerbate matters by increasing the potential for recruiting angry and frustrated young men into organisations that adopt political violence as a means of protest," he said. Another controversial point in the terrorism bill relates to the outlawing of "direct or indirect encouragement or glorification of terrorism". The government explained that such an offence would only be committed if the person involved in the publication of a statement "either knows or believes or has reasonable grounds for believing" that it could induce people to commit an act of terrorism. However, the bill did not explain exactly how police would be able to discern the intent of that person. Some politicians and human rights activists insist that the projected law is vague and would in effect be likely to curtail the rights of peaceful protest and of defending legitimate political causes. Others regard it as a possible tool in the hands of the government designed to control Islamic clerics who preach in mosques. Robert Ayers, a security expert in the London- based Chatham House think tank, believes that it is impossible to write a legally-binding definition for what constitutes something as nebulous as "indirect encouragement" of terrorism. "Consider what happens if the 'indirect glorification' was expressed in a language where the connotations of the statement were not 'indirectly glorifying' but the translation into English suggests that 'glorification' may have been intended. Should the speaker be arrested, should the translator be arrested?" he said. A further point in the bill that caused controversy stipulates 12 months imprisonment for those who disseminate so-called terrorist publications or publications that can be of use to terrorists. This point fails to provide a clear definition for terrorist publications. It was criticised as infringing on the rights of free speech and free expression. Ayers described it as not only an abridgment of free speech, but another example of bad lawmaking. "For example what constitutes a 'terrorist publication'? How can these be defined before they are published? How could this law be enforced on the Internet?" he said. Tamimi added that the purpose of the bill is to silence critics by intimidating them through legislation. But, he added, "there are many who are willing to risk persecution and even imprisonment in order to defy such a major violation of basic human rights." He said that the debate raised after the July bombings clearly blamed terrorism on the government for dragging Britain into an illegitimate and illegal war in Iraq. "This is what Blair does not want to hear and the bill is a means to stifle the debate and blame terrorism on the Muslim community in Britain rather than on the foreign policy of the state," he said. Both Ayers and Tamimi agreed that the bill will have a devastating effect on community relations and will spread suspicion and fear. "The bill reinforces the notion, at least in the minds of racists, xenophobes and Zionists, that British Muslims are no more than a fifth column working for the enemy," said Tamimi. Ayers pointed out that giving the police more discretionary authority to make fundamentally judgmental decisions to take members of the community into custody for providing indirect support to terrorism was unlikely to have any positive effects on community relations. Over coming weeks, the government is likely to face difficulties with passing the bill in parliament. Tamimi predicts that the bill will "have a tough time in both chambers of parliament and may end up rejected or severely watered down". In another, parallel development, police arrested 10 terror suspects last week. Half of them were released shortly afterwards, and the others were discharged earlier this week. Police said the arrests were not connected to the July bombings, but to an ongoing investigation into international terrorist activities in Britain. The 7 July bombings left 56 dead including the four British suicide bombers. A copy cat attack took place two weeks later but nobody was killed.
