Just a reminder that the remaining Committee stages of the dreadful Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008, being debated in the House of Lords today, still contain plenty of things which should not be allowed onto the statute book. e.g.
The Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008 Clause 83 Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc.
UPDATE: this clause has now been re-numbered to be Clause 75, in the version of the Bill which goes forward to the Report stage in the House of Lords.
(1) After section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (collection of information)
insert--
"58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc
(1) A person commits an offence who--
(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been--
(i) a member of Her Majesty's forces,
(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii) a constable,
Why are all police constables covered by this ?
Why not current and former Judges, prosecutors and prison warders ?
Why are witnesses not "protected" in this way either ?
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) publishes or communicates any such information.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section
to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.
Why should you have to prove that you are innocent ? It should be the prosecution who have to prove that you are guilty.
The increasingly common "reverse burden of proof" evil, which the Home Office keeps inflicting on everyone - they really do not like the traditional "golden thread" of English justice, that of "Innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, on actual evidence", do they ?
Surely this will have a chilling effect on journalists , bloggers and biography writers etc. ?
Will the study of military history be illegal ?
All the senior members of the Royal Family are current or former military officers. Will the vast publishing and media industry which surrounds them now be deemed to be illegal ?
It is likely that this law will be used by petty jobsworths, to try to harass anyone who takes a photograph of any military , or police personnel.
Since it also covers former members of the armed forces, surely this will chill any reporting of, or even the organisation of, Remembrance Sunday / Poppy Appeal memorial parades and events etc ?
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable--(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction--
(i) in England and Wales or Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(ii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.
(4) In this section "the intelligence services" means the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ (within the meaning of section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13)).
[...]"
Why is any of this necessary given the "thought crime" over broadness of the existing Terrorism Act 2000 section 58, which has been used to convict Abu Bakr Mansha to 6 years in prison, for the possession of a single, out of date address of a serving British soldier ?
Given the hundreds of thousands of military names, addresses and other personal details which have been lost or stolen recently, what use is this clause 83 in practice ?
See the previous Spy Blog article: Counter-Terrorism Bill Clause 83 - chilling effect on reporting or speculation about military or intelligence service or police personnel ?
It looks as if this would stop me telling people the name (or even the number!) of the constable that arrested me?
Assuming that I am right and also that it is deliberate might be a bit of a jump.
But it does suggest, at least to me, a future time when police don't *have* numbers, and wear full-face helmets...
This is the new version of Section 103 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which has lapsed, and only applied in Northern Ireland.
Looks like we're now living under a state of emergency.
The Lords have passed this Clause 83 , without amendment, at the Committee stage.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/81021-0006.htm
The vague promises of Lord West (or any Government Minister) made during this debate are utterly meaningless in a court of law, only the actual (dreadful) wording "on the face of the Bill" is what counts.
We will not be intimidated – Mass resistance to new offence of publishing information about police officers
The new Counter Terrorism Bill, currently in The Lords, contains an amendment to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This amendment will make it an offence, punishable by up to ten years imprisonment, to publish or elicit information about any police constable "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".
Furthermore, Schedule 7 of the Bill applies this amendment to internet service providers and web hosting services. This means they will have a legal duty to remove all sites perceived to fall under this offence, and has provisions for use at home and abroad.
It is unclear what information will be classed as “useful” to terrorists, but due to this ambiguous wording, the Bill has implications for bloggers, journalists, photographers, activists and anyone who values freedom of speech.
This is a call from Fitwatch for a mass publishing of information on police officers on the day this Bill receives its Royal Assent. The date will be published as soon as we have it, but it is likely to be early 2009.
Fitwatch are one of the groups who could be targeted by this new legislation. Fitwatch, started eight months ago by activists, resists and opposes the use of Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) on demonstrations. FIT are police officers who photograph, follow, and generally intimidate protesters. They bring, in the words of Jacqui Smith, “harassment style policing” to protests.
As part of this opposition, we run a blog – www.fitwatch.blogspot.com – where we share information about these officers. We feel this blog could be under threat from this new legislation.
Whilst it is obvious from our blog that we do not like these officers, we are not terrorists.
Neither are:
- people filming, and uploading to Youtube, footage of police officers acting illegally.
- bloggers writing about being randomly stopped and searched.
- journalists publishing details of corrupt or racist cops.
- photographers publishing photographs of police on protests.
The list goes on, but all are under threat.
This legislation not only attempts to stifle our ability to hold the police force to account for their actions, but also attacks the principles of open publishing on the internet. It must be resisted.
Join the mass action and oppose this ludicrous law.
This action can be taken by anyone, anywhere:
Get hold of a piece of information about a police officer, or a photo or video. If you are stuck, feel free to use anything from our blog!
Publish this on Flickr, Youtube, your blog, website, myspace/facebook, whereever you want.
Send us a link, and we'll publish a list on our blog.
Please circulate and publish this call as widely as possible, and join this act of cyber resistance.
ps – this bill also applies to intelligence officers. If anyone does have any photographs or information on MI5 officers they wish to publish, we would not seek to discourage them in any way, shape or form, but please do send us a link!!!
@ Fitwatch, - Schedule 7 actually provides some of the "mere conduit"and "caching" defences for big Telecommunications and Internet Service Provider companies, as per the European Directive.
Even though there may be a viable defence of having a "reasonable excuse" to take such photos, or even just compile or publish any details about the now soon to be "faceless" tentacles of the state, that defence will only come up after you are actually in court, well after you have been threatened with arrest, actually arrested, DNA sample, fingerprint and name and address data raped.