10 attempts by minister but still no consistent or coherent UK government definiton of extremism

From Peter Tatchell Foundation

“The government’s planned Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs) are so vague and ill-defined that they are a potential threat to free speech and dissenting opinions. When questioned by the UK parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) on 29 June, the then counter extremism minister, Karen Bradley MP, offered ten different definitions of extremism in just over 60 minutes. The government wants to penalise extremism before it has even agreed what it is. This renders EDOs both anti-democratic and ineffectual. They are not consistent with human rights law,” said Anastasia Kyriacou, the advocacy officer of the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

Watch the video  above of the government minister trying but failing ten times to offer a clear and consistent definition of extremism:

The government has belatedly agreed with demands by the Defend Free Speech campaign for a public consultation on EDOs – although a date and timetable has not yet been set.

Below is a summary of the current state of play on EDOs by Simon Calvert, Campaign Director of the Defend Free Speech campaign.

The Defend Free Speech campaign website: http://defendfreespeech.org.uk

The campaign for free speech human rights is supported by a diverse cross-section of organisations, such as the National Secular Society, Christian Institute, Peter Tatchell Foundation, Big Brother Watch, Index On Censorship, Freedom Association, English Pen, Manifesto Club and Article 19.

Prominent individual supporters include: Caroline Lucas MP, Lord Dear, Mohammed Amin, David Davis MP, Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, Prof Timothy Garton Ash, Fiona Bruce MP and Baroness Jones of Moulescoomb.

Simon Calvert, Campaign Director of the Defend Free Speech campaign, writes:

It was with considerable alarm that we watched the recent evidence session of the then counter extremism minister, Karen Bradley, before Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR).

In a little over an hour, Mrs Bradley put forward no fewer than ten possible definitions of ‘extremism’, including: “The public promotion of an ideology that can lead to greater harms” and “publicly promoting an ideology where the activity they are undertaking is not criminal and does not go beyond reasonable doubt but we know that that activity leads to a hate crime, a terrorist activity, or maybe FGM” (female genital mutilation).

We wrote to the minister to set out our fears. Here’s what we said:

The Defend Free Speech campaign, and many of the groups associated with it, are greatly concerned that the proposed 'civil orders regime' will damage both security and civil liberties. They risk distracting the authorities away from terrorism and violence and into monitoring and punishing legitimate expressions of opinion.

Finding terrorists and their enablers is like finding a needle in a haystack. Forcing the police and security services to operate at the much lower threshold of 'non-violent extremism' will massively increase the range of people and ideas under investigation, thereby making the haystack considerably bigger. Placing millions more people under suspicion is more likely to mask the activities of terrorists than to highlight them.

Your difficulty in articulating a clear, consistent definition of the kind of activity the Government aims to punish via civil orders was very concerning. The Home Office has been working on the issue for well over a year and yet the impression was given that the Government still has no clear idea how to legislate for what it wants to achieve.

Harriet Harman summed up the situation accurately when she told the Committee:

‘Still we don’t know what civil orders are being talked about, we don’t know what the sanctions are likely to be, we don’t know what the definitions are, we have no specificity about the timetable in terms of when the consultation will start, how long it will be. We know there won’t be a draft Bill, but we really are none the wiser about anything else’.

We were grateful that you confirmed that there would be a public consultation. But for the consultation to have any value, and for stakeholders to have a meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome, it must include precise statutory definitions that can then be subjected to scrutiny.

As members of the Committee pointed out, a consultation will be worthless if it does not give the actual wording with which the Government intends to resolve the tension between security and liberty. As it is, the planned consultation looks more a fishing expedition, carried out in the hope that somebody somewhere has a good idea of how this legislation could be drafted.

We concluded our letter by requesting an urgent meeting with the minister, and reassurances of a further consultation when the Home Office can tell the public how it actually plans to legislate in this incredibly sensitive and important area.

As we said quite clearly to the minister, when the matters at stake include terrorism and the fundamental civil liberties of millions, the Home Office cannot simply shrug its shoulders and say ‘we’re not sure what we’re doing’.

The groups backing Defend Free speech wrote to the Home Office back in January requesting a consultation on Extremism Disruption Orders. Having failed to respond for five months, the Government finally conceded the need for such a consultation in the Queen’s Speech in May.

Free Speech Campaign launched to challenge 'broad and vague' Extremism Disruption Orders

Britain’s most eclectic, unlikely campaign group - Defend Free Speech - has been launched this week, in a bid to halt the Government’s planned introduction of Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs), which it says will threaten free speech.

The Defend Free Speech campaign is spearheaded by normally rival groups, the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society. It is backed by former shadow Home Secretary David Davis MP, Caroline Lucas MP, ex-Chief Constable Lord Dear – who will lead the campaign in the House of Lords – and human rights defender Peter Tatchell. Other supporters include Big Brother Watch, English PEN, the Manifesto Club and the Peter Tatchell Foundation. 

The campaigners warn that the Government’s proposals to tackle extremism - in particular far right and Islamist extremism - are so broad and vague that they could penalise a range of dissenting and minority opinions.

They say the sweeping new powers will have a chilling effect on free speech because the Government has repeatedly failed to set out a definition of what will be considered extreme. Ministers have, however, confirmed that the legislation will clamp down on extremists even if they have not broken the law - a very sinister and menacing attack on liberty and human rights.

Simon Calvert, Director of Defend Free Speech, noted:

Defend Free Speech believes innocent people will fall foul of this unnecessary and dangerous piece of legislation. It will criminalise those who hold unpopular, unfashionable or challenging views. This could include pro- and anti-religious groups, trade unionists, environmental and animal rights activists, critics of UK foreign policy and people campaigning for LGBT rights. Indeed, we have already seen police urging teachers to report on parents who go to anti-fracking protests.
 
We are deeply concerned with the Government’s plans. The complete absence of safeguards and any clear definition of what is deemed to be extreme will have a chilling effect on free speech and campaigners.
 
We might be Britain’s most unlikely campaign group, but we are united in our belief that free speech is a vital civil liberty and must be protected. This legislation is badly conceived and will be bad for society.

Peter Tatchell, Director of the human rights lobby, the Peter Tatchell Foundation, added:

Extremism Disruption Orders are too sweeping and too open to abuse. They risk transforming lawful activities into criminal offences in a way that threatens freedom of expression. The definition of extremism is far too wide and the threshold for an EDO is way too low. It could be imposed for words or actions that are ‘on the balance of probabilities’ extremist, rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ extremist. Even the mere causing of offence or distress may be sufficient to trigger an EDO.
 
Proponents of a range of unpopular, controversial and dissident views may be liable to an EDO, including opponents of western foreign policy, campaigners against nuclear weapons and energy, animal rights activists, people who express bigoted opinions and supporters of legitimate democratic liberation movements in the Western Sahara, Palestine, Syria, Balochistan and West Papua.
 
Hateful and extremist ideas should be challenged, protested and refuted. Bad ideas are most effectively countered by good ideas backed up by rational argument and evidence. Heavy-handed legal restrictions on free speech undermine the democratic, liberal values that extremists oppose and that we cherish.
 
Free speech is one of the most precious of all human rights and should be defended robustly. It can only be legitimately restricted by the law when it involves harmful libels, harassment, menaces, threats and incitements to violence.

Defend Free Speech highlights that earlier this year the Prime Minister David Cameron introduced the proposals with the chilling words: “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.” He then went on to promise that the Government “will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach.”

Chancellor George Osborne wrote to a constituent that the remit of the legislation would go “beyond terrorism” and that it would seek to “eliminate extremism in all its forms.”
He went on to say that it would apply to “harmful activities of extremist individuals who spread hate but do not break laws.” His letter failed to define what harmful activities are or even what is extremism.

The Defend Free Speech campaign warns EDOs could be used to prevent individuals from going to certain places, mixing with particular people or even using mobile phones, the internet and social media. 

Crucially, the group says the Government will use the lower civil law test of “the balance of probabilities” rather than the stronger criminal test of “beyond reasonable doubt” and that even the mere risk of causing “distress” could be enough to trigger the new powers.

To highlight their concerns, the campaign has published a number of examples on its website of people and groups it believes could be affected by EDOs: www.defendfreespeech.org.uk
It says the Government needs to urgently engage with campaigners, parliamentarians and pressure groups who could end up on the wrong side of the law if EDOs are approved without safeguards. 

Caroline Lucas MP warned:

I’ll be taking every opportunity to oppose Extremism Disruption Orders when the relevant legislation comes before the House of Commons. This kind of draconian crackdown lacks a credible evidence basis, represents an infringement of basic rights, and may well actually be counterproductive.

Peter Tatchell: 'Bradley Manning an honourable whistle-blower - not a thief or spy'

“Bradley Manning has been found guilty of theft and espionage after a biased, unfair trial in which he was not allowed to provide evidence of his motives and intentions when he released secret US files. These files included evidence of US war crimes, lies and cover-ups. Although he was found not guilty of aiding the enemy, the verdict is a travesty of justice. It mocks the honesty and idealism of a good soldier who sought to expose human rights abuses and defend international humanitarian law,” said Peter Tatchell, Director of the human rights organisation, the Peter Tatchell Foundation, which has campaigned in support of Manning’s right to expose wrong-doing.

Gay actor Kieron Richardson, from the TV soap opera Hollyoaks, has joined with Peter Tatchell to support Bradley Manning. PHOTO: http://bit.ly/13Wxy4C
For a print quality version, click here: http://bit.ly/1aUH4qZ

“Manning is a LGBT equality supporter and has attended LGBT protests. He was subjected to homophobic abuse while in military detention awaiting trial. Some of his critics have tried to discredit him by falsely insinuating that anger and confusion over his sexuality and gender identity was a factor that led him to make his revelations. There has been an anti-gay sub-text to the way Manning has sometimes been portrayed by the media and his critics. 

“Bradley Manning is an honourable whistle-blower - not a thief or spy. He exposed the truth about US war crimes in Iraq.

“Manning is a true patriot, not a traitor. He reveres the founding ideals of the US: the notion of an open, honest government that is accountable to the people and that pursues its policies by lawful means with respect for human rights. At great personal sacrifice, he exposed grave crimes that were perpetrated and then hidden by the US government and military. These are the characteristics of a man of conscience, motivated by altruism. Thanks to Manning, the US people now know the truth.

“One of the war crimes he exposed was a US Apache helicopter attack that gunned down 11 Iraqi civilians in 2007, including two Reuters journalists and men who had gone to the aid of the wounded. Two children were also gravely injured when the US helicopter opened fire on their van. The video records US soldiers laughing and joking at the killings, and also insulting the victims.

“The video of the massacre can be seen at: www.collateralmurder.com

“This slaughter had previously been the subject of a cover-up by the US armed forces, which claimed dishonestly that the helicopter had been engaged in combat operations against armed enemy forces.

“It is only thanks to Bradley Manning that we now know the truth about this massacre of innocent civilians – and about the killings of hundreds of other civilians in unreported and undocumented incidents.

“The trial judge’s ruling that Manning was not allowed to use a ‘public interest’ defence during his trial was outrageous. Knowing that his motives were to tell the American people the truth and spark a public debate is an essential element to determine his guilt or innocence,” said Mr Tatchell.

Anne FitzGerald, Director of Research and Crisis Response at Amnesty International, agrees. She believes it was unfair that Bradley was unable to use a public interest defence, as "he reasonably believed he was exposing human rights and humanitarian law violations."

READ more on why Amnesty believe Bradley is entitled to use the ‘public interest’ defence: http://bit.ly/12muiRG

There is no evidence that Manning aided any enemy of the US, caused harm to US personnel or that he had any intention to do so. This view is shared by Amnesty International: http://bit.ly/12mv4hM

Amnesty said the “aiding the enemy” charge was a “travesty of justice”:
http://bit.ly/1bm251l

WATCH Peter Tatchell speak at Bradley Manning’s defence rally in London: http://bit.ly/12dzrup

READ Bradley Manning’s opening defence statement to the court in full:
http://bit.ly/XQUgoP

Break up the Banks: Too Big, Too Powerful, Too Risky

A  powerful  post by Green Party member Peter Tatchell in  Huffington Post LINK today

The calls for banking reform are growing. About time. The big crash was more than five years ago. Since then we‘ve had Libor rate-fixing, bonuses for failed financiers and massive fines for malpractices by leading banks. Plus mis-sold PPI, interest rate swaps, fraud, money-laundering and tax dodging. Scandal after scandal.

What’s even more astonishing is that the gamblers and fraudsters in the City of London not only got away with their shenanigans, they were bailed out of the mess they created by the taxpayer. They won, even when they failed.

Are we mugs or masochists? Why do we put up with it? The rot has got to stop. The Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority are not up to the job. Many people see them as agents of corporate power. Their light-touch regulation allowed speculators to play fast and loose with the whole British economy.

Today, under the auspices of Occupy Economics - an offshoot of Occupy London - a few of us are gathering in the heart of the beast, Canary Wharf, to call time on the freeloading megabanks.

http://bit.ly/11PBhNY

We propose three simple ideas to stabilise the financial system: put a limit on the size of banks, reduce borrowing ratios and mutualise ownership.

A few megabanks are holding society hostage, reaping huge profits on the back of the state, despite their failings. By threatening bankruptcy, the big banks extract public support worth tens of billions of pounds each year. The bail outs have siphoned off public money that could have been spent on health, education, job creation and better pensions.

Megabanks have the taxpayer over a barrel. They're drinking the bar dry and putting it on our tab.

Over the past 30 years, the big banks have grown bigger, riskier and fewer. Through incestuous "intra-financial" lending sprees, they've become wired to one another like a string of exploding fairy lights. If one bank goes down, there’s a risk that they all will.

The megabanks are a clear and ongoing threat to society.

Now Justin Welby, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, has challenged George Osborne:

“You continue to defend the idea of a small group of absolutely colossal banks... Is that lack of will to break them up not simply a recipe for a repetition of disasters?”

He's right. We need to end bank risk and welfare. Here's how.

Britain suffers under the financial stranglehold exercised a few very rich and powerful megabanks. They're unwieldy, over-complex and cannot be safely managed.

The solution: Cap bank size at $100 billion. Smaller banks are easier to manage and internal accountability can be stronger. Checks and balances tend to be more effective. With many smaller diverse banks, if one or two fail the impact on the economy will be less severe.

Megabanks borrow a lot and own little. With the government and public beholden to them because of the fear of what would happen if they were allowed to fail, bankers extort government handouts whenever they get into trouble because of their reckless policies.

George Osborne would let banks borrow 33 times what they own outright. How irresponsible is that? No one would expect to get a mortgage worth 33 times their deposit. It's far too much and too risky. So why should banks be allowed such astronomical borrowing ratios?

A sensible precaution would be to cap bank borrowing at around 14 times their net worth

Most of our banks are run for the benefit of a very small, privileged group of people – their major shareholders – who always have the option to get out while the going’s good.

This drives banks to be permanently seeking profit maximisation, often regardless of the cost to their own organisations - never mind the wider society.

Many French and German banks are run differently – as mutuals or in public ownership for the benefit of the customers and the common good. Why not ours?

Mutualisation would establish a stronger ethos of public service and accountability; removing from banks the pressure to put the optimisation of shareholder’s gain as their sole priority. This would, in turn, make possible a greater sense of civic responsibility in banking operations.  

These proposals are all about creating a culture of safer, responsible banking, with checks and balances to thwart, or at least minimise, a possible repeat of the 2007-08 meltdown.

Richard Paton from Occupy Economics puts it this way:

“Why are those who are brave, or honest, enough to challenge the megabanks either Archbishops or technocrats?

“Public revulsion at the banks won’t be assuaged by superficial measures. The underlying ‘conduct issue’ is that a few megabanks are able to extort profits by imperiling the solvency of the state.

“No-one seriously engaged with the issue believes the problem has been dealt with – except bank execs and the Chancellor.

“The government is in denial, determined to frame the problem as one of the ‘culture’ of wayward banks. Trying to address ‘culture’ alone is forlorn, like trying to catch a vapour in a butterfly net.

“The banking crash was driven by blind stock market pressure for ‘shareholder value’ in a sector dominated by predatory plcs. These megabanks still have their finger on the nuclear button known as Too Big – and too interconnected – To Fail.”