Delboy3
19-07-2005, 05:52
The Government plans to create new criminal offences of inciting terrorism and of giving or receiving training in terrorist techniques, Home Office minister Hazel Blears announced tonight.
In a letter to opposition spokesmen released to the media, the minister said the aim of the new offences was to allow suspects to be prosecuted before they committed atrocities.
It will become an offence to give or receive training in the use of hazardous substances. The definition of what constitutes a hazardous substance will be based on international conventions, she said. The offence of providing or receiving training would apply to those who had undergone such activities in the UK and abroad.
She also confirmed plans to introduce a new offence of "acts preparatory to terrorism" and another to criminalise those inciting terrorism indirectly.
This morning Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said that creating a new offence of committing acts preparatory to terrorism was "at the top of my wish list" in the fight against terrorists. At present police were trying to combat 21st Century terrorism with 19th Century laws, he said, and as a result had had limited success in bringing prosecutions.
In April Kamel Bourgass was convicted of attempting to produce the deadly plant poison ricin to mount an attack on the British public, but the trial was surrounded by recriminations after other defendants were acquitted.
Sir Ian added that as many as 250 British Muslim men who had received training in terror techniques at al-Qaeda camps in areas such as Afghanistan were currently under watch by the security services.
An offence of committing acts preparatory to terrorism is an idea that has long been backed by the Conservatives, but has previously been ruled out by the Government. This week, however, Tony Blair gave his backing to the notion of identifying and deporting radical imams who preached hatred of the West and glorified terrorists.
Today Ms Blears confirmed that the offence of indirect incitement to commit terrorism would have a wide-ranging effect, applying to both public and private statements.
"It would apply where people would seek to glorify terrorist activity, perhaps, for example, it’s saying ’it’s a marvellous thing that this has happened, these people are martyrs’. Not a direct incitement to go out and do so but it could be construed by people hearing that as an endorsement of terrorism."
The minister said: "It’s very difficult to give examples of this. It would depend on what words we used, were they an endorsement, were they a glorification?
"In some cases the tone of your endorsement might take it into glorification. What we’re trying to get to here is that where people know the things that they say are likely to incite people then the criminal offence should be sufficient for them to be prosecuted."
Asked if the incitement offence would apply to preachers or Imams, the minister said: "Yes, if somebody is within the required intention of doing things which would be an indirect incitement to terrorism, then whoever they are they will be charged with a criminal offence and the court would decide on their guilt or innocence."
Looking at terrorist-themed websites would not necessarily be a criminal act under the new training offence, she said. But the minister said anyone who looked at such material and then went on to prepare for an act of terrorism, for example, by purchasing chemicals or explosives, would be snared by the new offence of committing acts preparatory to terrorism.
I take it that should these proposals become law by the end of the year, The human rights brigade and the do gooders society will be screaming their heads off about the liberty of the ones that do get arrested.
Before anyone say's that these laws will be wrong.....just reflect,
The human rights of the people that died and maimed due to a terrorist attack, not only here, but also abroad.
In a letter to opposition spokesmen released to the media, the minister said the aim of the new offences was to allow suspects to be prosecuted before they committed atrocities.
It will become an offence to give or receive training in the use of hazardous substances. The definition of what constitutes a hazardous substance will be based on international conventions, she said. The offence of providing or receiving training would apply to those who had undergone such activities in the UK and abroad.
She also confirmed plans to introduce a new offence of "acts preparatory to terrorism" and another to criminalise those inciting terrorism indirectly.
This morning Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said that creating a new offence of committing acts preparatory to terrorism was "at the top of my wish list" in the fight against terrorists. At present police were trying to combat 21st Century terrorism with 19th Century laws, he said, and as a result had had limited success in bringing prosecutions.
In April Kamel Bourgass was convicted of attempting to produce the deadly plant poison ricin to mount an attack on the British public, but the trial was surrounded by recriminations after other defendants were acquitted.
Sir Ian added that as many as 250 British Muslim men who had received training in terror techniques at al-Qaeda camps in areas such as Afghanistan were currently under watch by the security services.
An offence of committing acts preparatory to terrorism is an idea that has long been backed by the Conservatives, but has previously been ruled out by the Government. This week, however, Tony Blair gave his backing to the notion of identifying and deporting radical imams who preached hatred of the West and glorified terrorists.
Today Ms Blears confirmed that the offence of indirect incitement to commit terrorism would have a wide-ranging effect, applying to both public and private statements.
"It would apply where people would seek to glorify terrorist activity, perhaps, for example, it’s saying ’it’s a marvellous thing that this has happened, these people are martyrs’. Not a direct incitement to go out and do so but it could be construed by people hearing that as an endorsement of terrorism."
The minister said: "It’s very difficult to give examples of this. It would depend on what words we used, were they an endorsement, were they a glorification?
"In some cases the tone of your endorsement might take it into glorification. What we’re trying to get to here is that where people know the things that they say are likely to incite people then the criminal offence should be sufficient for them to be prosecuted."
Asked if the incitement offence would apply to preachers or Imams, the minister said: "Yes, if somebody is within the required intention of doing things which would be an indirect incitement to terrorism, then whoever they are they will be charged with a criminal offence and the court would decide on their guilt or innocence."
Looking at terrorist-themed websites would not necessarily be a criminal act under the new training offence, she said. But the minister said anyone who looked at such material and then went on to prepare for an act of terrorism, for example, by purchasing chemicals or explosives, would be snared by the new offence of committing acts preparatory to terrorism.
I take it that should these proposals become law by the end of the year, The human rights brigade and the do gooders society will be screaming their heads off about the liberty of the ones that do get arrested.
Before anyone say's that these laws will be wrong.....just reflect,
The human rights of the people that died and maimed due to a terrorist attack, not only here, but also abroad.