Anti-terror bill - Erosion of civil rights unacceptable

It was inevitable that the recent atrocities perpetrated in Madrid would result in a review of security and a general tightening up of anti-terrorist measures across Europe.

But it is disingenuous of Taoiseach Bertie Ahern to deny Madrid has led to the ultra-extreme measures proposed in the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill 2002.

Because of the slaughter in Madrid and the fear engendered by it, European leaders have been spurred to decide on a range of anti-terrorist measures which, if successfully implemented, would impose an intolerable security regime on people across Europe.

In the aftermath of September 11, the bill was drafted in line with a policy emanating from the Council of Europe. While it passed its second stage at the Dáil, it has not progressed since but is now a matter of priority.

The fallout from the Madrid carnage, compounded by the fact that US President George W Bush will attend an EU/US summit in this country in June, gives an added impetus to its passage into law as far as the Government is concerned.

But it would be a serious mistake if this bill in its present form became legislation because it contains extremely repressive measures which would grossly curtail, and indeed negate, some civil liberties.

Understandably, civil and human rights organisations have condemned the extent to which the Terrorist Offences Bill seeks, to an unwarranted degree, to infringe upon the rights of civilians.

Their reaction might well be predictable, but our own Human Rights Commission (HRC) the State's official human rights watchdog has also expressed fears over the bill. One of its main concerns is that the definition of 'terrorist offences' is impermissibly wide, to the extent it could include anti-war protesters who spray-painted or damaged US aircraft in Shannon bound for Iraq.

By no stretch of the imagination would such activities be included in the reasonable man's understanding of terrorist offences. The commission's interpretation of the definition of terrorism in the bill is so broad that it could include protesters, organisations opposed to oppressive regimes and even militant trade unionists.

Given that the closure of a facility such as Dublin Airport could be described as being against the economic interests of the State, were it to be closed by a strike in the future, would the workers be described as militant trade unionists under the putative legislation? It appears that they would.

According to the bill, a terrorist offence is, among a whole litany of other activities, such as "seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental .... economic or social structures of a state".

Justice Minister Michael McDowell is reportedly considering a number of amendments to the bill and he must take on board the serious reservations already expressed. It is also imperative that the opposition parties scrupulously dissect the dubious measures it contains.