UK Terrorism Laws - Institutionally racist in conception, institutionally racist in application

This post consists principally of a letter sent today to Baroness O'Neill of the Equality and Human Rights Commission asking that the Commission considers whether the conception and application of UK Terrorism Laws are inequitable, improper and/or unlawful.

In my view the UK Terrorism laws are institutionally racist in conception and institutionally racist in application.

The letter, which is below, simplifies a range of complex and subtle issues.

I don't, for a moment, expect that the Home Secretary or UK Police forces will wish instantly to agree with my viewpoint.

However, I believe that this is an issue which cannot continue in its present unsatisfactory state  without a full public discussion.

In my view the false impression given successively by the Blair, Brown and Cameron Governments on what terrorism is cannot continue unchallenged.

Here is the substance of my letter to Baroness O'Neill:

26th November 2014

To:

Baroness Onora O’Neill,

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Dear Baroness O’Neill,

UK Terrorism Laws:

Institutionally racist in their conception

Institutionally racist in their application

I write to ask that, as a matter of urgency, the Equality and Human Rights Commission begins a formal investigation into whether the UK Terrorism Laws were institutionally racist in their conception and are institutionally racist in their application.

Personally I prefer the term “natural naziism” to “institutional racism” but since the latter is the term more familiar in public discourse I use it predominantly in this letter.

UK Terrorism Laws

The principle piece of Terrorism legislation is the Terrorism Act 2000. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents

The 2000 Act contains a definition of “terrorism” in Section 1 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1 ) and a definition of “terrorist” in Section 40 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/40 ).

In 2006 the Terrorism Act 2006 was passed into Law (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/contents ).

Today a further Bill is to be introduced.

Were UK Terrorism Laws institutionally racist in their conception?

I ask that the Equality and Human Rights Commission carefully review the thinking behind the development of what became the Terrorism Act 2000.

In particular, I would point the EHRC to the House of Commons Hansard account of what was then the Terrorism Bill.

The House of Commons Hansard record of the Second Reading of the Terrorism Bill is online here:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1999/dec/14/terrorism-bill

The discussion to which I wish to draw attention relates to the definition of “terrorism” in what was then Clause 1 of the Terrorism Bill.

Section 1 of what is now the Terrorism Act 2000 has slightly modified wording but the meaning of Clause 1 and Section 1 are not signficantly different for the purposes of this letter.

In brief, a lengthy discussion took place in which it was (correctly) asserted that UK military action in Northern Iraq was “terrorism” as defined in Clause 1.

It was also (correctly) identified that various political actions met the criteria for “terrorism” as set out in Clause 1.

The response from Jack Straw, then Home Secretary, was to the effect that the Director of Public Prosecutions would act as a filter on any prosecutions.

Jack Straw’s remarks didn’t attract much attention at the time nor have they attacted much attention since but I believe they are of potentially pivotal importance in understanding the “institutionally racist” conception of the Terrorism Act.

What Mr. Straw was saying is that some people (“us”, in effect) can carry out “terrorism” but will be immune from prosecution whereas other people (those we want to target, although that was never explicitly spelled out, so far as I’m aware)  are to be liable to Police investigation and prosecution.

There is, as I understand Mr. Straw’s formulation, to be no equality before the Law.

It seems to me that this targeting of only a proportion of those who carry out “terrorism” is an expression of “institutional racism” in the thinking of the Home Office of the time.

If it would assist the Equality and Human Rights Commission I would be happy to discuss these concerns with a member of staff appointed to scope the issue.

There are also concerns about the process of “proscription” which were, I believe, “institutionally racist” in their conception. However, I’ll briefly deal with those later in this letter.

Are UK Terrorism Laws being applied in an institutionally racist way?

It seems to me that the United Kingdom’s Terrorism Laws are being applied in a way which is “institutionally racist”.

If one assumes equality before the Law then the rational and equitable approach is to examine who conducts terrorism, who conducts the largest amount of terrorism (as defined in the 2000 Act) and respond accordingly.

Contrary to that approach there is every appearance that the Police target actions by Moslems primarily and, in my view, inequitably and unlawfully.

This inequitable approach is evident, in my view, in the organisations which have been proscribed by the Home Secretary.

Similarly, the Police primarily target “terrorism” by Moslems.

One would assume on the basis of the actions of the Home Secretary and the Police that most terrrorism is carried out by Moslems.

It is, however, false to assert that most “terrorism” is carried out by Moslems. At least that’s my view.

Quantitatively, the vast majority of terrorism by UK citizens is carried out by the British Military. I therefore refer to that terrorism as British Military Terrorism.

It would not surprise me if your initial reaction to that assertion is that I must be wrong.

In fact I would be surprised if that were not your reaction given the false narrative of terrorism spread successively by the Blair, Brown and Cameron Governments.

I ask you, and/or your legal advisers, carefully to examine the definition of “terrorism” contained in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

In my assessment the UK military action in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014 was “terrorism” as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. See my evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in 2010: begins on page 31 of this document: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmfaff/514/514vw.pdf

In my assessment the Iraq War was “terrorism” as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. See, for example, http://www.fuqq.eu/2013/05/was-iraq-war-terrorism-in-uk-law.html

In my assessment the UK military intervention in Libya was similarly terrorism as defined in Section 1.

In my assessment the RAF air strikes in Iraq in 2014 are terrorism as defined in Section 1. See, for example,

1. http://criminal-state.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/unlawful-uk-air-strikes-in-iraq-letter.html
2. http://criminal-state.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/raf-terrorism-in-iraq-section-56.html and
3. http://criminal-state.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/raf-terrorism-in-iraq-section-56.html

These acts of “terrorism” as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 dwarf any Moslem terrorism in the UK.

Yet neither the Home Secretary nor the Police act on this terrorism.

The actions of the Home Secretary and the Police are targeted principally, sometimes solely, at Moslems.

It seems to me that the Home Secretary and the Police inequitably, improperly  and unlawfully target Moslems.

I am aware of potential legal arguments relating to the above but won’t take time or space to rebut them in detail here but would be happy to do so on request.

The Prevent programme

The Prevent programme also targets Moslems.

It seems to me that the Prevent programme has similar “institutionally racist” foundations to the actions of the Home Secretary and Police with respect to terrorism.

The Prevent programme, in practice, targets predominantly Moslems.

I ask the Equality and Human Rights Commission to consider whether the Prevent programme’s targetting of Moslems is inequitable, improper and/or unlawful.

“Institutional racism” or “natural naziism”?

I tend to prefer the term “natural naziism” to the term “institutional racism”.

In part my preference is because the phenomenon in the UK goes far beyond institutions and because, for so many in the UK, the mindset which causes me concern is entirely “natural”, indeed for some it appears to be the only acceptable mindset.

Some aspects of what I think of as “natural naziism” go beyond the matters which the EHRC can consider. Therefore I do not fully express my concerns on that matter here.

Actions requested of you

The concerns I report to you are matters of substantial complexity and subtlety.

There is, for example, no overtly stated anti-Moslem policy, not least since any such overt statement would, I believe, be unlawful.

However, there is in conception and application an approach to terrorism which, in my view at least, unfairly, improperly and unlawfully targets Moslems.

In the first instance I ask for prompt acknowledgement of receipt of this letter.

Given the subtlety and complexity of the issues involved you may wish to consider a scoping study. Should you do so I am willing to discuss my concerns with EHRC staff, not least to ensure that my concerns are fully understood.

Alternatively, should you decide to proceed to a full inquiry I similarly am willing to discuss my concerns with EHRC staff, again to ensure that my concerns are proprely understood.

I look forward to your early acknowledgement.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt