This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
B1398 – Terrorism Bill 2018, TSR National Conservative Party, CatusStarbright MP
Terrorism Bill 2018

A
BILL
TO

Legislate for those who leave and join a terrorist organisation to return to the United Kingdom with malicious intent as well as those who withhold vital information regarding any terrorist cells residing within the United Kingdom.


BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—


1: Definitions
(1) For the purposes of this Act; malicious intent is the intent to cause injury or death.
(2) For the purposes of this Act; a terrorist organisation is any political, religious or ideological movement that uses terror in order to achieve its objectives.
(3) For the purposes of this Act; a terrorist cell is any group of people operating under the guise of, or in the name of any terrorist organisation.

2: Returning to the United Kingdom after joining a terrorist organisation with or without malicious intent
(1) Any person found to have returned to the United Kingdom, after joining any terrorist organisation, with or without malicious intent may be convicted, on indictment, to a maximum of life imprisonment.
(2) The Home Office may investigate individuals suspected of leaving to join a terrorist organisation. However, the Home Office may not deprive the suspect's liberty, only restrict said liberty.
(a) The Home Office may, however, detain the suspect if there are reasonable grounds and evidence that the suspect will join or has joined a terrorist organisation whilst abroad.
(i) The Home Office may only detain the suspect for a period of one month until said suspect is brought before the courts.

3: Duty to disclose information
(1) It is the duty of persons in the United Kingdom to report any information they obtain regarding terrorist cells who intend to do harm to the United Kingdom, subjects or any person situated in the United Kingdom at the time of their unlawful act.

4: Withholding information regarding known terrorist cells
(1) Any person found to have purposefully withheld information regarding any terrorist cells may be convicted, on indictment, up to 12 months imprisonment, a fine up to but not exceeding £1,500 or both.

5: Commencement, Extent and Short Title
(1) The provisions of this Act shall come into force upon Royal Assent.
(2) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
(3) This Act shall be known as the Terrorism Act 2018.

Spoiler:
Show
Notes:

This bill makes crucial compromises in the war on terrorism. It recognises that an automatic detention is unjust and does not befit our justice system and yhe values upon which it stands. Therefore, the Home Office would be restricted from depriving the suspect of their liberty, they may only restrict it. However, there are sometimes cases where detention is necessary and thus the equally makes provision for that also.

This bill makes important steps in making it a legal obligation for citizens who possess information, on terrorist cells targeting the United Kingdom here or aboard, to pass such information onto the authorities. Terrorism is one of the biggest threats facing 21st century life. Whilst there has always been terror, never has it been so prevalent. Never has it been so unified. Never has it been such a dangerous threat.

0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
I say revoke their citizenship before they come back and let the Americans deal with them, or drone them before they come back
2
Paracosm
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
This is fair but tbh I’d be in favour of even stronger measures
1
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
A sensible bill which grants provisions for dealing with British citizens seeking to return to the UK after being involved with terrorism abroad. It's an aye from me.
0
LibertarianMP
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
Aye, but I'd be harsher, screw human rights for terrorists and sent them to Guantanamo.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
A sensible bill which grants provisions for dealing with British citizens seeking to return to the UK after being involved with terrorism abroad. It's an aye from me.
Why should they even still be citizens, the worst of them at the very least? "The Beatles" knew exactly what they were doing, no second thoughts, absolute animals, there's treason and then there is what they're doing. Why should they even be treated as human beings? By retaining their citizenship if they're fortunate enough not to be droned they'll be locked up for life, and in some prisons probably treated like heroes. There's the argument with some killers that rotting for decades in a cell is a worse punishment than death, not for some of these people. Some of these people deserve nothing less than being killed and not getting their 72 virgins, this cannot be achieved under this bill.

While I accept there are some issues with how we used to administer the death penalty, and as much as I'm for it things would need to be done differently, we should be handing many of these people to the Americans to execute.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
Aye.

This bill can however be improved by clarfying the definition of treason in such a way that these people can be charged with it.
0
Haider_A
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
But then there will have to be measures in place to ensure that ONLY proven terrorists are exposed to the punishments suggested above; there have been cases of aid workers in Syria who have been accused of fighting with terrorists and have been punished also.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
2(2) the Home Office May not deprive suspects of liberty only restrict it.

This is so vague I’m not sure what the point is.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
This doesn’t go far enough but aye anyway.
0
CountBrandenburg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
Aye, though as many have pointed out, not far enough. I’d support a longer detention time and then getting the relative information allow the Home Secretary to decide the appropriate course of action ( I too would allow the Americans to do what they please with tbh)
0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
However, the Home Office may not deprive the suspect's liberty, only restrict said liberty.
What does this even mean? Seems like a tacked on line to send the message that the bill is not an invasion of civil liberties, without delivering anything tangible to that effect. If it wasn't written in here, this bill would be interpreted as exactly the same.

1: Definitions

I feel a few of these definitions are not very robust. I would recommend the authors simply cite the Terrorism Act 2000 and its amendments made in VB1398.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Why should they even still be citizens, the worst of them at the very least? "The Beatles" knew exactly what they were doing, no second thoughts, absolute animals, there's treason and then there is what they're doing. Why should they even be treated as human beings? By retaining their citizenship if they're fortunate enough not to be droned they'll be locked up for life, and in some prisons probably treated like heroes. There's the argument with some killers that rotting for decades in a cell is a worse punishment than death, not for some of these people. Some of these people deserve nothing less than being killed and not getting their 72 virgins, this cannot be achieved under this bill.

While I accept there are some issues with how we used to administer the death penalty, and as much as I'm for it things would need to be done differently, we should be handing many of these people to the Americans to execute.
I take the view that this country is responsible for dealing with the actions of its citizens. It is not a solution to simply strip them of citizenship and wash our hands of them. As you might say, that's 'lazy'.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
Wouldn't mind the fine being a bit higher.

Nobody should pretend that this bill aims to prevent terrorism though.

If this has a second reading please fox the typo in the notes.
0
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I say revoke their citizenship before they come back and let the Americans deal with them, or drone them before they come back
To be honest, whilst I agree, I strongly believe they should face British justice.

(Original post by LibertarianMP)
Aye, but I'd be harsher, screw human rights for terrorists and sent them to Guantanamo.
This approach was tried under the Blair administration but was stopped by the Supreme Court. I trust their judgement.
(Original post by Haider_A)
But then there will have to be measures in place to ensure that ONLY proven terrorists are exposed to the punishments suggested above; there have been cases of aid workers in Syria who have been accused of fighting with terrorists and have been punished also.
To be punished, or more professionally put convicted, the CPS must bring the case to the court. Our system operates under the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Their guilt must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

(Original post by Connor27)
This doesn’t go far enough but aye anyway.
But I'm sure the right honourable gentleman agrees that this is a meaningful first step.

(Original post by Jarred)
What does this even mean? Seems like a tacked on line to send the message that the bill is not an invasion of civil liberties, without delivering anything tangible to that effect. If it wasn't written in here, this bill would be interpreted as exactly the same.

I feel a few of these definitions are not very robust. I would recommend the authors simply cite the Terrorism Act 2000 and its amendments made in VB1398.
I sympathise with the right honourable member's comments. I strongly believe it is down to the courts as guardians of our liberty to determine what constitutes a deprivation of liberty and what constitutes merely as a restriction.
0
Bluestar511
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
Aye, this is a necessary bill to combat terrorism.
0
Miriam29
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
Aye. A necessary bill that could be harsher and still acceptable. This is a good start.
0
EagleKingdom
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
Abstain. I do agree with the intent of this bill but I advocate for harsher punishments.

I agree with a life sentence for those guilty of joining a terrorist organisation. The punishment should be pushed further to where they are not able to socialize with other inmates to decrease the spread of radicilization in our prisons and prevent the influence over other inmates into joining their Jihad. I would support the revocation of their citizenship as they clearly have no place in our society and I would even go further into letting our American partners handling them at Guantanamo Bay.
0
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
It's a good bill but I have a few improvements to it.
If a person is suspected of leaving the country to join a terrorist organisation regardless of how much evidence there is, the police may put them under house arrest until a verdict on the suspect is decided.
If a person is found guilty of joining or supporting as a collaborator like giving money to a terrorist organisation with the intent to cause harm, the Home Office may revoke their citizenship.

And the bill should be named the Treason Bill 2018, if you leave this country to join a terrorist organisation you have really stabbed this country in the back.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by Haider_A)
But then there will have to be measures in place to ensure that ONLY proven terrorists are exposed to the punishments suggested above; there have been cases of aid workers in Syria who have been accused of fighting with terrorists and have been punished also.
This comes down to the definition of terrorist. I know the kind of thing you are thinking of and it comes down to the fact that not all groups (though some cases are plain wrong) are altruistic even if we are allied with them. In Syria for example there are people who have been investigated after returning for joining opposition groups to ISIS and Assad however many of those groups are actually considered as terrorists even if on our side for now. The Kurdish PKK being the most notable example.

With the above being said it's not really the case that those who return are convicted of an offense in the cases we allude to so i'm not really certain a change in the law is needed despite the inconvenience caused and good intent.

..

I also agree with others that while having the ability to deprive people of citizenship is useful, it should be generally opposed in favour of trial in the UK and in the cases alluded to in this bill, a conviction of treason followed by a capital sentence.
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

What do you want most from university virtual open days and online events?

I want to be able to watch in my own time rather than turn up live (189)
29.3%
I want to hear more about the specifics of the course (106)
16.43%
I want to be able to dip in and dip out of lots of different sessions (58)
8.99%
I want to meet current students (54)
8.37%
I want to meet academics and the people that will be teaching me (51)
7.91%
I want to have a taster lecture or workshop to see what the teaching is like (128)
19.84%
My parents/guardians are more interested than me to be honest (38)
5.89%
Other things – I'll tell you in the thread (21)
3.26%

Watched Threads

View All