Union Council condemns Counter-Terrorism Bill
Students vote against the bill passing through government
Also at Council this week was a motion against the Counter Terrorism and Security Bill (CTSB), which is currently concluding its passage through the Houses of Parliament.
The paper, submitted by Jawaad Farooq and seconded by Nida Mahmud and Shamim Ahmed, argues that the bill “discourages the free expression and analysis of ideas.” They note that, were the bill to pass, the Union would lose the ability to control what events it does and does not allow to happen on campus – currently both the Union and College can veto speakers at an event before the room is booked. College Chairman, Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller has previously condemned the bill in the House of Lords.
Concern was raised over whether the Union is actually able to do anything over the bill, as it will shortly receive Royal Ascent. When the bill’s provisions become statutory, both College and the Union would be in breach of the law if they chose to ignore it. The paper’s supporters, however, argued that it doesn’t stop the Union from campaigning against the bill.
They continued, saying that they didn’t want to remove all measures to prevent controversial speakers from speaking at universities – highlighting the Union’s existing “rigorous” checking procedures – the feeling was that banning everyone was not ideal as universities are a forum for debate. Tom Wheeler, Union President, said sources in College felt it was a “hostile takeover of the university sector by the government”.
The bill itself is designed to impose a number of restrictions on people or organisations suspected to be affiliated with terrorism. The first part of the bill allows the Home Secretary to remove passports from people who have travelled overseas to fight for terrorist organisations, whereas the third part forces internet service providers to store data to allow the authorities to identify a person by their IP address.
The PREVENT strategy, introduced in 2003, which will become statutory as part of the bill, aims to prevent radicalisation of potential terrorists. It is comprised of three sections aiming to challenge “the ideology that supports terrorism and those who promote it”, protect “vulnerable people”, and support “sectors and institutions where there are risks of radicalisation”. It is in this third category that universities fall.
However, there have been complaints about the perceived targeting of Muslims and Muslim organisations in projects associated with PREVENT, while others have criticised installation of “covert” CCTV in Muslim communities in Birmingham.
Overall, the paper passed by a margin of 26-3 after a number of minor modifications. Despite the recent passing of a policy to publically list the voting record of Council members, Abigail de Bruin supported a move to keep the voting record as private to reduce the chance of members experiencing what she called a “personal attack” as a result of their vote.
