New legislation after Manchester Arena assault ‘risks discrimination’
A
new counter-terrorism legislation drawn up by the Home Office within the wake of the Manchester Arena assault will put individuals of various ethnicity vulnerable to discrimination and impose disproportionate prices on companies, a watchdog has warned MPs.
Jonathan Hall KC stated that Martyn’s Law – which would require all venues catering for greater than 100 individuals to take “mitigation” measures to guard towards a attainable terror assault – may even require precautions to be taken in areas the place there may be minimal menace and be opposite to the traditional method of not permitting the British lifestyle to be modified by extremists.
Instead, he stated it was “completely the reverse” and would result in a “dramatic” and “very big change to the general posture in this country” that was “actually mandating a change in the way in which we lead our lives” that he didn’t see was required.
Ministers have ready the draft laws in response to findings that insufficient precautions and main failings after the assault contributed to the dying of twenty-two victims within the 2017 bombing of the Manchester Arena by Salman Abedi.
The deliberate new legislation is formally referred to as the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill however is known as Martyn’s Law after Martyn Hett, one of many assault victims, whose mom Figen Murray has campaigned for the change.
But Mr Hall, the federal government’s impartial reviewer of terrorism laws, advised the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, that he feared the brand new legislation would threat discrimination by imposing counter-terrorism duties on poorly or untrained individuals.
“In an area that is often quite political and sensitive, and religious and racially sensitive, this Bill is inviting all sorts of members of the public to become counter-terrorism specialists,” he stated.
“If there is an attack and it is by someone from a particular ethnicity, when you charge members of the public to become like counter-terrorism officers or to have a counter-terrorism posture, there is a risk that people are going to start saying, “Well, I’m not going to have someone with that ethnicity coming in,” or, “I’m going to do extra searches for people who look like they come from that sort of background.” Once you throw out a counterterrorism obligation to tons of of 1000’s of residents, the dangers of unintended penalties are fairly excessive.”
Mr Hall urged that there was additionally no logic to imposing duties and prices on venues no matter their location or on the premise that they catered for 100 individuals and that “in cold, hard reality, there is no evidence base for saying that this would make a difference” to stopping a terror assault.
He added: “After attacks government ministers and the police, quite rightly, go on television and say, ‘Terrorists are not going to win. This is not going to change the way in which we live our lives.’
“This Bill seems to be completely the reverse: it is actually mandating a change to the way in which we live our lives, and I am not quite sure why this change is now being mandated and is now being required. That is a very big change to the general posture in this country, which is that attacks do happen.
“Basically, the public gets on with their lives and doesn’t have to think too much about it. This seems to reverse that in a very dramatic way.”
The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee will publish its conclusions on the proposed laws tomorrow [Thursday]. Ministers will take into account its suggestions and are anticipated to press forward with the brand new legislation as soon as Parliament returns.