This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Theresa May vows Tory government would introduce ‘snooper’s charter’
Theresa May vows Tory government would introduce ‘snooper’s charter’
(35 minutes later)
Theresa May has accused the Liberal Democrats of “outrageous irresponsibility” for “torpedoing” the communications data bill known as the snooper’s charter, and vowed that a Conservative government will introduce it.
Theresa May has accused the Liberal Democrats of “outrageous irresponsibility” for “torpedoing” the so-called snooper’s charter communications data bill and vowed that a Conservative government will introduce it.
The Liberal Democrats responded by revealing that they had blocked the immediate implementation of the home secretary’s new proposals to ban extremists from the web and the airwaves because she had provided no evidence that they would be effective or were necessary.
The Lib Dems responded by revealing that they had blocked the immediate implementation of the home secretary’s new proposals to ban extremists from the web and the airwaves because she had provided no evidence that they would be effective or were necessary.
May made a chilling speech to the Conservative conference in which she highlighted the scale of the threat to Britain from Islamic State (Isis) and stressed the need to “defeat the ideology that lies behind the threat”.
The home secretary, in a chilling speech in which she highlighted the scale of the threat to Britain from Islamic State (Isis), stressed the need to “defeat the ideology that lies behind the threat”.
May confirmed that she would introduce a new counter-terrorism bill in November, which would take away the passports of Britons who travelled to fight in Syria and Iraq and strengthen terrorism prevention and investigation measures.
May confirmed she would introduce a counterterrorism bill in November which would confiscate the passports of Britons who travel to fight in Syria and Iraq and to strengthen terrorism prevention and investigation measures.
But she reserved her strongest assault for her coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, for blocking the communications data bill two years ago, which would have given the police and security services the power to track everyone’s email and internet use.
But she reserved her strongest assault for her coalition partners, the Lib Dems, for blocking the communications data bill two years ago which would have given the police and security services the power to track the UK’s email and internet use.
May said the Liberal Democrats had been “outrageously irresponsible” for torpedoing the legislation because innocent people were being left in danger now without it: “If we do not act, we risk sleepwalking into a society in which crime can no longer be investigated and terrorists can plot their murderous schemes undisrupted.”
She said that bill had been introduced because of the “crisis in national security” created by the rapidly declining ability of the police and security services to monitor internet and phone use. The decline had led to the national crime agency dropping at least 20 cases because of missing communications data, including 13 “threat-to-life cases” in which children were at risk.
Just before her speech the Liberal Democrats issued a damning statement on her plans to ban extremists, saying: “Theresa May has failed to provide any evidence that banning orders are necessary or would prove effective at tackling radicalisation and extremism. There are already a range of powers to deal with incitement to violence and racial hatred.”
May said the Lib Dems had been “outrageously irresponsible” for torpedoing the legislation because innocent people were in danger without it. “If we do not act, we risk sleepwalking into a society in which crime can no longer investigated and terrorists can plot their murderous schemes undisrupted,” she said.
In her speech May said Muslims in the UK were free to exercise their right to freedom of conscience, thought and religion but must realise that living in the country came with responsibilities to respect British values.
Just before May’s speech, the Lib Dems issued a damning statement condemning her plans to ban non-violent extremists. “Theresa May has failed to provide any evidence that banning orders are necessary or would prove effective at tackling radicalisation and extremism. There are already a range of powers to deal with incitement to violence and racial hatred,” a spokesman said.
She said: “You don’t just get the freedom to live how you choose to live. You have to respect other people’s right to do so too and you have to respect British values and institutions – the rule of law, democracy, equality, free speech and respect for minorities.
The Lib Dems also strongly rejected May’s claim that their opposition to the “snooper’s charter” was putting lives at risk, pointing out that the police already had access to communications data in such cases and that they had backed work on matching internet addresses that would help in the children-at-risk cases she had cited.
“These are the values that make our country what it is. These are our values. There is no place for extremism here.”
One Lib Dem MP, Julian Huppert, immediately responded to the attack: “Proud to be criticised by Theresa May for blocking the comms data bill/snooper’s charter. Job well done!”
She went on: “Those extremists are dangerous but they are a small minority. We know the overwhelming majority of British people want to be free – free from danger, free from fear, free from prejudice, free from discrimination, free to practise their religion, free to observe their cultures and traditions, free to dress as they like, free to be educated as they choose, free to work where they wish, free to live with whom they love, free to raise their families as they see fit, free to get on with their lives.
The row between the coalition partners over surveillance and extremism came instead of an expected battle over human rights. The justice secretary, Chris Grayling, said the promised plan on how they would tackle their approach to the European court of human rights would be announced “shortly but not today”.
“We must not become a society where these things are no longer possible. We must confront segregation and sectarianism. We must face down extremism in all its forms. We must stand up for our values. Because in the end, as they have done before, those values, our British values, will win the day and we will prevail.”
May confirmed her plan to tackle non-violent extremists: “I want to see new banning orders for extremist groups that fall short of the existing laws relating to terrorism. I want to see new civil powers to target extremists who stay within the law but still spread poisonous hatred. So both policies ‚ banning orders and extremism disruption orders ‚ will be in the next Conservative manifesto,” she said.
Radical Islamist extremists and neo-Nazis could be banned from making public appearances including on television under the gagging order proposed by the Conservatives, which echoes the broadcast ban that once applied to the voice of Gerry Adams.
A Tory briefing note made clear that the banning orders, which can include denying access to the airwaves and to the net, would be targeted not just at so-called hate preachers but also those who sought to “disrupt the democratic process” and “undermine democracy”.
The widely drawn counter-extremism strategy is intended to catch so-called hate preachers such as Anjem Choudary, who was released on bail last week after being arrested on suspicion of encouraging terrorism.
May said the banning orders were part of a widening of the government’s counterterrorism strategy, saying in the past preventive measures had focused only on the “hard end of the extremism spectrum. So the Home Office will soon, for the first time, assume responsibility for a new counter-extremism strategy that goes beyond terrorism.”
The home secretary’s new orders would be aimed at those who undertake activities “for the purpose of overthrowing democracy”, a wide-ranging definition that could also catch a far wider range of political activists.
She said the measures would be overseen by the Home Office and would aim to eliminate all forms of extremism‚ including neo-Nazism and Islamist extremism. In particular, it would confront the “culture of bullying and intimidation” found in schools in Birmingham: “We must not sleepwalk into separation, segregation and sectarianism,” she said.
The “extremist asbos” are reminiscent of the 1980s broadcasting ban under which Sinn Féin spokesmen such as Adams were banned from the airwaves. Actors were used to voice the words of republicans and others with links to paramilitary groups in news reports.
In her speech, May said Muslims in the UK were free to exercise their right to freedom of conscience, thought and religion but must realise that living in the country came with a responsibility to respect British values. She said: “You don’t just get the freedom to live how you choose to live, you have to respect other people’s right to do so too and you have to respect British values and institutions – the rule of law, democracy, equality, free speech and respect for minorities. These are the values that make our country what it is. These are our values. There is no place for extremism here.”
May set out proposals to ban non-violent extremist groups that fall short of the current threshold for being banned as terrorist-related organisations.
She said that although extremists were dangerous they remained a small minority. “We know the overwhelming majority of British people want to be free – free from danger, free from fear, free from prejudice, free from discrimination, free to practise their religion, free to observe their cultures and traditions, free to dress as they like, free to be educated as they choose, free to work where they wish, free to live with whom they love, free to raise their families as they see fit, free to get on with their lives,” May said.
The strategy is based on proposals that came out of David Cameron’s extremism working party set up following the murder of Lee Rigby in May last year.
“We must not become a society where these things are no longer possible. We must confront segregation and sectarianism. We must face down extremism in all its forms. We must stand up for our values. Because in the end, as they have done before, those values – our British values, will win the day and we will prevail.”
The moves to ban extremist but non-violent groups and to introduce extremist asbos were blocked by the Liberal Democrats on freedom of speech grounds and so were not announced when Cameron proposed measures to tackle British jihadists travelling to Syria.
May announced during the home affairs debate at the Tory conference that the new powers would be included in the party’s manifesto for next year’s election.
May’s extremist disruption civil orders would contain wide-ranging restrictions on individuals who “undertake harmful activities” to spread, incite or justify hatred against people on grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
The orders would be issued by a high court judge on an application from the police on the lower legal test of “balance of probabilities” rather than the stronger test of “beyond reasonable doubt”.
The restrictions are expected to include banning individuals from speaking at public events, protests and meetings, obliging them to inform the police in advance of any public event, protest or meeting that they plan to attend, and banning individuals from particular public locations.
May also wants to include restrictions on banned individuals from broadcasting, from associating with named people, and restricting their use of social media or the internet by requiring them to submit in advance any proposed publication to the police.
Banning orders would be time-limited to ensure they were proportional, but breaching the civil orders would be regarded as a criminal offence, punishable with a jail term.
The manifesto commitment to banning extremist organisations that fall short of the current test for terrorist proscription comes after a long-term debate since Tony Blair first proposed a ban on the non-violent Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir.
The Home Office has always argued that banning such groups would do more harm than good, but May says that it is now needed. A home secretary’s decision to ban a group would be subject to an immediate review by the high court to ensure it was not “obviously flawed”. A ban would make it an offence to be a member of or to fundraise for the group.
