This discussion is closed.
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
National Security Bill 2017, TSR Conservative & Unionist Party
National Security Bill 2017

A
BILL
TO

Implement a tougher procedure for vetting potential criminals seeking to enter the country, and improve the ability of security forces to fight terrorism.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1 Interpretations

(1) In this Act a high-risk individual is an individual who is;
(a) suspected to be a member of a terrorist organisation.
(b) suspected to be involved with the working, planning, financing, or strategy of a terrorist organisation.
(c) is suspected to have close ties with a high-risk individual.
i. in the context of this bill close ties is having a family connection, have means of contacting the high-risk individual, is in regular contact with a high-risk individual, or has interaction with a high-risk individual through a group, workplace, or club.
(d) is suspected to have been radicalised by a terrorist organisation.
(e) is suspected to be a promoter of an ideology of a terrorist organisation.
(f) is suspected to be a follower of an ideology advocating illegal acts, which include but are not limited to;
i. inciting, or partaking in violence, or hatred against British citizens, or institutions of the United Kingdom.
(2) In this Act a super high-risk individual is an individual who has been convicted of;
(a) terror-related offences.
(b) is a member of a terrorist organisation.
(c) has been found guilty of being involved participating in terrorist organisation activities.
(3) In this Act a terrorist organisation is an organisation included on the Home Office list of proscribed terrorist organisations.
(a) the Home Office shall review the list annually to include, or remove organisations.
(4) In this Act a high-risk country is a country where;
(a) terrorist organisations are based
(b) a country deemed to have a government highly susceptible to corruption, or being influenced by terrorist organisation.
(c) a country not considered a liberal democracy by the Home Office.
i. the Home Officer shall be required to draw up an annual list of liberal democracies.

2 Treatment of high-risk individuals

(1) High-risk individuals may be detained by security services for up to 14 days without evidence for questioning.
(2) Foreign, high-risk individuals convicted of committing a crime in the Untied Kingdom shall be deported from the United Kingdom, and are barred from re-entry.
(a) foreign, high-risk individuals shall have no grounds for appeal against their deportation.
(b) the Human Rights Act 1998 shall not extend to cover convicted, foreign, high-risk individuals.
(c) Section 2(2) shall extend to cover convicted high-risk individuals, and super high-risk individuals.
(3) all individuals awaiting deportation shall be housed in secure detention facilities operated by the Home Office.
(a) Officers at the detention facilities shall be armed, and entitled to use deadly force if necessary to maintain order.
(4) All super high-risk individuals shall be prohibited from;
(a) voting in any election
(b) working with children
(c) standing for public office

3 Security Clearance Visa

(1) The Home Office shall publish an annual list naming high-risk countries.
(2) All individuals from high-risk countries shall be required to participate in a background check before entering the country.
(a) on completion of the background check, a Security Clearance Visa shall be issued to allow the individual to continue with entry into the Untied Kingdom through existing channels.
(b) in the context of this bill existing channels refers to the procedures for applying for a visa if applicable, demonstrating competence in English, or complying with any other requirements in place for entry to the country.
(3) any individuals found to be high-risk shall not be granted a security clearance visa, and shall be barred from entering the country.

4 Conviction as a high-risk individual

(1) It shall be illegal to promote, finance, or knowingly participate in activities, planning, or campaigns of terrorist organisation.
(2) Individuals found guilty of the offence in section 4(1) shall be convicted of being a high-risk individual.
(3) All foreign convicted high-risk individuals shall be immediately deported with no grounds for appeal.
(4) Convicted high-risk individuals shall be sentenced to a minimum of 25 years, and be liable for a fine with no maximum value.
(a) there shall be no maximum sentence for convicted high-risk individuals.
(4) Convicted high-risk individuals who are British citizens shall be required to undergo a rehabilitation course by the Home Office.
(a) on completion of the rehabilitation course, if the high-risk individual is deemed to no longer be a threat to society, they shall be released.
(b) convicted high-risk individuals shall be imprisoned for a minimum of 25 years.
i. there shall be no maximum sentence of imprisonment for convicted high-risk individuals.

5 Short title, commencement, and extent

(1) This Act may be cited as the National Act 2017.
(2) This Act comes into force immediately after Royal Assent.
(3) This Act extends to the Untied Kingdom.

Notes

This bill is a toned down version of the UK bill submitted earlier in the week. This bill removes foreign individuals convicted of terror offences, or being involved with a terrorist organisation from the country, and places more restrictions on individuals wanting to enter the country from countries where there is a higher risk of terrorism.

Home Office list of terrorist organisations: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ganisations--2
1
username2080673
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
I really don't see how the human rights restriction is justified, even if it is against such individuals. Nay
3
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Aye.

Question however, is the conviction of 25 years without the possibility of parole?
1
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
Nay. As my colleague Conceited says - the human rights justification just isn't there.
1
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
The Tories seem to have misunderstood what human rights are.
3
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
Nay

For reasons my liberal colleagues have mentioned
1
username2768016
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
Hmm, abstain. Whilst I'm sympathetic to most of this bill, I'd be concerned about deporting foreign criminals to a country where their human rights may be violated, even if they have been convicted of atrocious crimes.

Should you explicitly state that these criminals will only be deported if it is safe for them, then expect a yes from me.
1
Gladstone1885
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
Nay this is a threat to equal protection under the law
1
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
Aye
0
Basiil17
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
Aye
0
NoFunAtParties
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
It seems to me that the definition of "super high risk" individual, is just someone who's been convicted of a terror offence, whereas a high risk is just someone who's suspected of one. So when you say "convicted high risk", by your own definition you mean super high risk.

Therefore, separate punishments/rules for convicted high risk and super high risk doesn't make sense, because a super high risk is someone to have been confirmed to be high risk, right?

On the rest of the bill I don't like it, the violation of human rights, the discretion to kill, the list of countries (really? You're going to include countries without a liberal democracy?)
1
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
Yeaaaahhh I'm good.

Nay.
0
username2585877
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
Nay. Not only does this bill threaten equal protection under law, these groups do not deserve to be on the list:
N17
ANO
ETA
PKK
PFLP-GC
DHKP-C
TAK (at a stretch)
CAC
Cumann na mBan
INLA
IPLO
Saor Eire
Fianna na hEireann

Violence. Empire when the UK does it, terrorism when it’s done back.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
1.1.c is deeply flawed and allows arbitrary detention without evidence of ANYBODY for 2 weeks
1.4 probably covers every single country
WTF is the "home officer"?
2.2.c is a stupid clause that seems to be there for padding, it can be integrated into 2.2. itself with ease
And it's worth noting that some of this is already covered by MHoC law, but that would have meant looking at hansard
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
1.1.c is deeply flawed and allows arbitrary detention without evidence of ANYBODY for 2 weeks
1.4 probably covers every single country
WTF is the "home officer"?
2.2.c is a stupid clause that seems to be there for padding, it can be integrated into 2.2. itself with ease
And it's worth noting that some of this is already covered by MHoC law, but that would have meant looking at hansard
Section 2(2) of the bill you linked allows criminals to avoid deportation if court makes the deportation impossible by saying it breeches their human rights. This bill goes further to stop the Human Rights Act applying to the foreign criminals who should be deported. And Section 1(1)c is not flawed, that is intentional to allow security services time to gather evidence if the suspect is dangerous.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
Section 2(2) of the bill you linked allows criminals to avoid deportation if court makes the deportation impossible by saying it breeches their human rights. This bill goes further to stop the Human Rights Act applying to the foreign criminals who should be deported. And Section 1(1)c is not flawed, that is intentional to allow security services time to gather evidence if the suspect is dangerous.
Why should I listen to you, after all, you're a high-risk individual. There is the flaw EVERYBODY ON EARTH is a high risk individual except for perhaps a hermit
Suppose Abdul is a high-risk individual according to 1.1.a or 1.1.b
Abdul is on facebook, Abdul now statistically has about 200 people who can contact them, now we have 200 high risk individuals.
Now each of these 200 have another 200, admittedly with some cross over, but let's just say each has 10 unique friends, now we have 2000
then 20000
then 200000
etc
that's operating very conservatively, in reality the web grows far faster as it isn't just facebook friends, six degrees of separation come into play, and the rules in 1.1.c mean those links all count. 1.1.c doesn't require a threat to make you high risk, all it really requires is knowing somebody.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Why should I listen to you, after all, you're a high-risk individual. There is the flaw EVERYBODY ON EARTH is a high risk individual except for perhaps a hermit
Suppose Abdul is a high-risk individual according to 1.1.a or 1.1.b
Abdul is on facebook, Abdul now statistically has about 200 people who can contact them, now we have 200 high risk individuals.
Now each of these 200 have another 200, admittedly with some cross over, but let's just say each has 10 unique friends, now we have 2000
then 20000
then 200000
etc
that's operating very conservatively, in reality the web grows far faster as it isn't just facebook friends, six degrees of separation come into play, and the rules in 1.1.c mean those links all count. 1.1.c doesn't require a threat to make you high risk, all it really requires is knowing somebody.
I do not see your point, the bill does not arrest every high risk individual, the bill gives security services the ability to arrest, detain, and gather information on an individual if they see fit. Because the numbers are large not all individuals are going to be arrested, however, individuals can be arrested to avoid problems of having suspicions but not evidence.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
I do not see your point, the bill does not arrest every high risk individual, the bill gives security services the ability to arrest, detain, and gather information on an individual if they see fit. Because the numbers are large not all individuals are going to be arrested, however, individuals can be arrested to avoid problems of having suspicions but not evidence.
The problem is it makes arbitrary detention of ANY individual for two weeks entirely legal. I know you're pretty damn authoritarian, but I would have thought even you would see what is wrong with that.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The problem is it makes arbitrary detention of ANY individual for two weeks entirely legal. I know you're pretty damn authoritarian, but I would have thought even you would see what is wrong with that.
I am not against the idea of 14 days but to make it more likeable a second reading could include the need for security services to have reasonable grounds to suspect an individual.
0
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
Nay, you can't suspend human rights. In any case High risk countries is far too broad.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (170)
14.57%
I'm not sure (54)
4.63%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (343)
29.39%
I have already dropped out (35)
3%
I'm not a current university student (565)
48.41%

Watched Threads

View All