BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Socialism is terrorism?

 
 
Reference
01:44 / 30.10.02
Here's something I found on www.out-law.com. Would have sent a link, but you need to be registered with them to read this page. Enjoy.

Begin quote-

Government definition of terrorism applies to firefighters
24/10/2002

The threat of industrial action has turned the UK’s firefighters into terrorists, as defined in the Government’s Terrorism Act. Furthermore, all the firefighters’ phone calls and other communications can be intercepted and accessed by Tony Blair’s Cobra committee under provisions of the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, better known as RIPA.

The Terrorism Act of 2000 defines terrorism as including the use or threat of action designed to influence the government and made for the purpose of advancing a political cause. “Action” falls within this definition if it involves “serious damage to property” or if it “endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,” or “creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.”

Dr Chris Pounder of Masons, the international law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said: “We were so concerned that we approached Leolin Price CBE QC for advice on one question: "is the firefighters dispute a terrorist action?". The answer was an unambiguous ‘yes’."

Dr Pounder, who is editor of Masons' publication Data Protection and Privacy Practice, continued:


“It would never occur to most people that the firefighters could possibly be defined as terrorists - but this is what the legislation says they are. It’s another example of hastily-drafted legal definitions being rushed through Parliament and resulting in bad law.


“Mr Price also states that there is probably scope for proceedings in court to force the firefighters’ Union, or those in charge of it, to call off the strike. The advice of Mr Price is that ‘The proposition that the strike is ‘terrorist’ will be one of the grounds for relief’ and reasons that, in theory, a local authority could bring a case, as could an individual who, for example, travels to work by the Underground and faces increased danger at King’s Cross because fire services will not be available. Perhaps more likely, an employer faced with staff who refuse to turn up on a strike day could bring a case; as could the owner of a business which manufactures dangerous chemicals or other particularly hazardous products who cannot keep the factory open on strike days due to inadequate cover in case of fire."

RIPA and Cobra

Under RIPA, interception of communications, such as letters, e-mail and phone calls, can be carried out in the interests of “national security” - which covers terrorism as defined - and access to the intercepted data can be justified in the interest of public safety or to protect public health - again, these interests are jeopardised by the current action.

Dr Pounder commented:


“Whether it is on terrorist grounds or on public safety grounds, the Government has the ability to intercept communications lawfully in this industrial dispute."

He concluded:


"Most people support the fight against terrorism - but to enact legislation which brands firefighters as terrorists and which could subject them to the weight of state interference which is normally reserved for the mafia or Al-Qaeda will only serve to undermine public trust in the draconian powers which the Government has assumed in the fight against terrorism."

The Terrorism Act 2000 is available at:
www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000011.htm

RIPA is available at:
www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000023.htm

-end quote


Guess this would make nearly all forms of protesting illegal, too.
Viva El Presidente!
 
 
The Monkey
02:40 / 30.10.02
The danger is that the word 'terrorism' defined by the state serves the ends of the state. A legal understanding of the word need not cleave to a dictionary definition, nor a strategic definition evaluation of what is war and what is terrorism.
 
 
William Sack
09:06 / 30.10.02
A couple of thoughts, advanced with a degree of hesitation, not least because Chris Pounder and Leolin Price QC came to their conclusions no doubt after having read and analysed the entirety of the Terrorism Act 2002 and other legislation and case law, whereas I have only flicked through the interpretation section of the Act, and read what you have quoted from the Out-Law article.
To be deemed "terrorism" under the Act it seems that the dispute must be the use or threat of action that is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political cause, and that it involves serious damage to property, endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, or creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public. Loose and vague stuff for sure, which would mean that a court faced with implementing any application from an interested party under the Act would have to consider, amongst other things, the intention of parliament. I haven't read any draft bills, Hansard debates etc (again, I imagine the above lawyers have), but they might shed light on what parliament intended by enacting this legislation. Nothing in the Act (just flicking through the index of its sections and schedules) suggests that those taking industrial action might be in the frame, so it would be interesting to see how the Act came to be formulated as it did. I imagine that there will not be one single reference in any bill, committee proceedings, or debate which remotely suggests that those taking or intending to take industrial action should be targetted. Without specific repeal of specific parts of industrial relations legislation I can't see for one moment how a court, faced with interpretting a fairly vague statute could be convinced that it was the intention of parliament to deny rights to, and criminalise even, those seeking to exercise rights enshrined in other statutes. If there is a concern that strike action is illegal then there are mechanisms within the existing industrial legislation to challenge it. Pounder and Price are right to consider the possibility of a challenge to the strike under the Terrorism Act, but between the 2 of them I believe they could get such a challenge laughed out of court.
 
  
Add Your Reply