THE Opposition Jamaica Labour Party says it is not satisfied with the proposed amendments to the Terrorism Prevention Bill, outlined last week by the government, and is to challenge several aspects when discussions resume today at Gordon House.

JLP spokesman on foreign affairs, Senator Bruce Golding, said Monday that the amendments proposed by minister of foreign affairs and foreign trade, K D Knight, at last week’s meeting of the Joint Select Committee of Parliament studying the Bill, did not go far enough.

Golding conceded, at a press briefing at the party’s Belmont Road headquarters in Kingston, that the proposed amendments were a response to concerns raised about some of the most pernicious aspects of Bill.

“But, what is there still poses a threat to the freedoms and the rights of our citizens,” he added.

He said that the Opposition has been very clear about its willingness to comply with the obligations under the U N Resolution 1373, but that the Bill went far beyond what is required.

The Opposition maintained, Golding said, that what was being done is to introduce legislation that will give the government powers which, in some cases, exceed the powers given under a state of emergency. These powers, he said, would enable the government, under the guise of fighting terrorism, to use extraordinary powers to deal with matters currently dealt with by existing legislation and around which the constitution provided a wall of protection for people’s rights.

He said that the Opposition was not prepared “to allow the government to use the phobia that now exists in relation to terrorism to tear down those walls and impose unjust punitive persecution on people simply because of this fear of terrorism”.

He added that there was still no distinction between international and domestic criminal activities, although a distinction is clearly envisaged by various U N Conventions around which Resolution 1373, which speaks to the obligation of states to implement anti-terrorism legislation, was framed.

He said he would provide the House committee with the authority on this aspect of the bill, when the committee reconvenes today.

Golding said that the committee would also have to tackle seriously the intent to establish new standards of criminal liability.

He said that there was an attempt to make it a crime, for example, to contribute to the activities of a terrorist group.

“There are too many of these wide generalised provisions, that go against the principles of our common law and pose significant threats to the freedoms of the people,” Golding said.

He said that in trying to determine guilt, the court has been empowered to take into account whether the person uses a particular name, word or symbol, as well as association with a particular terrorist group, even if the suspect has not been found to be in anyway involved in terrorism.

He said that the Bill also introduced new standards of criminal liability, including the omission to do things, which the common law does not generally regard as equivalent to a criminal offence, unless it takes place in circumstances in which specific duties were omitted.

He noted, however, the amendments proposed by Knight.

These included an amendment to Clause 3 which would have allowed authorities to treat as terrorist activity protest action by people making legitimate demands on government.

Golding said that this was a significant amendment, but that it still left open possibilities about which the opposition is concerned.

“It still poses substantial danger, as it still leaves open the interpretation of what the intention is. How does the court go about determining what was the intention? That is something that we feel we will have to approach very, very carefully,” he said.

In addition, the decision to remove the death penalty from the bill was another positive step. However, Golding said the types of activities which would require life imprisonment, the new maximum penalty, were too wide.

He, however, applauded a proposal to remove the minister’s right to declare certain entities as “listed entities” which would be placed under particular restrictions and observance. The amendment propose that all listed entities will have to be included in the United Nations’ Security Council’s list.

“Those are as far as the amendments go and, in our view, they don’t go far enough. They don’t address some of the pernicious provisions in the bill which will have to be tacked in the Select Committee on Wednesday and possibly on Thursday. These are issues we are going to raise,” Golding told reporters Monday.