Terror law reviewers seeking consultation [updated]

19 August 2010 by

The new government is currently undertaking a review of anti-terrorism legislation, and Liberty, the human rights organisation, have been asked to contribute.

Update: The full Liberty response, ‘From War to Law’ can be downloaded here.

The response is predictable, which is unsurprising given how much time and effort the organisation has put into speaking out against New Labour’s more controversial anti-terror policies. Control orders, 28 day detention without charge, the use of wide stop and search powers (currently suspended anyway) and surveillance powers are all mentioned.

More interesting are the organisation’s comments on proposals to ban non-violent groups promoting hatred. This would, say Liberty, be a step too far and would risk “including innumerable organisations, potentially including political and religious bodies.”

This concern arises from the Conservative Party’s pre-election pledge to ban any organisations “advocate hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and close down organisations which attempt to fund terrorism from the UK”. Hizb-ut-Tahrir, or the ‘Liberation Party’, is an international pan-Islamic political organization which holds controversial views on democracy and muslim integration into British society.

As yet, the group has not been banned in the UK, and in fact the Tory manifesto pledge did not make it into the full Coalition agreement. In any case, according to the Daily Telegraph, the prevailing wisdom in Westminster may be that non-violent groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir may not be feeders for violent groups.

It will be interesting to see whether the government listens to its many consultees on reform. If it does choose to further restrict groups which ‘support’ terrorism or its funding, this may lead to freedom of expression issues. As I said in a recent post on the topic, modern terrorist organisations are clandestine and diffuse, and preventing support can therefore fairly require wide powers. However, with harsh penalties available for those convicted of such offences, authorities must tread very carefully when enforcing such laws, for risk of finding themselves on the wrong end of a court judgment and in breach of human rights law.

Read more

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS


  1. Hi…I’ve been following this issue for a number of years, and over the time have written a play about it. It’s being put on with the Factory theatre company at the Southwark Playhouse this September – accompanied by free post-show discussions on liberty and legislation featuring guest speakers including Amnesty, Huamn Rights Watch, Justice, Mark Barrett and Henry Porter.

    Check out http://www.factorytheatre.co.uk or http://www.twitter.com/_Factory for more info.

    Steven Bloomer

  2. James Moore says:

    There are also anti terror laws embedded into the nationality legislation specifically targeted towards dual british citizens as well as those who have the right of abode through their descent from a mother or father who is british. Phases like removal for the public good are too encompassing for abuse of powers and certain regulations have also been instituted to force backdoor methods of identification control even when the primary legislations say otherwise.

    It would be good to see things like regulation 3145 from 2006 repealed as well as sections in the 2002 immigration act that directly deprive people of their rights on the basis of the secretary of state may think they may not be good as well as the ability to revoke their rights in deference to their human and liberty rights.

  3. P Rogers says:

    More interesting are the organisation’s comments on proposals to ban non-violent groups promoting hatred. This would, say Liberty, be a step too far and would risk “including innumerable organisations, potentially including political and religious bodies.”

    The religious bit is Amnesty’s real concern, it has been captured by religious groups and will do nothing to potect others from the implications of the espousal of religious ideas.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus Coroners costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: