Re-reading IHRC’s 2005 report on the culture of ‘anti-terrorism’ in the UK, Abed Choudhury argues that its warnings about the criminalisation of lawful dissent and the expansion of authoritarian legal tools have now materialised, and shows how the UK’s legal and political climate has moved closer to what IHRC once considered a dystopian possibility.

In a recent article, I referenced the 2005 IHRC report British Anti-Terrorism: A Modern Day Witch-hunt. I highlighted how IHRC was warning, in 2005, that proscription powers could be cynically exploited to target those lawfully defending the right of resistance under international law. Its vague and nebulous nature, they cautioned, could lead to the suppression of legitimate protest organisations.

We are now seeing that warning come to life, not only through the proscription of Palestine Action, but in the very calls to proscribe IHRC itself (I don’t think the report’s original authors imagined they’d one day become targets of the very powers they were critiquing).

I want to highlight some points from the 2005 report’s recommendations, many of which remain disturbingly relevant, perhaps even more so, in light of recent abuses of proscription.

Notwithstanding IHRC’s stance on the abolition of all anti-terrorism laws,[1] IHRC frames its recommendations in agreement with Professor Conor Gearty, asserting that any counter-terrorism legislation must satisfy three fundamental principles to ensure both effectiveness and compliance with human rights.

IHRC agrees with Professor Conor Gearty in that whatever legislation is passed to counteract terrorism should satisfy three fundamental principles in order to be both compatible with human rights and effective in its application:

1. Equality before the law: “terrorist violence should be treated in accordance with the ordinary criminal law and that departures from that law should be permitted only in situations of overwhelming necessity.”
2. Fairness: “fair legislation should be clear, certain and internally consistent, with its effectiveness on these scores being judged … by reference to the requirements of the rule of law.”
3. Human Dignity: “no system of counter-terrorism laws should be allowed to undermine the fundamental dignity of the individual.”

The report also provides Gearty’s explanation for his principles:

“Britain is not vulnerable or more vulnerable to a terrorist attack because arrested persons are given access to their lawyers; because the prosecution is required to prove the commission of some objective crimes or because detention without trial is generally frowned upon. Where crimes are planned, attempted or committed, then the mechanisms for arrest and punishment are already firmly in place, surveillance and vigilant law enforcement are alternative to detention without trial by all the other European states (none of which have felt the need of emergency legislation) have shown.”

In my view, Recommendation 3 is arguably the most important:

The existing legislation should be repealed and terror suspects prosecuted under pre-existing criminal legislation through the normal criminal justice system. The government should define a set of offences which are characteristic of terrorism and for which it should be possible to prosecute without relying on sensitive material, but that it raise the potential penalty where links with terrorism are established.

This is a crucial point. Terrorism isn’t a separate species of crime, it is murder, criminal damage, kidnapping, etc., and should be treated as such under standard criminal frameworks. If an act is deemed terrorism, then increase sentencing tariffs accordingly. What we do not need is a sprawling regime of laws that hands the government sweeping powers to suppress civil liberties under the guise of security, often without the safeuguards and protections afforded to the accused under normal criminal procedures. The government wants us to believe we live in a liberal democracy, even as it surreptitiously adopts the legal frameworks of autocracies and dictatorships.

Recommendation 4 deals with a fundamental principle of the rule of law:

All suspects must be brought before a judge and jury and be given the opportunity to challenge the evidence against them in a court of law in accordance with due process.

Responding to charges where the evidence is withheld places the accused in an impossible situation. How do you respond if you don’t know why you are being accused of a crime? It’s like entering a boxing ring blindfolded, unable to see where the punches are coming from or where to strike back, hardly a fair system.

Recommendation 10, self-explanatory, but it’s worth restating given how relevant it remains in light of Sir Mark Rowley’s recent politicised intervention:

Policing must be based upon the principles of justice and protection and not to promote a higher political agenda. IHRC’s recommendations on policing protests may be instructive to Sir Rowley.

Recommendations 18, 21 and 42:

Muslim solicitors must not be impeded from carrying out their duties towards their clients. Their mistreatment is nothing more than an obstruction of justice.

…

Members of the government must refrain from making attacks on the judiciary; such attacks lead to a decline in public confidence in the system of justice.

…

Solicitors, barristers, NGOs and campaign movements and individuals protesting these measures, or defending those affected by these laws must not be bullied by the media to stop their activities with impunity.

Legal professionals and advocates are increasingly under attack for their work. Recommendation 18 feels too narrow now. Given today’s climate, I’d replace “Muslim solicitors” with simply “lawyers.” Attacks on legal professionals (“lefty lawyers,” as some ministers call them) are attempts to delegitimise the very people safeguarding our rights. Similarly, Recommendation 21 needs to be broadened beyond judges; attacks on lawyers are just as corrosive to the rule of law and public confidence in the justice system.

Recommendation 22, prescient, and unmistakably relevant in the case of Palestine Action:

The right of people anywhere in the world to resist invasion and occupation is both legitimate and moral and within the framework of international law…

Twenty years of political and media discourse has proven recommendation 28 is true as it ever was:

The government must refrain from using the term “extremism” in its discourse on terrorism. The term has no tangible legal meaning or definition and is thus unhelpful and emotive. [emphasis added]

It’s almost as if the authors had a crystal ball.

Even more prophetic in the IHRA era, recommendation 30:

To denounce anybody who questions the legitimacy of the State of Israel will be seen as an attempt to silence academic thought and legitimate political expression. If the government hopes to pander to Zionist pressure by condemning and excluding from this country people who are critical of Israeli apartheid, it is in fact supporting apartheid.

Recommendation 31:

The proposal to ban non-violent organisations like Hizb ut-Tahrir is unwarranted, unjust and unwise, and runs counter to all the principles which Western democracies are currently trying to promote abroad. Any disagreement with a political organisation must be expressed through debate not censorship and proscription. If it is suggested that any laws have been broken by any individuals or groups then this must be proven by due legal process. Criminalising the mere possession of certain opinions is the hallmark of dictatorships.

Hizb ut-Tahrir has now been banned. The authors warned against proscribing non-violent groups, and now, nearly two decades later, they themselves, as part of a non-violent human rights organisation, face the threat of proscription. The irony speaks for itself.

Finally, for the jaded and cynical I thought I would leave this here, a quote from Blair, from 1993 – before the Iraq War, before the bloodshed, before his transformation into the paragon of British hypocrisy:

“If we cravenly accept that any action by the government and entitled Prevention of Terrorism Act must be supported in its entirety without question, we do not strengthen the fight against terrorism, we weaken it. I hope that no Honourable Member will say that we do not have the right to challenge powers, to make sure that they are in accordance with the civil liberties of our country” – Tony Blair (10 March 1993).

In light of ongoing attempts to curtail civil liberties under the banner of counter-terrorism, the 2005 IHRC report remains essential reading. Its warnings were not only ominously accurate: they were principled and rooted in a commitment to justice. Activists, campaigners, and policymakers would do well to revisit this report, reflect on its recommendations, and use it as a framework for resisting the creeping normalisation of the government’s authoritarian legal arsenal. If the past two decades have shown us anything, it’s that ignoring these lessons comes at a profound cost—to our rights, our institutions, and the possibility of democracy.

Abed Choudhury heads IHRC Advocacy, where he focuses on challenging discrimination, political repression, and human rights abuses through strategic advocacy. With over a decade of experience, he has supported marginalised communities and made submissions to international bodies including the UN and the International Criminal Court. He is also a Director at IHRC Legal and can be found on LinkedIn @AbedChoudhury.

[1] This stance is based on the contention that sufficient criminal laws exit to prosecute crime of political violence, and that anti-terrorism laws by their nature create a second tier of criminal law without the safeguards of the first tier.

Image: Detail from the cover of the report from 2005, itself a detail of an Anti-terrorism Branch (pictured far left)