By Dushy Ranetunge

The British parliament on Wednesday approved the list of proscribed organisation listed by Home Secretary Jack Straw as per the provisions of the British Terrorism Act 2000. The inclusion of the LTTE in that list means that the British parliament has in effect endorsed the decision of the Home Secretary Jack Straw to brand the LTTE as a foreign terrorist organisation.

The debate also highlighted the minuscule level of British parliamentary support the LTTE has in Britain. During a late night session at 10.59pm,Tuesday 13th March, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw) rose and addressed the commons: "I beg to move, That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved." He stated that the Terrorism Act 2000 brings British provisions into line with the European convention on human rights and ensures that Britain is better able to deal with the serious threat that terrorism poses. He continued "At the same time, when the 2000 Act came into force, we were able to ratify the remaining two of the 12 extant United Nations conventions relating to terrorism--the convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings and the convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. Our obligations, therefore, are in respect of human rights and the liberty of the subject--even where those subjects have been involved in terrorism--which is entirely proper. They are also in respect of significant United Nations conventions obliging all signatories to take better steps against terrorism."

In reply to a question raised by Mr. Douglas Hogg MP (Sleaford and North Hykeham) the Home Secretary stated that he had gone through the documentation and submissions (provided by British Intelligence services and others) at considerable length and satisfied himself that the organisations were justified to be listed as foreign terrorist organisations.

(FTO) Jack Straw: "I will explain the basis for coming to those decisions. Under section 3 of the 2000 Act, I--or in the case of organisations concerned only in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland--have the power to proscribe any organisation that I come to believe is concerned in terrorism.

Under section 3, "an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it . . . commits or participates in acts of terrorism . . . prepares for terrorism . . . promotes or encourages terrorism, or . . . is otherwise concerned in terrorism."

"In considering which such organisations should be so proscribed, I took into account a number of factors, including those indicated to Parliament by Ministers during proceedings on the Terrorism Bill, which included: the nature and scale of the organisation's activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK; and the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism."

He explained the setting up of The Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a new independent judicial tribunal to consider appeals. During the appeals process information relating to the foreign terrorist organisation (FTO) provided by Britainās intelligence services would be withheld from the applicant organisations. However such evidence would be challenged rigorously before the SIAC (Security and Intelligence Committee) by the special advocate.

Miss Ann Widdecombe MP (Maidstone and The Weald),shadow Home Secretary speaking on behalf of the Conservative opposition stated that the Conservatives do not intend to oppose the order. "We fully support the Government's measures to deal with the destabilising menace of international terrorism. The increasing globalisation of recent years has made it much easier for international terrorist groups to move their operations from country to country. The revolution in communications technology and the internationalisation of financial markets have also made it much easier for such organisations to operate across the globe. We agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the United Kingdom should not offer sanctuary to those who use unacceptable violence to achieve their ends. We also agree that the measures are necessary and timely. We support his actions."

A handful of Labour MPās expressed concern about various organisations listed and stated their preference for the house to examine organisations individually.

The LTTE who have silenced all alternative political opinion by selective assassinations, and presented itself fraudulently as the "sole representatives of the Tamil speaking people" was only able to muster two British MPās to speak sympathetically on its behalf. Mr. Simon Hughes MP (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): "My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) referred to N17 (November 17), which of course is a terrorist organisation. It has committed terrorist acts abroad, but never here. The Mujaheddin has a good case for saying that it is taking on an undemocratic regime. It may be a terrorist organisation, but that does not necessarily require the Home Secretary to proscribe it. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam is involved in a peace process with an intermediary--the Norwegian Government--and is seeking to resolve an intractable and awful civil war in Sri Lanka.

The International Sikh Youth Federation also seeks to play its part. All those organisations have a case, just as 20 or 30 years ago the African National Congress would have had a case" "My colleagues and I are unhappy about the motion above all because we cannot possibly give fair treatment to each and every organisation when we cannot vote on separate proposals that they be regarded and proscribed as terrorist organisations.

Let me give an example. My constituency contains the headquarters of a Tamil organisation, Eelam house. I have been there to see members of the organisation, who have links with, and associate with, those who have--in their words--taken on a freedom struggle for the Tamil homeland. Many people in the world have been through that process prior to self-determination, but the order could make any Member of Parliament who talked to any such organisation guilty under the 2000 Act from the day of the order's implementation, before we had been able to argue the case. It may be wrong for those organisations to be proscribed as terrorist organisations, or it may be not wrong but unhelpful. I merely say that we should be very careful about endorsing a proposal on a take-it-or-leave it basis. It would be better for the Home Secretary to withdraw the order, and allow the House to consider each organisation on its merits. That could have been done, it should have been done, and it is a great pity that it has not been done." "We are not giving proper consideration to what is a properly weighty proposal, intended to ensure that we deal with terrorism firmly and fairly. We are certainly not dealing with it fairly tonight."

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn MP (Islington, North): "I shall be brief, because we have to be brief. This is a travesty of the way in which such an important and serious issue should be discussed. Debate is being limited to an hour and half, late at night, with a catch-all of 21 different organisations that the order proposes to ban. We have been given no opportunity to discuss those organisations in any detail, or to engage in any other form of parliamentary scrutiny of the legislation." "

The history of anti-terrorist legislation is not good. The original Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was rushed through the House, and resulted in serious miscarriages of justice. The first person to be arrested in this country under the Act was Paul Hill, a constituent of mine, who was subsequently imprisoned as one of the Guildford Four. He was finally released 17 years later, with an apology of a sort from the High Court and the Home Secretary of the day. I think that we should think very carefully about the effect of the overall ban that the Home Secretary is proposing." "I am sure that had such legislation been in operation in 1945, when the pan-African unity conference was held at Chorlton cum Hardy town hall, every one of the people there would have been arrested for being a terrorist, because they were seeking freedom from the British empire. Later, however, every one of those people became either a Prime Minister, President or Cabinet Minister of one African country or another. Later, without exception, every one of them took tea with the Queen." "The Home Secretary should also tell us--if he has a few minutes at the end of the debate perhaps he will do so--where the list came from. I am very well aware that the Indian Government, the Turkish Government, the Sri Lankan Government, the Iranian Government and undoubtedly many other Governments have been constantly pressing the British Government to close down political activity in this country by their opponents. I also believe that all those organisations--surely it is purely coincidence--are also on the State Department list in Washington. I am sure that that is just a coincidence of history and that there is no complicity whatsoever." "I also ask the Home Secretary to think through the implications of what hon. Members are saying. None of us likes bombing. None of us supports terrorism. None of us wants violence. The end game to violence and to achieving peace is a political process, giving people and their organisations the political space to argue and debate." "

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned the situation in Sri Lanka. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are on the list of organisations to be banned. It is currently observing a ceasefire, although it has been violated by the forces of the Sri Lankan state. What message are we sending to the Tamil people living in this country, perhaps because they have gained asylum here? We are saying that an organisation that many of them support is to be banned. A similar point can be made in relation to the peace process in Turkey--which we hope will end successfully--where the Kurdistan Workers party is also observing a ceasefire." "Surely it would be far more useful to work with international organisations that are attempting to achieve ceasefires and peace than to ban them from operating in this country." Leading up to the British parliamentary vote Ms Eliza Packiadevi Mann, a Sri Lankan Tamil, was the visible face of the LTTE. She was at the House of Commons Committee Room No. 8 on Monday at a discussion on "Peace in Sri Lanka and the way forward in Fiji", an event Chaired by Hon. Piara Singh Kabra, MP for Ealing Southall. She was also at the House of Commons public gallery on Wednesday during the debate.