UK Using Anti-Terror Laws To Harass And Intimidate Human Rights And Democracy Activists

from the shameful dept

Wed, Sep 25th 2013 3:37am — Mike Masnick

You may recall that, last month, Glenn Greenwald's partner David Miranda was detained at Heathrow for nearly 9 hours for helping Greenwald do journalism. There were many problems with this detention, not the least of which that officials used an anti-terrorism law, called Schedule 7, for the detention. The author of Schedule 7, Charles Falconer, specifically has said that the law wasn't intended for such purposes. And yet, it appears that the UK authorities aren't backing down from abusing Schedule 7 to intimidate people having nothing to do with terrorism.

The latest is using Schedule 7 to detain and intimidate a human rights and democracy activist from Yemen. Let me repeat it: this is someone advocating for democracy, and they're being detained and harassed under an anti-terrorism law. Something is seriously screwed up here.

Baraa Shiban, a respected human rights activist who works in Yemen as a project co-ordinator for the London-based legal charity Reprieve and was travelling to London to speak at an event, said he was held for an hour on Monday night and questioned about his work and political views.

He was detained under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act, the same legislation used last month at Heathrow to detain David Miranda, the partner of Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who has written about mass internet surveillance by the US National Security Agency and Britain's GCHQ.

Shiban is a member of Yemen's National Dialogue – the body tasked with mapping out the country's democratic future

Shiban was going to the UK to give a speech on, of all things, "security, diplomacy and aid." He may want to edit the planned remarks slightly. Shiban further pointed out that the detention was focused on his human rights activities. Remember this is under a law that is supposed to only be used to stop terrorists.

Shiban said: "I was stunned when the border agent said I was being held simply because I came from Yemen. It was even more shocking when he spent the entire time asking me about my human rights work and about Reprieve, the charity I work for.

"Is the UK the kind of place that human rights activists are fair game for detention, intimidation and interrogation?"

The excuse given by Sussex police is especially pathetic:

A spokesman said: "He was referred to Sussex police by Border Force officials. He spoke with officers for around half an hour and was then free to continue his journey. We are satisfied that our actions were legitimate, justified and proportionate and were carried out in accordance with the act."

Remember, the act is supposed to only be used in investigating possible terrorist activity. These are the kinds of activities that we used to associate with authoritarian non-democratic countries. And now we're regularly seeing such abuse in the US and the UK.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: activism, anti-terror, baraa shiban, human rights, schedule 7, terrorism, uk, yemen

29 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 3:55am

This is what has been going on for the last 11 years at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Leepermax, 25 Sep 2013 @ 5:05am
  
  Re: NSA SURVEILLANCE
  This is also what's been going on for the last few years.
  
  "TELECOMS ARE PAID BY N.S.A." ... http://newslinx.net/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 3:58am

Advocating democracy for a country in the Middle-East apparently equals terrorism for the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 5:14am
  
  Re:
  Well, who the hell do you think those countries learned from? I'll give you a clue: it's a tiny island chain in the North Atlantic Ocean that separates it from the North Sea.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 4:03am

Obviously it was racial profiling. I doubt Shiban was on any terrorist watch lists. UK Border Force officials are racist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Simon, 25 Sep 2013 @ 5:15am
  
  Re:
  Definitely, wasn't the GO HOME!! mobile billboard also part of their doctrine? There was also the recent case of Border Agents targeting certain racial profiles on the streets.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 4:06am

This is a weak one.

Yemen is a know place where real terrorists come from, border patrol probably doesn't know every single human rights activist in the world and as much as I would like to bash this, I don't see it, they stopped someone, questioned him and in a short time let that person go, did he miss his flight connection?

In the case of Miranda that was a serious breach though, the guys in the US border patrol confiscating private property and don't giving any explanations to no one for hours is a serious breach, this though seems like routine and inconvenient routine but nothing huge or out of the ordinary. Now that for security I am willing to endure for some time until terrorism stop being something cool for some fanatics.

Is there anything else?

Was he stripped searched? his belongings seized? did he had to go to the bathroom and they made him pee in a cup or something more than just stopping a guy and questioning him for an hour or so?

Mostly I am not against the measures but abuse of those and the unwillingness of officials to acknowledge or fix those abuses. Mostly, the NSA thing is something that I am fully against, but not this. it doesn't sound so horrible, scary for sure, but I can't see anything terrible wrong with it, specially since the guy is coming from a country that is known to have terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 4:21am
  
  Re:
  Really? Read the article and the sources again. He was SPECIFICALLY questioned on his ACTIVISM endeavors and political views. ENGLAND PREVAILS, brother.
  
  If something can be abused it WILL BE ABUSED. Such measures should be very well regulated and narrowly forced or it'll quickly turn into some Gestapo/Stasi/etc. See NSA, TSA and the likes for similar stuff.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 5:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    Read the article?
    No way.
    What's next ... address the issues?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 5:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    To be honest stopping someone for 30 minutes is well within what I'd expect border control agents to do in normal conditions.
    
    The lines of questioning are probably not relevant at all as it's likely to be someone just chatting whilst records and such are checked by his team.
    
    The issue here is the use of terrorism legislation to justify the stop.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 4:33am
  
  Re:
  I believe the problem was that they used an anti-terrorism law to justify their actions. It is a lame explaination for something they would have the right to do regardless! While the objective measures used seems fine and dandy, it is completely unacceptable to use the terrorism-card so liberally. There is no reason to draw it here as it is described in the article and that is the potential problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 5:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    "they would have the right to do"
    
    Governments do not have "rights", people do.
    Neither governments nor corporations are people.
    
    Governments declare laws and (selectively) enforce them, but to call it a right ... well, that is simply wrong.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 10:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Call it legal basis? When we are normally talking about selective enforcement it is not usually border patrol and traffic cops you talk about. As selective as they may be, it is not that the law is applied at random or to a certain groups favour.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 11:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Be glad you don't live in the US, then! Here, border patrol and traffic cops appear to be the groups that are the most likely to engage in selective enforcement. Further, the law is quite often applied at random or to a certain group's favor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- out_of_the_blue, 25 Sep 2013 @ 5:36am
  
  Re: @ AC: "coming from a country that is known to have terrorist."
  Another AC points out that "terrorism" is the excuse. You just casually tossed the word in as your final argument, the word that is used to justify any and all civil rights violations against any and all persons. You're just the sort of compliant scared little ninny that not only furthers the police state, but welcomes it.
  
  Both the UK and the former US of A are known to have MANY terrorists, and I don't mean the few lame patsies the FBI creates and funds, I mean gov't terrorists who dress in suits and ties to plan staged terror events, destablizing countries, creating phony wars for empire, and who almost incidentally set the policies on how their low-level attack dogs are to mis-use these policies and abuse perfectly innocent people. Those are the REAL terrorists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rapnel (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 10:38am
    
    Re: Re: @ AC: "coming from a country that is known to have terrorist."
    Dude, I'm digging your new prescriptions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cloudsplitter, 28 Sep 2013 @ 5:19pm
  
  Re:
  The Gentleman in question is a known Human Rights Campaigner, and Democracy Advocate, and that's what they asked him about. They know who he was, and why he was coming to the UK. You seriously need to read more, and understand what is going on in this world.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris-Mouse (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 4:26am

Ah, but disagreeing with a government, any government, is obviously terrorism. After all, if someone will disagree with one government, they might disagree with another too, like our government. The government can't allow that, so anyone daring to disagree must be swiftly punished, no matter which government they are disagreeing with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 4:28am

Hardly surprising, but this is par for the course. Give government powers and they will be used eventually. It doesn't matter what the spirit of the law was originally intended to be - if the letter of the law allows it, the law will be used that way eventually.

This is why right-minded people have been opposed to everything from the Patriot Act to SOPA to the DMCA. Whatever the noble intentions originally ascribed, if not drafted correctly the law can be abused in ways far beyond the original intentions. Intelligent and aware people don't wait for the law to be abused before they question it - they ask those questions from the very beginning. "but terrorism" is not a reason to pass a bill too quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 4:44am

As we are finding out, all it takes is to slap the word terrorist in the charge somewhere. Once that is done, no laws that are recognized as granted citizens applies. Being applied in the no-mans land of between disembarkation and customs means an out to not having to pay attention to the laws of the country. According to Putin with Snowden and yet again with David, this was exactly where these detentions were held.

With Snowden, it was the terrorist might be informed what we are doing to get the word terrorist in there. Here despite what Baraa Shiban stands for and does, he too was detained. Not because of terrorists but because he might be embarrassing or because of racial profiling. What is also certain, is that his status as being pro-democracy was already known prior. This doesn't fit a terrorist. This fits intimidation.

It is starting to be very apparent that those not in the favor of a government are being harassed on purpose, with prior knowledge. Is there any reason to doubt why Brazil, Bolivia, and some of the EU officials are starting to get teed at the whole mess? At least EU does take some sort of seriousness about personal privacy.

In our present so called democracies, that issue looks to be dead at present.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 5:35am
  
  Re:
  Terrorism, it's the new witch.
  
  I'm not a terrorist!
  
  But you are dressed as one
  
  They dressed me up like this!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 5:01am

Thuggish is as thuggish does
Who would have thunk it, that if we put a bunch of thugs into positions of authority, that they will suddenly start acting differently?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 25 Sep 2013 @ 5:19am

"Falconer, specifically has said" -- HE'S LYING, THOUGH!
Look, if a politician would design and vote for a law with such clear anti-human-rights provisions, is it not likely that he'd LIE about it later? The resulting mis-use and abuse are predictable by you and me, but apparently YOU continue to believe that politicians are only fools and not knaves. Sheesh.

QUIT giving these politicians the benefit of doubt! They're ALL liars as convenient and all tyrants to the extent can, only vying with each other to be the biggest tyrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 5:36am
  
  Re: "Falconer, specifically has said" -- HE'S LYING, THOUGH!
  Laws are designed?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 5:59am
  
  Re: "Falconer, specifically has said" -- HE'S LYING, THOUGH!
  Ah, your moment of sanity and honesty earlier today was short-lived as I expected (if that was you).
  
  I love political threads here, though. You spend all your time whining and attacking Mike, yet not once ever begin to say what you think a solution might be. No substance, no counter argument, just whining about someone you take a dislike to. You just attack people for talking about the problems as if not saying anything would somehow do something.
  
  Every post of yours seems to be quite well summarised by simply quoting Shakespeare: "it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 8:26am

Simple answer to simple question
"Is the UK the kind of place that human rights activists are fair game for detention, intimidation and interrogation?"
Yes. Sadly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lurk-a-lot (profile), 25 Sep 2013 @ 8:55am

A spokesman said: "He was referred to Sussex police by Border Force officials. He spoke with officers for around half an hour and was then free to continue his journey. We are satisfied that our actions were legitimate, justified and proportionate and were carried out in accordance with the act."

Dear spokesman for the Sussex Police, I think that you are a twat. I am satisfied that calling you a twat is legitimate, justified and proportionate and has been carried out in accordance with with all applicable speech laws within the UK and EU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 9:53am

the UK needs to get away from the USG as soon as possible, as far as possible and return to what it has always been noted for, openness, honesty and fairness. what it is doing now is exactly the same as the NSA and other security services, like the border patrol guards, are doing. it is shaming itself and it's citizens. there is absolutely no way the terrorism law could be used in either of the two instances and it is being twisted to suit the situation. when the instigator of the bill says it's wrong, he needs to get his ass in gear and repeal the bill and rewrite one to cater for the situations properly! this again is taking leaves out of the NSA book! Cameron has a lot to answer for and i sincerely hope that happens in the not too distant GE in 2015!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2013 @ 7:01pm

UK is another fascist country just like the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]