We all know the threats that “international” (i.e. Islamic) terrorism pose to this country. The govt are all too quick to tell us how much danger we’re in anytime they need to sneak through, or justify, another piece of legisalation which curtails our civil liberties, but has it gone too far? How many of our freedoms have to be given up in order to keep us safe? and at what point does it become too much?
I think the Terrorism Order 2006 crossed that line. It’s a piece of legisation which the govt brought in without a vote, or even debate, in Parliament, and which gives the state some powers that are quite terrifying in scope.
Amongst the powers it grants are provisions whereby an arm of the treasury, known as the “Terrorist Asset Freezing Unit”, is able, on the strength of British intelligence, to completely freeze all the assets of any individual suspected of funding terrorism. Ok, so on the face of it that doesn’t sound too unreasonable, but in this case the devil really is in the details!
The extent of the powers granted under the order were brought home to me by an article on Channel 4 News last night. It highlighted the case of “Q”, a British citizen who was served with an “Asset Freezing Order” in 2007. The order stated that all of Q’s assets were to be frozen with immediate effect; He was no longer permitted to deal with his company’s finances, touch his bank acounts, or even receive cash or gifts, of any economic value, from others.
In order to support himself he had to obtain a permit from the Treasury just to be able to receive Income Support, and a further permit to allow him to spend £20 of that money each week on necessities. Those subject to an AFO are only allowed to spend money on “basic expenses”, although nowhere is there any guidance on what exactly constitutes a “basic expenses”. Rather harsh given that the penalty for breaching an AFO is 7 years in prison! Q was even required to obtain Ministerial approval before he was able to buy himself a new pair of shoes!
So what exactly did Q do to deserve being placed under the AFO?
Actually that’s a good question, but unfortunately the Treasury never bothered to outline the reasons for their actions to Q. The letter informing him about the order merely stated that the TAF Unit “has reasonable grounds for suspecting that you are, or may be, a person who facilitates the commission of acts of terrorism”, but that “in light of the sensitive nature of the information on which this decision was taken, we are unable to give you further details”.
So, lets get this straight, they suspected that he may be involved in terrorism, &, on the strength of that, were able to completely ruin this man’s life, without even telling him why!
Call me crazy, but surely the way to go, if someone is seriously suspected of involvement with terrorism, is to arrest and charge them, or, if there isn’t enough evidence to do that, then watch them very closely until you get the evidence you need, or decide that you were mistaken!
The Terrorism Order 2006 doesn’t even include any provision for those served with an AFO to appeal!
The only recourse which Q and others served with AFOs had was to challenge the legisation itself in the courts, and thankfully the judge who heard the case had enough common sense, & respect for this country’s democratic principles, to find against the Govt. Although the Govt has appealed and the case is currently in front of the Lords.
In the meantime Q has received a further letter from the Treasury informing him that his AFO has been lifted and that he can get on with his life. However, the Treasury offered no explanation for why they’d taken their actions in the first place, and didn’t even offer an apology!
Since they’re presumably conceding that Q isn’t involved in terrorism, it seems a little harsh to not even say sorry for subjecting him to a year of living under such strict provisions; A year, which cost him his marriage, ruined his business, &, by the end of it, saw him suffering from depression- by most peoples’ definitions you could say that his life has been ruined. Even now he can’t get a bank account and is still feeling the repercussions of having been under the AFO.
OK, Afghans had it far worse under the Taliban, but really, if this country really aspires to the ideals of freedom, I think we seriously need to take a long hard look at the measures our Govt is taking in the very name of “protecting our freedoms”!
The AFO system strikes me as nothing more than Govt making life easy for itself at the expense of individual freedoms, a trait which, sadly, seems to have been a hallmark of the New Labour Regime. Still, I’ve got to hand to them, with the Terrorism Order 2006 they really do seem to have surpassed themselves!
Here’s hoping that the Lords have the sense to follow the ruling of the judicial review, and that, at some point, we get a govt who actually is interested in our freedoms & safety, rather than whatever makes them look good, or makes their jobs as easy as possible!