Four U.N. special rapporteurs have written jointly to the U.K. government demanding explanation of its inappropriate persecution of journalists and political activists under the Terrorism Act. 

They state that those persecuted:

“appear to have no credible connection to ‘terrorist’ or ‘hostile’ activity.”

The cases taken up by the United Nations are those of Johanna Ross (Ganyukova), John Laughland, Kit Klarenberg, Craig Murray (yes, me), Richard Barnard and Richard Medhurst. 

By Craig Murray
CraigMurray.org.uk

The U.N. letter is signed by:

—Ben Saul, special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism;

—Irene Khan, special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression;

—Gina Romero, special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association;

—Ana Brian Nougrères, special rapporteur on the right to privacy.

Under this U.N. special procedure, the letter is sent to the government in question which has 60 days to respond. This letter was sent by the U.N. to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government on Dec. 4. No reply having been received, it has now been published.

It is worth noting that even with the U.N. letter on its desk and ignored, Starmer’s government in fact stepped up the use of the Terrorism Act against pro-Palestinian journalists and activists in this period. 

The cases of Asa Winstanley, Sarah Wilkinson and Tony Greenstein, among others, happened after the letter was drafted.

I should be clear that I was working with Justice for All International (for which we had a crowdfunder last year in relation to the Julian Assange case at the U.N.), heavily involved in assisting with preparation of this initiative, and made three visits to the U.N. in Geneva on the subject together with Sharof Azizov, and on one occasion Richard Medhurst. (Your subscriptions and donations to this blog are the only funding I have to make such activity possible, so thank you.)

The letter is in two parts. The first consists of an outline of the information received by the U.N. on each case and a request for a response from the British government.

Critique of Terrorism Laws

But the second part is a devastating critique of the U.K.’s terrorism laws and their inappropriate use to stifle dissent and freedom of expression. This legal analysis on lack of conformity with the U.K.’s human rights obligations is not dependent on any of the particular cases cited.

“While we do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, we express our concern regarding the potential misapplication of counter-terrorism laws against journalists and activists who were critical of the policies and practices of certain governments, which may unjustifiably interfere with the rights to freedom of expression and opinion and participation in public life, lead to self-censorship and have a serious chilling effect on the media, civil society and legitimate political and public discourse.

We are particularly concerned by the broad scope of section 12(1A) and schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and schedule 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 .…

We are concerned at the vagueness and overbreadth of the offence in section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000, which criminalizes expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation and being reckless as to whether it encouraged support for that organisation .…

The term ‘support’ is undefined in the Act and in our view is vague and overbroad and may unjustifiably criminalize legitimate expression.

… the meaning of expressing support for a proscribed organization is ambiguous and could capture speech that is neither necessary nor proportionate to criminalize, including legitimate debates about the de-proscription of an organization and disagreement with a government’s decision to proscribe ….

We note that there is no requirement that the expression of support relate to the commission of violent terrorist acts by the organization. As such, the offence may unjustifiably criminalize the expression of opinion or belief that is not rationally, proximately or causally related to actual terrorist violence or harms. 

The offence further does not require any likelihood that the support will assist the organization in any way. It goes well beyond the accepted restrictions on freedom of expression under international law concerning the prohibition of incitement to violence or hate speech ….

We note that some proscribed organizations are de facto authorities performing a diversity of civilian functions, including governance, humanitarian and medical activities, and provision of social services, public utilities and education. 

Expressing support for any of these ordinary civilian activities by the organization could constitute expressing support for it, no matter how remote such expression is from support for any violent terrorist acts by the group ….”

“[The act] goes well beyond the accepted restrictions on freedom of expression under international law… .”

“Further, the section 12(1A) offence does not require the person to intend to encourage others to support the organization .…

We are further concerned that the absence of legal certainty may have a chilling effect on the media, public debate, activism, and the activities of civil society, in a context where there is a heightened public interest in discussion of the conflict in the Middle East, including the conduct of the parties and the underlying conditions conducive to violence in the region. 

We are further concerned that a person could be prosecuted for isolated remarks or sentences that mischaracterize the overall position of the individual, or despite the individual’s intentions or continued and express disavowal of terrorist violence, given the subjectivity and contested meanings of certain expressions in relation to sensitive or controversial political conflicts .…

We encourage your Excellency’s Government to repeal section 12(1A), or otherwise to amend it to protect freedom of expression, and to develop prosecutorial guidelines for its appropriate use to avoid the unnecessary or disproportionate incrimination of political dissent .…

We are concerned that police powers at U.K. border areas and ports under schedule 7 may be unjustifiably used against journalists and activists who are critical of Western foreign policy. 

We note that the examination of each journalist named in this communication under schedule 7 was premeditated, and that the examination, confiscation of devices, and DNA prints were conducted despite the apparent absence of a credible ‘terrorist’ connection. 

We are concerned that such powers carry a risk of intimidating, deterring, and disrupting the ability of journalists to report on topics of public importance without self-censorship ….”

“… police powers at U.K. border areas and ports under schedule 7 may be unjustifiably used against journalists and activists who are critical of Western foreign policy.”

“We are concerned that the distinction between ‘examination’ and ‘detention’ under the Act is artificial given the punitive sanctions for of non-compliance, and that this distinction may be inconsistent with the accepted meaning of ‘arrest’ or ‘detention’ under article 9 of the ICCPR. 

We are further concerned that the extensive powers authorised under section 2 do not require any degree of suspicion that a person falls within the meaning of ‘terrorist’ at section 40(1)(b). The extreme breadth of such power enables unnecessary, disproportionate, arbitrary or discriminatory interference with an individual’s rights, including freedom from arbitrary detention, freedom of movement under article 12(1) of the ICCPR, and the rights to leave and enter one’s own country under article 12(2) and (4) of the ICCPR .…

We refer your Excellency’s government to article 17 of the ICCPR which requires that ‘[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with [their] privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on [their] honour and reputation’.

We note that several journalists detained under schedule 7 have had their electronic devices confiscated for a significant period of time and have not been updated on the use, retention or destruction of their data, or advised in relation to their personal data protection rights.

We urge your Excellency’s Government to consider the growing number of instances where schedule 7 may have been inappropriately directed towards journalists and activists, and to consider addressing this through amendments to the legislation, guidance for relevant officials, and training of border security officers. We further encourage your Excellency’s Government to address the judiciary’s concerns regarding the retention of electronic data.”

It is a stunning letter well worth reading in full; the legal language and diplomatic formality does not disguise the extreme concern of the U.N. at the extraordinary authoritarian attack on freedom of speech in the U.K.

[Related: WATCH: Medhurst Speaks to CN on His Arrest]

I might reveal that some of the U.N. special rapporteurs who signed were very sceptical of the issue until studying the details. One told me personally they were too busy to look at such a minor problem; their attitude changed completely when faced with papers on the cases involved.

Meanwhile, UK Support for HTS

There is no sign the U.N. has given the Starmer government pause; human rights are extremely low on their agenda. Support for Israel and the crushing of pro-Palestinian sentiment, or of any criticism of western foreign policy, is extremely high on their agenda.

The legislation concerned has been brought into disrepute by the widespread support in public from Establishment figures for HTS (Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham) in Syria, even though it remains a proscribed organisation and any expression of support is an offence under the Terrorism Act. 

To my knowledge, not one person has been charged or even questioned for supporting the HTS coup in Syria.

This occurred after the U.N. letter, but they could now mention extreme arbitrariness in police and prosecutorial application of the law in their critique. The Terrorism Act is being used to criminalise peaceful criticism of Western foreign policy. There can be no doubt about that at all.

It also remains the case that there has not been one reference in U.K. mainstream media to the persecution of dissident journalists using terrorism laws. I don’t expect the prostitute stenographers to power, to change that by covering this censure from the United Nations.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. 

His coverage is entirely dependent on reader support. Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received. Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, he has set up new methods of payment including a GoFundMe appeal and a Patreon account.

He has also started a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you directly every time he posts. You can, if you wish, subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

This article is from CraigMurray.org.uk

https://consortiumnews.com/2025/02/06/craig-murray-un-censures-uk-abuse-of-terrorism-act/

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.