Miscarriages
of JusticeUK (MOJUK)
|
|
Terrorism and the (Mis)Rule of Law
It can be said that ‘De Jure’ Jesus Christ was a
terrorist. It can, and was said that George Washington
was a terrorist. There was even a "Wanted" poster made for
him. Oliver Cromwell, well that might be a more
complex issue but nevertheless, when Charles II came back on
the English Throne poor Cromwell was exhumed, and his body
parts publicly exposed in the four most distant regions of
the Kingdom and pronounced a terrorist.
Over the past hundred years plus the definition of a
terrorist or even terrorism has been harder to define. It
used to that anyone who challenged the lawful authority by
acts of violence was defined as a terrorist. The old adage
of a person striking terror in people's hearts was
fallacious:- the terror was to a government who did not want
to surrender power.
Nelson Mandela succeeded, but it cost him 26 years of very
strict and cruel reclusion. In fairness to the South African
Government, he was asked if he renounced violence as a means
to political ambition and he refused. He was never asked
again. It took the passage of time to turn a convicted
terrorist to a President and was re-branded a "freedom
fighter." Fidel Castro and Che Guevera the same.
It may surprise all to know that there is no consensus on
how terrorism should be defined. Unde Italian Law it is
covered by the Codice Penale (Penal Codes) Art 270, and the
punishment for whomsoever promotes, constitutes, organizes
or finances terrorism is sentenced to a term of between 7 to
15 years. Subversive activity attracts between 5 to 10
years.
In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and N.Ireland, there
is a statutory definition of terrorism, and that is found in
the Terrorism Act 2000 Section One which states: Terrorism
means the use or threat of action where:
(a) it involves serious violence against a person, involves
serious damage to property, endangers a person's life (other
than that of the person committing the action), creates a
serious risk to the health and safety of the public, or a
section of the public, or is designed seriously to interfere
with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system;
(b) it is designed to influence the Government, or an
international government organization, or to intimidate the
public or a section of the public,
(c) is made for the purpose of advancing a political,
religious, racial, or ideological cause.
The definition provided by Section One is extremely broad
and bespoke in a manner designed to capture the diverse
range of activities associated with terrorism.
It also provides a detailed description of what acts are
involved in terrorism, what the acts are designed to do, and
the actual purpose.
It does not, however, help anyone to comprehend what
terrorism actually is.
Examining Section One (c) briefly:
Politics Religion Race Ideology.
Any activity covering those can easily be caught under
Section One(c) and subject to prosecution.
Immediately post Second World War the Republic of Italy
quickly adopted the concept of placing its population in
fear that the Italian Constitution prohibited the Italian
Fascist Party from ever being reformed and went further to
prohibit its symbol.
The Italian Leaders post-war would probably quiver now with
the thought that the best selling calendar in Italy each
year is not the Pirelli Calander but one with photos of
Benito Mussolini.
What the legislators and the Government and also people have
failed to comprehend is that terrorism is actually a
straight forward crime and One that has serious
consequences. So does murder, rape, arson, etc.
President Bush, post the 9/11 demolitions of the World Trade
Tower/Twin Towers, declared "War on Terror." It was an
incredibly smart political move designed solely to enhance
the Office of the President of the United States of America.
Would it not have been better to declare war on:
* want * lack of employment * loan sharks * poor health
service * poverty * drugs * HIV/Aids
That would have been a better fight and a cause that no one
would place any objections or obstacles. But no, President
Bush sought a "War on Terror" without even knowing or
providing a definition of "Terror" leaving those arrested
and detained without trial at serious risk.
But then who gave a flying Ferrari? Calling for a war on the
intangible and undefined allowed President Bush to create
his own rules on detention/trial without paying any
attention to the rights of the individual.
Did anyone care? Did anyone care whether accused were
subjected to torture and remember in the 16th Century
although torture was outlawed in the United Kingdom it was
permitted - for the purpose of extracting information:- Guy
Fawkes was one who was subjected to torture on the orders of
the King.
Terrorism and the advent of terrorist violence, carried out
by those willing to die in the cause of killing others, does
indeed test society and the rule and Mis-Rule of law to the
utmost.
There is a strong temptation for the Government to
"overlook" the settled legal procedures and go straight to
summary justice. There is a temptation to pass legislation
that ls retrospective and knowingly unlawful. There is e
temptation to pass legislation that violates the rights of
the individual and all in the1 name of "fighting terrorism"
without even being able to define such.
The Council of Europe in 2002 (Fight Against Terrorism,
adopted by the Committee of Ministers, 11 July 2002 at the
804 Meeting of Ministers Deputies, p.5) stated: "The
temptation for governments and parliaments in countries
suffering from terrorist action is to fight fire with fire,
setting aside the legal safeguards that exist in a
democratic state. But let us be clear about this: while the
State has the right to employ to the full its arsenal of
legal weapons to repress and prevent terrorist activities,
it may not use indiscriminate measures which would only
undermine the fundamental values they seek to protect. For a
State to react in such a way would be to fall · into the
trap set by·terrorism for democracy and the rule. of law."
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and N.Ireland subscribed
to that declaration, and as founding members of the Council
of Europe, it is expectant of them to adhere and comply. Any
failure on the part of the founding, member of the Council
of Europe
"The temptation for governments and parliaments in countries
suffering from terrorist action is to fight fire with fire,
setting aside the legal safeguards that exist in a
democratic state. But let us be clear about this: while the
State has the right to employ to the full its arsenal of
legal weapons to repress and prevent terrorist activities,
it may not use indiscriminate measures which would only
undermine the fundamental values they seek to protect. For a
State to react in such a way would be to fall into the trap
set by·terrorism for democracy and the rule. of law."
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and N.Ireland subscribed
to that declaration, and as founding members of the Council
of Europe, it is expectant of them to adhere and comply. Any
failure on the part of the founding, member of the Council
of Europe and/or any further dilution of the rights of an
accused can per se itself be deemed an act of terrorism.
Sudesh Amman and other compatriots, including the tragic
case at Fishmongers Hall, can never be labelled terrorists.
How can those two criminals be placed in the same category
as Nelson Mandela, George Washington, Oliver Cromwell, etc?
Are the IRA terrorists? Is the UDF a terrorist organization?
Is ETA a terrorist organisation? What about Islamic Jihad,
Hamas, PLO?
They all wish to change the political situation of their
country or cause, and like the Red Brigades and Baader,
Meinhoff financed their objectives by simple crime. Yet when
they commit an armed robbery, it is not an armed robbery but
an act of terrorism.
It has been so common this approach that the label has
stuck, and that is not the rule of law. It does not matter
why a person robs a bank but that the bank is robbed. Does a
person who has no food escape prosecution if he/she steals?
But a person who steals for financing a campaign or
political aim always attracts the label of terrorist and
receives an enhanced sentence violating the rule of law.
The new legislation proposed by the Government is a reaction
to an event and not a policy adequately thought out. While
many who have been habituated and indoctrinated by the "war
on terror" nonsense will jump with joy, those who regularly
practise law in the criminal courts and jurists who abide by
the rule of law will despair.
People sentenced, for 'terrorism' when there is no clear
legal definition of terrorism: - not in my name please.
Giovanni Di Stefano, A9460CW, HMP Highpoint, 11th
February 2020
|
|