A quick glance at the draft anti-terrorism bill indicates unforseen threats to individual and public freedoms. The first section of the draft law gives such an elastic definition of terrorism that everyone should fear being charged with terrorism by simply giving his opinion about it. As they've been accustomed since the 1950s, legislators used elastic language inconsistent with the precision of legal language. For example, the definition of a terrorist act is not only confined to the use of force or violence, but also encompasses any threat, terrorization, intimidation resorted to by a terrorist or a terrorist organization. The draft also expands the definition of a criminal act, which is not limited to the creation, establishment or management of a terrorist organization, but includes whoever establishes, organizes or runs a society, body, organization, group or gang designed to call by any means for the deactivation of constitutional provisions or laws; or the inhibition of any of the state institutions or a public authority from exercising their duties etc. ... It's unclear what the relationship is between such contraventions with terror-related crimes, especially since such acts are criminalized in the Penal Code and do not need to be included in a separate law. The use of vague expressions can also criminalize speech since the definition of a terrorist crime includes disturbing public order, endangering community safety or interests, or the security of the international community. If approved by Cabinet in its current form then hastily passed through parliament by the majority ruling party MPs, as is the case with most bills, the draft law portends fresh risks to individual and public liberties. Although the second section of the draft law on procedures is not yet clear, it is easy to predict what it would include in the light of the constitutional amendments adopted last year, where the new constitutional Article 179 pitted freedom directly against security, as it excludes terrorist crimes from the procedures stipulated in some clauses of Articles 41, 44 and 45 of the constitution. These articles, which have been deactivated under Article 179, are related to fundamental rights that were guaranteed by the constitution for any accused citizen, such as the stipulation that any action against inhibiting personal freedom must be passed down by a competent judge or public prosecutor; banning house searches without a warrant, and confirming the inviolability of citizens' private life. An old debate between security and freedom once again comes to mind. Is there a conflict between them and what are the limits of this conflict when it does occur? Who draws the line between an individual s right to privacy and the state s duty to maintain public safety, or between private freedom and public interest? Who guarantees that this interest is indeed public, and how do we stem the tendency of despotic governments to exploit concepts such as public order, public interest and community safety and security to subjugate citizens, force them to abandon their preferences and accept what is imposed on them? Dr Waheed Abdel Meguid is an expert at Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.
