Making A Difference

The Guilt Code

Britain's new catch-all terror laws are crafting a police state

Advertisement

The Guilt Code
info_icon
Orwellian World
  • Proposed changed in terror laws allow the police to detain suspects without trial for 42 days
  • Allows lifelong tracking after release of anyone sentenced to more than five years for a terrorism offence
  • Foreign nationals facing expulsion for suspected terrorist offences can be denied access to the information indicting them
  • Access to information deemed useful to terrorists is reason enough for prosecution

***

S
info_icon


Dhiren Barot’s terror fantasies landed him a 40-year sentence

New British law on terror is now redefining guilt. The Terrorism Act passed in 2000 has been made ever tougher since. Next week the British parliament will vote on government proposals to add yet more powers to the Terrorism Act, including extension of detention without trial to 42 days from 28, already by far the highest in Europe, and lifelong tracking after release of anyone sentenced to more than five years for a terrorism offence.

Foreign nationals facing expulsion for suspected terrorist offences may now be denied access to some of the information brought against them. "It is quite Orwellian, and we have expressed grave, grave concern," Judith Sunderland from Human Rights Watch told Outlook.

Muslims of Indian or Pakistani origin have been hit hard by these ever-toughening laws. Dhiren Barot, originally a Hindu from a Kenyan Indian family who converted to Islam, was sentenced two years ago to 40 years in jail for planning, as the prosecution said, a "memorable black day". He would plant radioactive "dirty bombs", blow up the World Bank and International Monetary Fund buildings in Washington, the New York Stock Exchange, the Prudential buildings in nearby New Jersey, plant bombs under the Thames in London so to divert the water into London Underground tunnels, a gas attack on the Heathrow Express into central London, spectacular attacks through hijacked petrol tankers, and of course aircraft, these days a terrorist favourite. A lot to do for one man.

Except that Barot had no means to do all this, and no one—not even the prosecution or judge who declared him guilty—said he had. Nor was he anywhere close to acquiring the means to carry out even one of these attacks.

That Barot is a nasty piece of work is hardly in doubt. He wrote a book, The Army of Madinah in Kashmir, packed with fantasies about killing Indian soldiers. Inevitably, the ISI adopted him, invited him to Pakistan—and then double-crossed him. Barot wrote his 39-page "black day" fantasy apparently for the benefit of Al Qaeda supporters. The ISI found it on his laptop and handed it over to the British police by way of a show of alliance in the war on terror. The assumption was that Barot was as dangerous as his fantasies were wild.

A British court reconsidered that last year. A court of appeal headed by Chief Justice Lord A.M. Philips agreed that the 40-year sentence assumed Barot had "viable" means to carry out these attacks. The court accepted that he had not done or even tried anything, and that there was no certainty he would have succeeded. And so, it reduced his sentence to 30 years.

The British law has effectively begun to punish thought and information. Rizwaan Sabir, a Pakistani researcher at Nottingham University, was arrested last month because he had downloaded material on Al Qaeda as part of his research on Islamic terrorism. As was the staff member whom Rizwaan had requested to print the material. They were detained six days, and their houses raided. Last year, four students from Bradford University and a fifth, a schoolboy, were jailed for possessing a US military document on explosives. But this February, Lord Philips ordered all five to be freed on the grounds that the Terrorism Act "must be interpreted in a way that requires a direct connection between the object possessed and the act of terrorism".

Several of the additions to the Terrorism Act have been strongly opposed by MPs and human rights groups. "One of the most controversial changes was the statutes relating to access to information that might be useful to terrorists, and the offence of encouragement to terrorism which we opposed at the time because we felt it was far too broad, and would have a chilling effect on free speech," Sunderland said. "And one of the results is this kind of prosecution where you have people who may be looking at information for legitimate academic reasons who then are subject to prosecution because that information could be determined as useful to terrorists. These are very dangerous developments, really."

Britain has had to deal with unusual diplomatic consequences as a result of its laws. At the UN Human Rights Council in April, British Justice Minister Michael Wills was questioned by representatives of 38 countries over Britain's terror laws. Now even countries like Syria and Algeria, not known for their human rights record, attacked Wills for the denial of human rights that Britain's new terror laws imply. The UN Human Rights Committee, it was pointed out, has been critical of Algeria for allowing 12-day detentions without charge. It is become easier now in Britain to be at fault with the law, when many, Muslims particularly, see the law itself at fault.

Advertisement

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement