Representatives of civil groups maintained their opposition to the proposed Terrorism Prevention Act in Parliament last week, arguing that the law would serve to entrench terrorism as a state policy in Jamaica.

“The proposed Terrorism Prevention Act in any form cannot be entertained because it is about giving more power to the state to suppress dissent under the guise of fighting terrorism,” Lloyd D’Aguilar of the Campaign for Global Justice (Jamaica) told a Joint Select Committee hearing submissions at Gordon House.

“The people of Jamaica have too often suffered from terrorist activities on behalf of the state to give it further powers,” he said, adding that the proposed law was not about preventing terrorism but about giving the state more power to use against the people. “It clearly exempts the state from the charge of terrorism.”

Subsection 3 of the proposed law states that a terrorist offence does not include:

. an act that is committed during an armed conflict and, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with international law applicable to the conflict; or

. the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.

D’Aguilar said that the outlined position effectively meant that the state could commit the most “egregious” acts of terrorism by simply claiming that it was carrying out its official duties to protect itself as governed by international law.

He also suggested that state terrorism, “as we have experienced it in Jamaica” took the form of “impunity for extra-judicial killings”.

“For more than 20 years,” he said, “human rights groups, local and foreign, have petitioned the Government about this policy to no effect. The latest evidence that such killings are in effect a policy was the release of the (police) Force Orders on the use of force that was heralded as something new.

“The Force Orders say that senior officers will be liable for the use of illegal force by policemen, and implies that they were not previously liable,” D’Aguilar said. “Since there is no new mechanism for implementing this supposed change, we can assume that there has been no effective change to this policy.”

But D’Aguilar’s comments drew immediate fire from Attorney-General and Justice Minister A J Nicholson, who dismissed the charge that the Government was somehow guilty of sanctioning terrorism as a policy.

“The Government has not sanctioned terrorism, we have taken action against police officers who abuse their positions,” said Nicholson who argued that the actions of rogue cops could not be seen as state policy.

But D’Aguilar said that the Bill was “providing an opportunity to discuss and define terrorism” and called for laws that would hold “the prime minister, the minister of national security, and the police commissioner liable for the policy of police extra-judicial killings”.

“They should be liable also for acts of omission, that is, refusing to acknowledge such killings or doing nothing to prevent them,” he said. “We believe it is high time that civil society demand legal accountability.”

The Bill also came under fire for being cast in the image of September 11 excesses which had the result of subverting human rights and freedoms in some states.

Yvonne Sobers of Families Against State terrorism (FAST) said the United Nations requirements were exceeded in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States.

“Several states enacted laws that had the effect of targetting those who many states perceived as troublemakers: political opponents, media, human rights activists, migrants and asylum-seekers,” Sobers said. “Cardinal principles of the criminal justice system – in particular the presumption of innocence of the accused and onus of proof on the prosecution – have been subverted under counter-terrorism laws.”

According to Sobers, rights under international conventions, such as the right to privacy and to remain silent, and rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association, have been eroded.

Another perspective on the Bill was provided by human rights activist, Dr Martin Aub, who said that the legislation was unnecessary because “all acts that constitute domestic terrorism are either covered by the schedules of the Act, or are already punishable under existing law”.

“Other than strengthening such laws, there is, therefore, no need for separate domestic legislation that will violate Jamaicans’ human rights or create a culture of denunciation,” he said.

Aub also reeled off a host of international conventions that address the physical protection of nuclear materials, offences committed on board aircraft, and the suppression of the financing of terrorism and terrorist bombings, some of which had not yet been signed by Jamaica. These, he said, were examples of ways in which the country was already committed to, or had the opportunity to fight terrorism without enacting the legislation.

Debate will continue this week on the Bill, which has been rejected by civil groups as well as the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), which has vowed to fight the proposed legislation “to the bitter end”.

The proposed law, JLP leader Edward Seaga said late last year, would give the Government “much the same power as a state of emergency”.

Seaga also stated that the JLP would support any legislation or policy designed to curb crime “but we will not support the state arrogating to itself powers to terrorise the people”.

The sweeping bill is aimed at codifying Jamaica’s obligations under a raft of international treaties. It proposes harsh penalties, including death and life imprisonment, for acts deemed as terrorist.

It also obligates individuals to bring to the attention of the authorities, information they come across in the course of their jobs, which would cause them to suspect that someone had committed a terrorist offence, defined primarily as acts of violence against ships or aircraft; the setting off of explosives in public places or against government facilities; and the injuring or kidnapping of internationally-protected persons such as diplomats and heads of state, especially for political, religious or ideological objectives.

Entities such as banks and other financial institutions and friendly societies would also have to report transactions by entities believed to be engaged in or supporting terrorism, in a fashion that would widen the provisions of the current money laundering legislation.

But opponents of the bill believe that the definitions are sufficiently wide to be used by the Government to stifle dissent and undermine freedoms.