The Joint Committee on Human Rights calls for a fundamental, independent review of the necessity for and proportionality of all counter-terrorism measures adopted since September 11 2001. It questions the way that the policy imperatives of national security and public safety have been used to justify squeezing out human rights considerations. Since September 11 2001, the Government has continuously claimed that there is a "public emergency threatening the life of the nation". The Committee questions whether the country has really been in this state for over eight years. A permanent state of emergency skews public debate about the justification for rights-limiting counter-terrorism measures. It is unacceptable that the Director General of the Security Service refuses to appear before it to give public evidence - despite giving public lectures and media interviews. The Committee finds the Government's narrow definition of complicity in torture significant and worrying and calls for an urgent independent inquiry into the allegations of complicity in torture. The Government should drop the draft bill still being held in reserve to allow pre-charge detention to be extended to 42 days. And more work should be done on measures - such as bail and the use of intercept evidence - that could reduce the use of pre-charge detention. The Intelligence and Security Committee should become a proper Parliamentary committee with an independent secretariat and legal advice and appointing an independent reviewer of counter-terror legislation who reports directly to Parliament not the Government.

This volume examines the rationale, effectiveness and consequences of counter terrorism practices from a range of perspectives and cases. The book critically interrogates contemporary counter-terrorism powers from military campaigns and repression through to the prosecution of terrorist suspects, counter-terrorism policing, counter-radicalisation programmes, and the proscription of terrorist organisations. Drawing on a range of timely and important case studies from around the world including the UK, Sri Lanka, Spain, Canada, Australia and the USA, its chapters explore the impacts of counter-terrorism on individuals, communities, and political processes. The book focuses on three questions of vital importance to any assessment of counter-terrorism. First, what do counter-terrorism strategies seek to achieve? Second, what are the consequences of different counter-terrorism campaigns, and how are these measured? And, third, how and why do changes to counter-terrorism occur? This volume will be of much interest to students of counter-terrorism, critical terrorism studies, criminology, security studies and IR in general.

Although there has been a lot written about how counter-terrorism laws impact on human rights and civil liberties, most of this work has focussed on the most obvious or egregious kinds of human rights abrogation, such as extended detention, torture, and extraordinary rendition. Far less has been written about the complex ways in which Western governments have placed new and far-reaching limitations on freedom of speech in this context since 9/11. This book compares three liberal democracies - the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, in particular showing the commonalities and similarities in what has occurred in each country, and the changes in the appropriate parameters of freedom of speech in the counter-terrorism context since 9/11, achieved both in policy change and the justification for that change. In all three countries much speech has been criminalized in ways that were considered anachronistic, or inappropriate, in comparable policy areas prior to 9/11. This is particularly interesting because other works have suggested that the United States' unique protection of freedom of speech in the First Amendment has prevented speech being limited in that country in ways that have been pursued in others. This book shows that this kind of argument misses the detail of the policy change that has occurred, and privileges a textual reading over a more comprehensive policy-based understanding of the changes that have occurred. The author argues that we are now living a new-normal for freedom of speech, within which restrictions on speech that once would have been considered aberrant, overreaching, and impermissible are now considered ordinary, necessary, and justified as long as they occur in the counter-terrorism context. This change is persistent, and it has far reaching implications for the future of this foundational freedom.

ŠA deep and thoughtful exploration of counter-terrorism written by leading commentators from around the globe. This book poses critical questions about the definition of terrorism, the role of human rights and the push by many governments for more secu

Presents a report on aspects of the Government's counter-terrorism strategy since the 2005 election. This book draws attention to criticisms of the UK's counter-terrorism law and policy in various reports by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the UN Human Rights Committee. HC 1077.

Work of the Committee in 2007 and the state of human rights in the UK : Sixth report of session 2007-08, report, together with formal Minutes

This report examines the Government's intention, as part of its counter-terrorism measures, to increase the pre-charge detention limit from 28 to 42 days. The Committee believes that there is a clear national consensus that the case for further change has not been made by the Government. In the Committee's view a truly consensual approach should lead the Government to accept that it has failed to build the necessary national consensus for this very significant interference with the right to liberty and withdraw the proposal; to proceed with it as detailed by the Home Office calls into question the Government's commitment to a consensual approach and raises questions of compatibility with human rights. The Committee does not accept that the Government has made the case for extending pre-charge detention beyond the current limit of 28 days, for the following reasons: i) it can find no clear evidence of likely need in the near future; ii) alternatives to extension do enough, in combination, to protect the public and are much more proportionate; iii) the proposed parliamentary mechanism would create a serious risk of prejudice to the fair trial of suspects; iv) the existing judicial safeguards for extensions even up to 28 days are inadequate.

On cover and title page: House, committees of the whole House, general committees and select committees

Drawing special attention to: Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill (HL Bill 16, ISBN 9780215709288)

"Constitutes the Terrorism Series' first expansion into non-U.S. legal regimes, and this initial volume deals solely with the UK's approach to security law. Ever since the London bombings of July 7th, 2005, the UK has been faced with the challenge of improving the nation's security while maintaining its proud tradition of civil liberties."--Publisher's website.