Glorify Terrorism Here!

[cybertect]

Sir Aylmer Haldane, a top British terrorist who specialised in burning entire villages and their inhabitants.

Don't forget his boss, Winston Churchill, who was highly enthusiastic about the "excellent moral effect" that gas attacks could have on civilian populations in Kurdistan. I'm sure other people might follow his glorious example.

Praise be upon his name.

 

[bluestreak]

It was indeed truely glorious.
That's my little boy standing on the left as well. (Ahh...he's nearly all grown up now.)

now that's terrorism. i were tehre too. great times. i wish we still had 'em.

 

[TeeJay]

I wonder what definition the UK government has used in writing this legislation?

Is it any of these ones?:

Definitions of Terrorism

The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.

The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".

If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.

In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".

Proposed Definitions of Terrorism

1. League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

2. UN Resolution language (1999):

"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;

2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

4. Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

From here: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime)

 

[laptop]

I wonder what definition the UK government has used in writing this legislation?

Is it any of these ones?

Too late to know how rhetorical your question is: the definition in the 2000 Act is none of the above; it comes from the FBI.

 

[TeeJay]

Too late to know how rhetorical your question is: the definition in the 2000 Act is none of the above; it comes from the FBI.

Got a link?

edit: Nevermind I have found it....

section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000
link here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000011.htm

Terrorism: interpretation.
1.
(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

(4) In this section-
(a) "action" includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b) a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c) a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d) "the government" means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

(5) In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

also this is the releavnt part of the attached "explanatory notes" http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/en2000/2000en11.htm

COMMENTARY
PART I: INTRODUCTORY
Section 1: Terrorism: interpretation

10. Under the PTA, [edit: the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (c.4)] terrorism "means the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear" (section 20). The definition in the PTA is limited in that the powers and offences in that Act only apply to terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland ("Irish terrorism") or Irish and international terrorism. The Act, as suggested in the consultation document, adopts a wider definition, recognising that terrorism may have religious or ideological as well as political motivation, and covering actions which might not be violent in themselves but which can, in a modern society, have a devastating impact. These could include interfering with the supply of water or power where life, health or safety may be put at risk. Subsection (2)(e) covers the disrupting of key computer systems. Subsection (3) provides that where action involves firearms or explosives, it does not have to be designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public to be included in the definition. This is to ensure that, for instance, the assassination of key individuals is covered.

11. Subsection (4) provides for the definition to cover terrorism not only within the United Kingdom but throughout the world. This is implicit in the PTA definition but the Act makes it explicit.

 

[laptop]

Got a link?

Le Monde Diplo (google cache, may vanish soon)

On the relationship between the definitions:

Lords Hansard, 06/04/2000

Commons Hansard, 14/12/1999

 

[TeeJay]

It's OK - I've quoted the actual text above, so people can see for themselves what it says.

 

[TeeJay]

Le Monde Diplo (google cache, may vanish soon)

This article merely points out that the FBI definition and the 2000 Act are similar.

The explanatory note seems to indicate that the "Terrorism Act 2000" definition was based initially on the existing "Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989" definition, with some changes, as noted.

I haven't read the other two links yet, but so far it isn't clear that the 2000 Act simply "used" the FBI definition, or for that matter that it is very different from the older "League of Nations" definition:

1. League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

It is not uncommon for different countries to arrive at similar laws without any of them simply "using" each others definitions.

I will read the next two links now...

 

[laptop]

I will read the next two links now...

You'll find they talk about the differences... I think my source for the 2000 Act being based (with changes) on the FBI definition may have been Tony Bunyan of Statewatch, face-to-face.

But I'm off to sleep now...

 

[free spirit]

(b) involves serious damage to property,

how exactly do they define what serious damage to property is?

ie. is trashing construction equipment on a roads protest now actually terrorism, and how about trashing a field of GM crops.

surely terrorism should have to be doing something that is actually aimed at instilling terror in people, neither of the above would do that, nobodies going to get hurt by them, but could both be seen as fairly serious damage to property with the aim of influencing government policy.

and now it's not just the few activists with the balls to take meaningful direct action against property that are at risk, it's anyone who writes an article prasing their actions or makes a speach in support of them etc.

this isn't just going to get used against al queida

 

[TeeJay]

Hmmm...

In the second link (Hansard extract) the reference to the FBI working definition includes this "in order to promote political, social or ideological objectives" - but all the references I can find online to the FBI working definition give this wording:

"The unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

...as you can see the word "ideological" is missing.

edit:

Actually I have found a slightly longer definition from the 2000/2001 FBI report on terrorism:

DEFINITIONS

There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)

The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI uses the following definitions of terrorism:

* Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)]

* International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(1)]

 

[TeeJay]

This is section 1 of the Bill as originally proposed by the government:

1 Encouragement of terrorism
(1) This section applies to a statement that is likely to be understood by members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.
(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another to publish such a statement on his behalf; and
(b) at the time he does so, he intends the statement to be understood as
mentioned in subsection (1) or is reckless as to whether or not it is likely to be so understood.
(3) For the purposes of this section the cases in which a person is to be taken as reckless as to whether a statement is likely to be understood as mentioned in subsection (1) include any case in which he could not reasonably have failed to be aware of that likelihood.
(4) For the purposes of this section the statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every statement which—
(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and
(b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances.
(5) For the purposes of this section the questions how a statement is likely to be understood and what members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer from it must be determined having regard both—
(a) to the contents of the statement as a whole; and
(b) to the circumstances and manner of its publication.
(6) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsections (1) to (4)—
(a) whether the statement or how it is likely to be understood relates to the
commission, preparation or instigation of one or more particular acts of terrorism or Convention offences, of acts of terrorism or Convention offences of a particular description or of acts of terrorism or Convention offences generally; and,
(b) whether any person is in fact encouraged or induced by the statement
to commit, prepare or instigate any such act or offence.
(7) In proceedings against a person for an offence under this section it is a defence for him to show—
(a) that he published the statement in respect of which he is charged, or
caused it to be published, only in the course of the provision or use by him of a service provided electronically;
(b) that the statement neither expressed his views nor had his endorsement
(whether by virtue of section 3 or otherwise); and
(c) that it was clear, in all the circumstances, that it did not express his views and (apart from the possibility of his having been given and failed to comply with a notice under subsection (3) of that section) did not have his endorsement.
(8) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(c) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.
(9) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in subsection (8)(b) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

And here is what the House of Lords wanted to change it to (and the Conservatives and Lib Dems in the Commons tried to vote for, but were defeated):

1 Encouragement of terrorism
(1) This section applies to a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.
(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another to publish such a statement; and
(b) at the time he publishes it or causes it to be published, he—
(i) intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or
(ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “indirect encouragement” comprises the making of a statement describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it.
(4) For the purposes of this section the questions how a statement is likely to be understood and what members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer from it must be determined having regard both—
(a) to the contents of the statement as a whole; and
(b) to the circumstances and manner of its publication.
(5) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3)—
(a) whether anything mentioned in those subsections relates to the commission, preparation or instigation of one or more particular acts of terrorism or Convention offences, of acts of terrorism or Convention offences of a particular description or of acts of terrorism or Convention offences generally; and,
(b) whether any person is in fact encouraged or induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate any such act or offence.
(6) In proceedings for an offence under this section against a person in whose case it is not proved that he intended the statement directly or indirectly to encourage or otherwise induce the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences, it is a defence for him to show—
(a) that the statement neither expressed his views nor had his endorsement
(whether by virtue of section 3 or otherwise); and
(b) that it was clear, in all the circumstances of the statement’s publication, that it did not express his views and (apart from the possibility of his having been given and failed to comply with a notice under subsection
(3) of that section) did not have his endorsement.
(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
7 years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(c) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.
(8) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in subsection (7)(b) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

Presumably this means it will revert back more or less to the original with maybe a few minor changes but it now has to go back to the House of Lords for a second time...

 

[Blagsta]

That were great. Glorious, it was.

Oh yes, one of my fave days out ever that.

 

[aurora green]

So profoundly depressing that the FBI lists RTS as a terrorist threat source .
We have been sleepwalking into a living nightmare .

 

[TeeJay]

So profoundly depressing that the FBI lists RTS as a terrorist threat source .
We have been sleepwalking into a living nightmare .

That speech from February 6, 2002 ("The Terrorist Threat Confronting the United States" Testimony of Dale L. Watson, Executive Assistant Director, Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence Division, FBI Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence)

...actually says "a potential threat" which isn't quite the same thing:

...The second category of domestic terrorists, left-wing groups, generally profess a revolutionary socialist doctrine and view themselves as protectors of the people against the "dehumanizing effects" of capitalism and imperialism. They aim to bring about change in the United States and believe that this change can be realized through revolution rather than through the established political process. From the 1960s to the 1980s, leftist-oriented extremist groups posed the most serious domestic terrorist threat to the United States. In the 1980s, however, the fortunes of the leftist movement changed dramatically as law enforcement dismantled the infrastructure of many of these groups, and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe deprived the movement of its ideological foundation and patronage.

...Anarchists and extremist socialist groups--many of which, such as the workers' world party, reclaim the streets, and carnival against capitalism, have an international presence--at times also represent a potential threat in the United States. For example, anarchists, operating individually and in groups, caused much of the damage during the 1999 WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle.The third category of domestic terrorism, special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change. Special interest extremists continue to conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to their causes. These groups occupy the extreme fringes of animal rights, pro-life, environmental, anti-nuclear, and other movements. Some special interest extremists--most notably within the animal rights and environmental movements--have turned increasingly toward vandalism and terrorist activity in attempts to further their causes.

In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)--an extremist animal rights movement--has become one of the most active extremist elements in the United States. Despite the destructive aspects of ALF's operations, its operational philosophy discourages acts that harm "any animal, human and nonhuman." Animal rights groups in the United States, including ALF, have generally adhered to this mandate. A distinct but related group, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), claimed responsibility for the arson fires set at a Vail (Colorado) ski resort in October 1998, which caused 12 million dollars in damages. This incident remains under investigation. Seven terrorist incidents occurring in the United States during 2000 have been attributed to either ALF or ELF. Several additional acts committed during 2001 are currently being reviewed for possible designation as terrorist incidents.

A more recent FBI testimony to the Senate eg on February 16, 2005 ("Global Threats to the U.S. and the FBI's Response" Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI, Before the Senate Committee on Intelligence)

...doesn't mention RTS at all just saying this:

Animal rights and environmental extremists, operating under the umbrella of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) utilize a variety of tactics against their targets, including arson, sabotage/vandalism, theft of research animals, and the occasional use of explosive devices.

Serious incidents of animal rights/eco-terrorism decreased in 2004, a fact we attribute to a series of law enforcement successes that are likely deterring large-scale arsons and property destruction. Following a rash of serious incidents of animal rights/eco-terrorism, including a $50 million arson in San Diego and two bombing incidents in the San Francisco area, law enforcement authorities achieved several significant successes which have likely deterred additional terrorist activity. Despite these successes, we anticipate that animal rights extremism and eco-terrorism will continue to threaten certain segments of government and private industry, specifically in the areas of animal research and residential/commercial development.

The potential for violence by anarchists and other emerging revolutionary groups, such as the Anarchist Black Cross Federation (ABCF), will continue to be an issue for law enforcement. The stated goals of the ABCF are "the abolishment of prisons, the system of laws, and the Capitalist state." The ABCF believes in armed resistance to achieve a stateless and classless society. ABCF has continued to organize, recruit, and train anarchists in the tactical use of firearms.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress05/mueller021605.htm
It looks a bit like they have got rid of the RTS references not least because it makes them look like total prats.

I'd also guess that this little speech is designed to get as much money from Congress as possible, so basically they will designate almost anything as a potential threat that demands a new task force and lots of extra money.

 

[Brainaddict]

ie. is trashing construction equipment on a roads protest now actually terrorism, and how about trashing a field of GM crops.

I'd say that's well within the definition above - and same to smashing mcdonalds windows on a demo I reckon.

this isn't just going to get used against al queida

No, it certainly is not

 

[greenman]

Will they arrest members of the German government for their views on the Kreisau Circle and 20th July 1944, next time they set foot in our land of the free? -

Schroder Speech

Or maybe the DG of the BBC for this piece -

BBC Website Page on Georg Elser

 

[vimto]

That [URL=http://www.german-embassy.org.uk/speech_by_federal_chancellor_g.html]Schroder Speech[/URL] is well worth a peruse IMO. What a pleasant surprise.

Thanks for the link greenman.

 

[TeeJay]

Will they arrest members of the German government for their views on the Kreisau Circle and 20th July 1944, next time they set foot in our land of the free? -

Schroder Speech

Or maybe the DG of the BBC for this piece -

BBC Website Page on Georg Elser

Do they meet this criteria:

"a statement which is likely to be understood by members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism (the use or threat of violence or serious property damage designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause) for example a statement that glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences and is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances."

Surely anything that is "taking the piss" or merely hyperbole can't reasonable be seen as genuine encouragement to commit acts?

What kind of stuff are the CPS really going to bring to court with this law? A lot of things will be thrown out of court by a jury on the grounds that there is too much doubt about 'what people meant' or 'what was understood' or how reasonable it would be to take something seriously etc.

On the other hand if there are any cases where there is a lot of evidence that someone really was engaged in a serious pattern of behaviour designed to genuinely incite people to commit murder or other offences this is all covered by existing laws on incitement and conspiracy, so why the fuck do they need this new law about "glorification", which frankly sounds like the kind of stupid law that will never be used in court.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Passing ill-conceived laws serves a purpose though. It makes them look like they're doing something about terrorism (apart from actually attracting it by their actions in supporting the corrupt and very likely insane US government)

 

[Maggot]

The original and best!

 

[nightbreed]

Last week I bought a Red Che Guevara T Shirt. Am I allowed to wear it?
I notice aload of petit bourgieous trendies at the local 6th form wear the same. The odd supermodel isnt akin to donning Che's mug on their person.
Whats going to happen here?
Can I get my money back?
BTW has anyone ever read Trotsky's 'Terrorism or Communism'?

Also werent the IRA described once as 'Liberals with Guns'?

 

[TAE]

On TV (C4?) they recently repeated Cherie Blair's comments about her understanding palestinian suicide bombers.