LONDON, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Advocating the overthrow of oppressive regimes will not be illegal under the British government's proposed offense of glorifying terrorism, Home Secretary Charles Clarke said Thursday.
His assertion, which directly contradicts evidence given to a parliamentary committee last week, has cast further doubt over the clarity of some of the measures in the government's Terrorism Bill now before Parliament.
Speaking at a London counter-terrorism seminar hosted by the Center for European Reform, Clarke said calling for the overthrow of non-democratic regimes was "an entirely acceptable form of action" and was far removed glorifying terrorist acts.
"Nothing in our legislation would criminalize in any way somebody who called for the overthrow of any non-democratic regime," he said. "Calling for the overthrow would be something that many people would do ... that would be an entirely acceptable form of action."
Worldwide moves toward democracy over the past decades had been aided by people calling for the overthrow of regimes, he said.
However it was "an immensely different thing" to call for the overthrow of a regime and "to blow up tube trains or tourist buses full of people," he said.
It was not a distinction the home secretary made when challenged on the point by Parliament's Home Affairs Select Committee last week, however. The committee pointed out that in British law terrorism is defined as violence against people or property designed to influence a government, a definition that would include struggles against oppression all over the world. Asked whether expressing support for students in North Korea who were attempting to overthrow the regime would be illegal, Clarke replied it would.
He could not see any justification anywhere in the world for using violence to bring about political change, he said. He was then questioned as to whether, had the legislation been in place at the time, someone expressing support for Nelson Mandela's African National Congress in its fight against the apartheid South African government would have fallen foul of the law. He replied the person would not have been guilty simply by not condemning it, implying, therefore, that vocal support would have been illegal.
Reminded of his comments by United Press International Thursday, Clarke argued overthrowing regimes by democratic rather than terrorist means was "the way to go." However the wording of the legislation would be looked at carefully before it was enshrined in law, he said.
The lack of clarity surrounding the offense was also highlighted by Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty. She said there was a "massive problem" when the offense was so broadly defined that people were prevented from speaking out against oppressive regimes. She questioned whether the introduction of "repressive laws" would not be counterproductive to the fight against terrorism.
There was a grave danger that by breaching democratic rights and standards, it bolstered terrorists' claim that the West was not even handed, she said. There must not be a "race to the bottom" in terms of human rights and democratic standards in the struggle against terrorism, she said. Ultimately, a response borne out of evenhandedness would be the most effective.
Liberty says the offense -- which prohibits indirect encouragement or glorification of terrorism -- is one of "loose or careless talk," a measure that is "desperately dangerous in a democracy."
The group argues it is undemocratic to criminalize people for their views, however objectionable they may be. Incitement to murder and incitement to terrorism were already offenses punishable by life imprisonment, it noted in a recent briefing paper.
Furthermore, it said, there were many law-abiding citizens who had conceptual concerns with the definition of terrorism, which, while rightly condemning violent acts by individuals or groups, ignored comparable acts by governments.
Several prominent Islamic figures have also expressed concerns that the legislation could criminalize many moderate Muslims.
Judge Khurshid Drabu, constitutional adviser to the Muslim Council of Britain and honorary adviser on Islamic affairs to the Ministry of Defense, said at a recent Army training course that what distinguished terrorism from freedom struggle was not the form or content of the violence itself but "who gets to define it."
"In fact this power to define allows political dissent to be recast as terrorism or as conducive to terrorism. Thus Muslim criticism of the U.S. and U.K. policies in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan is prone to be misrepresented as religious extremism or as incitement to violence."
The measure has also drawn criticism from prominent politicians such as London Mayor Ken Livingstone.
At a packed public meeting to discuss the bill last week, Livingstone said there were situations around the world in which armed struggle -- for example against oppressive regimes -- was both justified and vital, he said.
He cited the example of a late Labor Party member, who, as a Jewish member of the German Communist Party in the 1930s, had planted bombs in the headquarters of the Nazi Party.
"Occasionally the evil you face is such ... (that) you have to take violent action," he said.
It was very easy for people in a free society such as Britain to sit in judgment, he said.
"What do you do if you are a young person in Uzbekistan, who sees the president of Uzbekistan boil alive their opponents, gun down hundreds of civilian and peaceful protesters? Can any of us honestly say we wouldn't relish the moment when that evil man is removed violently from power?"
The opposition to the measure within Parliament and the judiciary is such that the government will likely have to make concessions if it is not to be defeated. Crucially, critics say, the legal definition of terrorism must be tightened if moderate citizens who express such views are not to be pushed onto the wrong side of the law.
