Fourteen Years in Prison for Quoting Hamas? New Law Could Criminalise Journalists
Starmer is rushing legislation through parliament that experts say threatens free speech, public interest journalism and international humanitarian aid.
Sir Keir Starmer’s historically unpopular and soon-to-be-replaced administration is using its last gasps to push through a new national security law that experts believe will pose serious threats to free speech, public interest journalism and the provision of international humanitarian aid.
The new legislation, called the national security (state threats) bill, is intended to update existing national security legislation. It has been introduced by the current home secretary, Shabana Mahmood. Mahmood is widely seen as a hardliner in Starmer’s government, responsible for introducing tougher restrictions on the settlement rights of asylum seekers and immigrants. The bill has been rushed through the Commons and is now being pushed at pace through the Lords. The government wants to have the law on the statute books within weeks.
The bill consists of two parts.
The first gives the home secretary the power to designate foreign entities as being engaged in “state threat activity”, to be treated as “equivalent” to proscribed terrorist groups. The power to designate would rest entirely with the home secretary, unlike the proscription of terrorist organisations, which must be ratified by parliament.
The definition of “state threat activity” is extremely broad in UK law. It can refer to anything from sabotage to the nebulous “foreign interference”, covering any activity that threatens the UK’s “safety and interests”, or acts of “disinformation”. Together with existing legislation, the new bill will give the home secretary sweeping powers to designate entities that “interfere” with British politics undermining the “safety and interests” of the country.
The second part of the bill criminalises collaboration with designated “foreign power” groups. This, too, is broadly phrased. The bill criminalises people or groups who “support, assist and obtain material benefits”, including information, from designated groups. It also criminalises any person who arranges or addresses a meeting that “supports” or “furthers the activities” of the designated group. Conviction under the offences would carry a prison sentence ranging from 10 to 14 years, matching punishment for existing terror offences.
As it is currently drafted, the bill offers limited scope for an accused person to claim a “reasonable excuse” defence. The bill only requires that they “ought reasonably to have known” that their conduct would support a designated body. Ignorance of the law or of the designation of foreign groups cannot be cited as a defence.
The problems with the bill are numerous and profound.
Experts have raised the alarm that the bill will significantly affect humanitarian and aid workers around the world. Parliament’s international development committee, for example, has already warned that the bill does not account for the fact that “humanitarian organisations often operate in areas where state-linked actors exercise territorial control”, and that “engagement with all parties to a conflict may be necessary to secure access to affected populations, obtain security guarantees, maintain staff safety, and deliver life-saving assistance”.
Free speech and press freedom groups argue that the bill threatens public interest journalism – a view endorsed by two independent reviewers of terrorism legislation. David Anderson, the government’s former independent reviewer, has said that journalists would be “at risk of prosecution if they were to have contact of any kind with sources within designated bodies or their agents”. Any journalist who works with a source in a hostile foreign government, or simply approaches them for information, could face more than a decade in prison.
Jonathan Hall, the government’s current independent reviewer, has raised similar concerns. He has pushed for the law to include a “reasonable excuse” defence covering the exchange of information.
The practical implications of the bill for journalism are wide-ranging and devastating.
 | A guest post by
|