Richard Medhurst’s MP told Starmer state’s targeting of journalists is ‘restrained’
Security minister Dan Jarvis, a former soldier and Labour right-winger – of course, since he’s in Keir Starmer’s government – has given a chilling reply to Sarah Owen, the MP of journalist Richard Medhurst, who was targeted by anti-terror police as he returned to the UK – part of the Starmer government’s campaign to suppress free speech and honest journalism about Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the struggle of the Palestinian people.
Jarvis wrote – in what should be an astonishing claim – that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (IRTL) believes that UK anti-terror laws are fit for purpose and the government is applying these laws – widely criticised by legal purposes as designed to be abused and turning mere opinion into thought-crime – ‘with restraint’, even though it has arrested, raided or detained a slew of journalists and peaceful activists.
Jarvis warns Owen – and all the UK’s honest journalists – that there is no ‘absolute defence of journalism’ under the awful legislation and that the Starmer government will pursue anyone it considers to be showing ‘any support’ for organisations the government has decided to outlaw:
17 October 2024
Thank you for your email of 9 September to the Home Office on behalf of your constituent Mr Glenn Jenkins about the arrest of Mr Richard Medhurst at Heathrow Airport on suspicion of offences under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000. I am replying as the Security Minister.
As Mr Jenkins recognises, as a Minister it would not be appropriate for me to intervene in, or comment on, an individual case, particularly where criminal proceedings are ongoing. This reflects the operational independence of the police and the need for the police to be able to carry out their duties and make decisions free from political influence. Mr Jenkins expresses concern about the use of terrorism laws for Mr Medhurst’s arrest.
The UK has a comprehensive counter-terrorism (CT) legislative framework which must strike the right balance between protecting national security and individual freedoms, including the right of freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. In relation to certain terrorism offences and powers, Parliament has provided for additional safeguards for journalism and journalistic material, as well as academic research, recognising the vital role that journalists play in holding the state, and its institutions, to account. However, there is no absolute defence of journalism under CT legislation.
Our CT framework includes a range of offences relating to membership or support for proscribed organisations. The Government considers any support for a proscribed organisation to be a serious matter; where there is suspicion that a proscription offence may have been committed it is right that there is a full and proper investigation by the police.
The UK’s CT framework, including the definition of terrorism, is kept under close review by the department and is subject to critical independent scrutiny provided by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (IRTL). In his published reports to Parliament, the current IRTL has observed that the UK’s definition of terrorism remains fit for purpose in light of the modern threats we face. The IRTL has also observed that CT legislation is typically used with restraint by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which Jarvis acknowledges as applying in the UK, not only places a duty on governments not to interfere in journalistic freedom but goes further, placing an obligation on governments to ‘take positive measures to protect journalistic freedom:
The Court found that Article 10 required the State to take positive measures to protect… journalistic freedom of expression.
UK anti-terror law makes even expressing an opinion that might be seen as ‘supportive’ of a proscribed organisation – such as Hamas or Hezbollah – a criminal offence, or even to wear or carry anything that might ‘arouse reasonable suspicion’ of such support:
Section 11 of TACT 2000 makes it an offence to… express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation and in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation… Section 13 of TACT 2000 makes it an offence to wear clothing, carry or display articles in public in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.
With such sloppy framing and a malignant government free to apply it as it chooses, it is easy to imagine – for example – the Israeli army getting its backside kicked by Hezbollah in Lebanon and a UK journalist reporting factually that it got its backside kicked, and being prosecuted for saying something that is ‘supportive’ of Hezbollah and might encourage others to be similarly supportive.
In 2018 David Kaye, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of speech and expression, wrote to the UK government about the shoddy, ‘overbroad’ legislation and its effect of turning opinion into ‘thought crime’:
I am concerned at the criminalization of the mere expression of an opinion or belief that is deemed “supportive” of a proscribed organization, without any intent to invite support or to cause harm. The Act does not define was is meant by “supportive” and would cover a broad range of opinions.
I am also concerned that this overbroad wording may apply to the activities of human rights organizations and associations, including those providing legal opinions defending the rights of members of a proscribed organizations. In the absence of a qualification of the expression, such as an outward facing actions, I am concerned that this offence may amount to a thought crime, whereby persons who aspire to the same political objectives as terrorist groups run the risk of prosecution. As a result, this would criminalize an individual’s association with terrorist views, not with terrorism…
…I am concerned that the new offence is overly broad, and falls short of any form of incitement to violence or intent to cause harm. Similarly, the offence could lead to prosecution of those who are documenting human rights abuses, including journalists, activists and academics. The provision as currently drafted would also criminalize the publication and display of historical photographs.
Irene Khan, the current Rapporteur, agrees with her predecessor. Ms Khan wrote only last week, in a report to the United Nations General Assembly, that “Freedom of expression is in a global crisis“. She is absolutely correct. She went on:
No war in recent times has affected freedom of opinion and expression so seriously or so far beyond its borders.
Rarely have we seen such extensive patterns of unlawful, discriminatory and disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression by States and private actors, especially in western democracies.
The Rapporteur’s warning was ignored in 2018 and both warnings are being ignored now by the ‘Labour’ government, which under Keir Starmer is engaged in the exploitation of this bad legislation to attempt to intimidate independent journalists and anti-genocide campaigners into silence over Israel’s war crimes and mass murder, the UK government’s complicity and the right of Palestinians – absolutely guaranteed under international law – to defend themselves against occupation and genocide.
It must not succeed – not only for Gaza but for any semblance of democracy in the UK.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount as it has to be entered by us). Alternatively, if you prefer to make a one-off or recurring donation by simple card payment, please use the form below:
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your support is hugely appreciated.
Your support is hugely appreciated.
Your support is hugely appreciated.
DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearlyThanks for your solidarity so Skwawkbox can keep doing its job of inconveniencing the right and helping to build the left!
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
“Organisations that the government has decided to outlaw”
-The first question to ask is: what criteria does the government follows to outlaw organisations?
-The second question is: since when questioning, reporting facts that contradict the government’s position becomes support for terrorism?
I only need one word to described: Fascism
As I have said many times about Starmer and his Starmer-buddy government, he and it is the most dangerous we have had in my lifetime. They are a completely principle-free cohort, looking for power for its own sake. When things don’t go their way, then they immediately respond with a clampdown on the population 1930s style, so that people cannot voice their disapproval at what they are doing. This is especially true of journalists who hit a nerve (something they do that is indefensible). But they do it within the party too. Stifling voices that offer an alternative to the Starmer-ill-considered pose. I have strong views (as do many here), but I have absolutely no objection to others countering those. It’s what life is about. Starmer can’t stand that. And he brings his incoherent logic to all he does. Total lack of principle.
Martin Niemöller (“First they came for the… socialists/communists/ trade unionists,…”) would have agreed with Irene Khan, UN Rapporteur. By the time they’re coming for the journalists, you know they are serious in their wickedness and bad-intent.
The UK’s anti-terrorism legislation is being used by corrupted politicians to further something every bit as wretched as totalitarian fascism: A world where freedom of thought and speech is not encouraged and – when necessary – disallowed.
It is in this regard that Keir Rodney Starmer and his supporters are indistinguishable from history’s most authoritarian Conservatives and are fully deserving of the insult ‘stalinists’.
Well done Sarah Owen MP. I hope when the democratic left forms a parliamentary vehicle to denounce and displace Labour you join it.
Fascism
Yep. The only word required.
“With such sloppy framing…”
No, nothing sloppy about it at all.
Kinda agree Tony! Carefully engineered and worded.
A silly clue, look at the name & address at the bottom of this gov uk webpage (“Operation of police powers under TACT 2000, to March 2024”), https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/operation-of-police-powers-under-tact-2000-to-march-2024
Homeland Security Group
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
“Homeland Security”, is that a UK or US agency, might as well say “The Adolph Hitler/ Senator Joseph McCarthy Institute for Reich Security”?
Write something they don’t like and you’ll get a knock at the door or it might get busted open. Taken for questioning by the police and then carted off to a cell. The cell having been vacated by letting out a criminal like a burglar, car jacker, mugger, drug dealer etc etc. You’re going in because your a thought criminal.
Well I’m confused. I remember during the time of the Northern Ireland
“troubles” how overly strict the terror laws were – so much so that
Sinn Fein or similar were not allowed to speak on Telly ..
It became ridiculous – actors were engaged to speak the words of Sinn Fain ..
At one stage there was also a law which allowed a citizens restraint in some way –
and this was linked to the threat of ISIS or similar ..
(1) Presumably one of these laws was repealed
(2) or maybe one of them did not apply after the Belfast Agreement
(3) or maybe the March 2024 law replaced existing Acts of Parliament which
were then replaced?
Is there a time line here or have I mis-remembered ?
The broadcasting ban on Sinn Fein and loyalist spokespersons ran from 1988 to 1994. Lifted 30 years ago last month. Maghie Thatcher said it would ” deny them the oxygen of publicity.” Sinn Feins vote still went up.