RANT: I FORGOT. THERE'S ALSO THE "TERRORISM ACT"

 

IN AN EARLIER POST, I discussed Britain’s new “Online Safety Act” and how critics complained it came with excessive powers for monitoring and censorship on the internet. I noted how Big Tech is used as an instrument of government policy, how it colludes with government in some cases and is coerced by government in others to de-platform and censor dissenting voices and alternative news providers, as was evident during the Covid years. The Twitter Files exposed instances of such government overreach and abuse of free speech rights in America, which underscored the growing number of similar censorship laws in other countries. I need only cite the “Canadian truckers” demonstrations in Ottawa last year to recall gross instances of government overreach in limiting people’s legitimate right to protest. In February 2022, the Trudeau Liberals invoked the federal “Emergencies Act”, (which had replaced the War Measures Act in 1985) and used it—for the first time—against truckers peacefully protesting the federal government's overly restrictive Covid-19 policies. This heavy-handed use of legislative authority was used to remove demonstrator’s vehicles and digitally freeze their bank accounts, thus effectively ending the protests. And the growing trends to digitalize our public and private spaces, and enact restrictive and censorious laws, come with great risks, as a recent Pew research paper suggests:

 

“…that digital systems will continue to be driven by profit and power incentives in economics and politics. [And] this is likely to lead to advanced surveillance and data collection aimed at controlling people rather than empowering them to act freely, share ideas and protest injuries and injustices. [There is a] worry that ethical design will continue to be an afterthought…” (Pew)

 

    Canadian terrorists

BUT where would the new digital censorship laws be if you couldn’t have equally coercive laws to physically restrict, contain and arrest wayward citizens and other miscreants? Thus, in Canada, a federal law meant to be used during a national “crisis” and instances of civil disorder is invoked to remove inconvenient protestors in hot tubs.

 

👉AND ACROSS THE POND in England, it’s the “Terrorism Act”*, which was presumably to be used against terrorists, and is now used to terrorize journalists and inconvenient voices of dissent. The recent harassment of Craig Murray is a case in point. Earlier this month, Craig Murray, author, human rights activist, Scottish nationalist, and former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, was detained and questioned by authorities as he landed at Glasgow airport from a trip to Iceland. Murray, an outspoken supporter of Julian Assange, who writes, advocates, and attends rallies in support of the Wikileaks’ publisher, attended an event for Assange in Iceland, and later found himself detained at the airport and questioned by three police officers. He had his cell phone and laptop confiscated and was questioned under “Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act.

 

THANK GOD the Scottish police were on the job and alert to incoming terrorists like 65-year-old Murray! No telling what harm his.. words might do to national security. MURRAY relates what happened:

 

      “They seated me in the room and told me:

I was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act

I was not arrested but detained, and therefore had no right to a lawyer.

I had no right to remain silent. I had to give full and accurate information in response to questions. It was a criminal offense to withhold any relevant information.

I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offense not to do this.

They searched my baggage and my coat, going through my documents and taking my phone and laptop…”

 

Murray was detained for just under an hour. He answered a variety of questions about his finances, whether he was in the paid employ of any Julian Assange support groups (No), why he attended the Assange rally in Iceland (He was invited there by a friend), who was at a pro-Palestinian rally he also attended while there (He didn’t know anyone), what the speakers said (He didn’t know, they spoke in Icelandic😆). His interrogators asked him if he would be attending pro-Palestinian rallies in the future (He said probably). They asked him questions about his blog and twitter posts. They copied his banking information, his credit card numbers, and confiscated his phone and laptop “until the investigation was over”. He answered their questions for “fifty-nine” minutes, when the interview was terminated. Note: Under Britain’s “Terrorism Act”, you can be questioned without an attorney present for up to 1 hour. After that you can request legal representation. 

 

That law is Star Chamber material, boyo!

IT IS UNCLEAR if Murray will be charged with any offense under the Terrorism Act, but his legal team is preparing a defense, just in case. His lawyers have also made a submission to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and they may ask for judicial review in the UK of this bizarre and disturbing incident.

 

“This is an enormous abuse of human rights. The abuse of process in refusing both a lawyer and the right to remain silent, the inquiry into perfectly legal campaigning which is in no way terrorism-associated, the political questioning, the financial snooping and the seizure of material related to my private life, were all based on an utterly fake claim that I am associated with terrorism.” (Murray)

 

Murray wasn’t informed why he was detained and questioned, and what ‘crime’ he may have committed. He wonders if the investigation against him may have been launched because of a heated post he made on X (formally Twitter) when Israel began its bombing of Gaza, a post he admits could have been more "nuanced". He wonders whether he might have inadvertently stood next to someone who was on the security service's radar at that pro-Palestinian rally he attended in Iceland. He's in the dark over why he was detained and questioned. Was it his support for Julian Assange? Who knows?

 

“…[I]t is an essential part of the justice dispensed here that you should be condemned not only in innocence but also in ignorance.” ― Franz Kafka, The Trial

 

THINK ABOUT THAT for a minute: A British citizen is stopped and questioned by police under a law meant to investigate and arrest terrorists. His only 'crime' may be an angry tweet, standing in a crowd at a rally, or supporting a journalist jailed for doing journalism. That's some terrorist you've got there! Craig Murray may yet pay the price for his political activism and for his writings, however, he will not waver in his support for Julian Assange, for the rights of Palestinians, for press freedom, and freedom of assembly and speech.

 

EARLIER this year, a British parliamentary “terror watchdog" committee reported on the detention and interrogation by police of French journalist, Ernest Moret, under circumstances similar to Murray. The committee concluded the officers who questioned Moret had made “exaggerated and overbearing” threats  about future penalties and restrictions the journalist might incur if he failed to cooperate. They even used information gleaned from privileged correspondence between Moret and his lawyer. On the use of the “Terrorism Law”, the committee report said: Schedule 7 is “powerful” and “must therefore be exercised with due care.” The report concluded that using Schedule 7 to interrogate Moret was like “using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.” (Grayzone)  Increasingly, it seems, nutcrackers are in short supply in Britain.

LET'S HOPE there is such a review in Murray's case and that it arrives at a similar conclusion.

 

👉My point for writing about all this is show how ubiquitous such laws and regulations are becoming across more and more countries—laws against certain kinds of speech, laws limiting the right to gather and protest, harsher penalties and procedures, expanded surveillance regimes, the militarization of police services, etc.—it’s as if governments around the world see the growing unrest among their populations and are taking steps to clamp down. Instead of adopting authoritarian measures to maintain the status quo, politicians should be asking why such unrest is growing and what can be done about it. Tightening the noose (on people, ideas, etc.), in the end, has only one outcome.

 

 Cheers, Jake.____________________________

 

* Terrorism law in Great Britain consists of a constellation of four pieces of legislation that are currently on the books: the “Terrorism Act 2000”, the “Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001”, the “Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005”, and the “Terrorism Act 2006”. As a group, the combined surveillance and detention powers of these Acts gives authorities powerful tools in surveilling, monitoring, as well as arresting and detaining, of British citizens.

 

 “Surveillance tends to be long-term, involving continuous or periodic data collection over extended periods. Monitoring, on the other hand, can be short-term or ongoing, depending on the specific objective and context. It may involve real-time observation or periodic checks."

  

Pew Research Article: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/06/21/themes-the-most-harmful-or-menacing-changes-in-digital-life-that-are-likely-by-2035/  

 

 

👉THE LINK BELOW discusses how Australia's Albanese government makes nice mouth noises around the need to free Julian (an Australian citizen) from Belmarsh prison in London, and have charges of “Espionage”, that the American State Department cites in its effort to extradite the publisher to the United States, immediately voided. While the Australian government makes public statements in support of Assange, government bureaucracy, and the Foreign Affairs Ministry in particular, do very little behind the scenes to move the needle. It’s all talk and hot air down under. I guess "Five-Eyes" info dumps and "AUKUS" military muscle give Aussie politicians free rein to swing their dicks around instead of acting like compassionate public servants.👇

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE! FREE JULIAN ASSANGE! FREE JULIAN ASSANGE!