Four UN Special Rapporteurs have written jointly to the UK government demanding explanation of its inappropriate persecution of journalists and political activists under the Terrorism Act. They state that those persecuted:

appear to have no credible connection to “terrorist” or “hostile” activity

The cases taken up by the United Nations are those of Johanna Ross (Ganyukova), John Laughland, Kit Klarenberg, Craig Murray (yes, me), Richard Barnard and Richard Medhurst. The UN letter is signed by:

Ben Saul
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism

Irene Khan
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression

Gina Romero
Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

Ana Brian Nougrères
Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy

Under this UN special procedure, the letter is sent to the government in question which has sixty days to respond. This letter was sent by the UN to Starmer’s government on 4 December. No reply having been received, it has now been published.

It is worth noting that even with the UN letter on its desk and ignored, Starmer’s government in fact stepped up the use of the Terrorism Act against pro-Palestinian journalists and activists in this period. The cases of Asa Winstanley, Sarah Wilkinson and Tony Greenstein, among others, happened after the letter was drafted.

I should be clear that I was, working with Justice for All International (for which we had a crowdfunder last year in relation to the Assange case at the UN), heavily involved in assisting with preparation of this initiative, and made three visits to the UN in Geneva on the subject together with Sharof Azizov, and on one occasion Richard Medhurst. Your subscriptions and donations to this blog are the only funding I have to make such activity possible, so thank you.

The letter is in two parts. The first consists of an outline of the information received by the UN on each case and a request for a response from the British government.

But the second part is a devastating critique of the UK’s terrorism laws and their inappropriate use to stifle dissent and freedom of expression. This legal analysis on lack of conformity with the UK’s human rights obligations is not dependent on any of the particular cases cited.

While we do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, we
express our concern regarding the potential misapplication of counter-terrorism laws
against journalists and activists who were critical of the policies and practices of
certain governments, which may unjustifiably interfere with the rights to freedom of
expression and opinion and participation in public life, lead to self-censorship and
have a serious chilling effect on the media, civil society and legitimate political and
public discourse.
We are particularly concerned by the broad scope of section 12(1A) and
schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and schedule 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and
Border Security Act 2019…

We are concerned at the vagueness and overbreadth of the offence in
section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000, which criminalizes expressing an opinion
or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation and being reckless as to
whether it encouraged support for that organisation…

The term “support” is undefined in the Act and in our view is vague and
overbroad and may unjustifiably criminalize legitimate expression.

…the meaning of expressing support for a
proscribed organization is ambiguous and could capture speech that is neither
necessary nor proportionate to criminalize, including legitimate debates about the de-
proscription of an organization and disagreement with a government’s decision to
proscribe…

We note that there is no requirement that the expression of support relate to
the commission of violent terrorist acts by the organization. As such, the offence may
unjustifiably criminalize the expression of opinion or belief that is not rationally,
proximately or causally related to actual terrorist violence or harms. The offence
further does not require any likelihood that the support will assist the organization in
any way. It goes well beyond the accepted restrictions on freedom of expression under
international law concerning the prohibition of incitement to violence or hate speech…

We note that some proscribed organizations are de facto authorities
performing a diversity of civilian functions, including governance, humanitarian and
medical activities, and provision of social services, public utilities and education.
Expressing support for any of these ordinary civilian activities by the organization
could constitute expressing support for it, no matter how remote such expression is
from support for any violent terrorist acts by the group…

Further, the section 12(1A) offence does not require the person to intend to
encourage others to support the organization…

We are further concerned that the absence of legal certainty may have a
chilling effect on the media, public debate, activism, and the activities of civil society,
in a context where there is a heightened public interest in discussion of the conflict in
the Middle East, including the conduct of the parties and the underlying conditions
conducive to violence in the region. We are further concerned that a person could be
prosecuted for isolated remarks or sentences that mischaracterize the overall position
of the individual, or despite the individual’s intentions or continued and express
disavowal of terrorist violence, given the subjectivity and contested meanings of
certain expressions in relation to sensitive or controversial political conflicts…

We encourage your Excellency’s Government to repeal section 12(1A), or
otherwise to amend it to protect freedom of expression, and to develop prosecutorial
guidelines for its appropriate use to avoid the unnecessary or disproportionate
incrimination of political dissent…

We are concerned that police powers at UK border areas and ports under
schedule 7 may be unjustifiably used against journalists and activists who are critical
of Western foreign policy. We note that the examination of each journalist named in
this communication under schedule 7 was premeditated, and that the examination,
confiscation of devices, and DNA prints were conducted despite the apparent absence
of a credible “terrorist” connection. We are concerned that such powers carry a risk of
intimidating, deterring, and disrupting the ability of journalists to report on topics of
public importance without self-censorship…

We are concerned that the distinction between “examination” and “detention”
under the Act is artificial given the punitive sanctions for of non-compliance, and that
this distinction may be inconsistent with the accepted meaning of “arrest” or
“detention” under article 9 of the ICCPR. We are further concerned that the extensive
powers authorised under section 2 do not require any degree of suspicion that a person
falls within the meaning of “terrorist” at section 40(1)(b). The extreme breadth of
such power enables unnecessary, disproportionate, arbitrary or discriminatory
interference with an individual’s rights, including freedom from arbitrary detention,
freedom of movement under article 12(1) of the ICCPR, and the rights to leave and
enter one’s own country under article 12(2) and (4) of the ICCPR…

we refer your
Excellency’s government to article 17 of the ICCPR which requires that “[n]o one
shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with [their] privacy, family,
home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on [their] honour and reputation”.
We note that several journalists detained under schedule 7 have had their electronic
devices confiscated for a significant period of time and have not been updated on the
use, retention or destruction of their data, or advised in relation to their personal data
protection rights.

We urge your Excellency’s Government to consider the growing number of
instances where schedule 7 may have been inappropriately directed towards
journalists and activists, and to consider addressing this through amendments to the
legislation, guidance for relevant officials, and training of border security officers. We
further encourage your Excellency’s Government to address the judiciary’s concerns
regarding the retention of electronic data

It is a stunning letter well worth reading in full; the legal language and diplomatic formality does not disguise the extreme concern of the UN at the extraordinary authoritarian attack on freedom of speech in the UK.

I might reveal that some of the UN Special Rapporteurs who signed were very sceptical of the issue until studying the details. One told me personally they were too busy to look at such a minor problem; their attitude changed completely when faced with papers on the cases involved.

There is no sign the UN has given the Starmer government pause; human rights are extremely low on their agenda. Support for Israel and the crushing of pro-Palestinian sentiment, or of any criticism of western foreign policy, is extremely high on their agenda.

The legislation concerned has been brought into disrepute by the widespread support in public from Establishment figures for HTS in Syria, even though it remains a proscribed organisation and any expression of support is an offence under the Terrorism Act. To my knowledge, not one person has been charged or even questioned for supporting the HTS coup in Syria.

This occurred after the UN letter, but they could now mention extreme arbitrariness in police and prosecutorial application of the law in their critique. The Terrorism Act is being used to criminalise peaceful criticism of western foreign policy. There can be no doubt about that at all.

It also remains the case that there has not been one reference in UK mainstream media to the persecution of dissident journalists using terrorism laws. I don’t expect the prostitute stenographers to power to change that by covering this censure from the United Nations.

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a GoFundMe appeal and a Patreon account.

I have now also started a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a