By Malcolm Siret
Governing bodies appear to be abusing anti-terror laws in order to control civic freedoms, allowing for the suppression of opinion or alternative view (should these views threaten the government's agenda on say, foreign policy).
It seems that if the word 'terrorist' or 'terrorism' is used to describe an individual's acts, then a public will generally be more sympathetic toward the forcible measures carried out in restraining them. But what if these words – and therefore the laws that accompany them – are being used for reasons unconnected to terrorism? Is it not simply a means of censoring those who promote information or views that are preferred undisclosed?
At a Labour Party conference last year, Walter Wolfgang, an 82-year-old member of the party, was thrown out after shouting "nonsense" to then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, and was prevented re-entry by police under the Terrorism Act. Though the government later apologised to Wolfgang, his treatment raised questions about the 'gesture' of free speech in the United Kingdom.
This morning I read a story in the news about a US businessman (Javed Iqbal) facing possible charges of 'supporting terrorism' for offering New Yorkers access to Hizbollah's al-Manar television channel. Mr Iqbal's lawyers say his arrest is a violation of his right to free speech (and every citizen's right to a free press), and serves as yet another example of how feeble this law really is. In their words:
"It's like the government of Iran saying we are going to ban the New York Times because we think of it as a terrorist outfit, or China saying we will ban CNN"
As Mark Hanrahan recently pointed out in an article for oD Today, current conflicts seem to be 'won' by public opinion, and propaganda and bias – historically an important tactic of any conflict – is as prevalent today as ever.
