As the British state harasses and arrests a growing number of activists and dissident journalists, including the author of this piece, UN rapporteurs delivered a forceful letter of protest to London condemning its abuse of counter-terror legislation.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In December 2024, a quartet of UN rapporteurs focused on \u201cpeaceful assembly and of association\u201d and the \u201cright to privacy\u201d delivered a strongly-worded letter to the British government. Expressing grave concerns about the potential \u201cmisapplication of counter-terrorism laws\u201d to arrest, detain, interrogate and surveil dissident activists and journalists, including The Grayzone\u2019s\u00a0Kit Klarenberg<\/a>, they demanded clarity on a number of serious issues. Given 60 days to respond, London remained suspiciously silent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a result, the UN\u2019s correspondence with the British government has now been\u00a0made public<\/a>. The rapporteurs were clearly disturbed by reports of Schedule 7 of the 2000 Terrorism Act, and Schedule 3 of the 2019 Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, which covers \u201chostile\u201d state threats, \u201cbeing used to examine and obtain data from journalists and activists Johanna Ross, John Laughland, Kit Klarenberg, Craig Murray and Richard Medhurst in circumstances where they appear to have no credible connection to \u2018terrorist\u2019 or \u2018hostile\u2019 activity.\u201d<\/p> While awaiting a reply that never came, the UN \u201curged\u201d British authorities to undertake \u201cinterim measures\u201d to prevent any recurrence of potential human rights breaches under counter-terror legislation, and \u201censure the accountability\u201d of anyone responsible for \u201calleged violations.\u201d Evidently undeterred by pressure from the UN, Britain has continued to escalate its war on dissidents.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since the UN issued its letter of protest, British activists and journalists have since been arrested, raided, and prosecuted, including\u00a0Asa Winstanley<\/a>,\u00a0Tony Greenstein<\/a>,\u00a0Sarah Wilkinson<\/a>,\u00a0Palestine Action<\/a>\u00a0cofounder\u00a0Richard Barnard,<\/a>\u00a0and academic\u00a0David Miller<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN letter focused on how \u201cpowers under counter-terrorism legislation have been used on multiple occasions to examine, detain, and arrest journalists and activists, particularly at the UK border.\u201d Individuals \u201cwho are critical of Western foreign policy in the context of the conflict in the Middle East and the Russia-Ukraine war are especially affected by the reported misuse of these powers,\u201d the rapporteurs wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ominously, the UN rapporteurs suggested this could amount to \u201cover-use [or] misuse\u201d of British counter-terrorism legislation \u201cto target legitimate freedom of expression and opinion, including public interest media reporting, and related freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and political dissent or activism.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN rapporteurs were especially scathing in their critique of the powers used to harass and potentially incarcerate targets. They charged that\u00a0Schedule 7<\/a>\u00a0of the 2000 Terrorism Act \u201cmay be unjustifiably used against journalists and activists who are critical of Western foreign policy.\u201d In each case they investigated, detentions under this legislation were \u201cpremeditated [and] examination, confiscation of devices, and DNA prints were conducted despite the apparent absence of a credible \u2018terrorist\u2019 connection\u201d with the individual in question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Such promiscuous application of ostensible counter-terrorism laws creates the unavoidable \u201crisk of intimidating, deterring, and disrupting the ability of journalists to report on topics of public importance without self-censorship\u201d in Britain. This \u201cserious chilling effect,\u201d the rapporteurs cautioned, could extend well beyond media, and \u201cunjustifiably interfere with the rights to freedom of expression and opinion and participation in public life\u201d across \u201ccivil society and legitimate political and public discourse.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN took repeated aim \u201cat the vagueness and overbreadth\u201d of the 2000 Terrorism Act\u2019s criminalisation of \u201cexpressing an opinion or belief\u2026supportive of a proscribed organisation.\u201d The legislation\u2019s terms provide no definition whatsoever of the term \u201csupport\u201d, an \u201cambiguous\u201d deficiency that \u201cmay unjustifiably criminalize\u201d legitimate opinions \u201cnot rationally, proximately or causally related to actual terrorist violence or harms.\u201d They noted this prohibition \u201cgoes well beyond the accepted restrictions on freedom of expression under international law concerning the prohibition of incitement to violence or hate speech.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Indeed, \u201cspeech that is neither necessary nor proportionate to criminalize, including legitimate debates about the de-proscription of an organization and disagreement with a government\u2019s decision to proscribe\u201d could be categorized as \u201csupporting\u201d a terrorist group under the 2000 Terrorism Act\u2019s sweeping terms. This is especially problematic given certain factions\u00a0proscribed<\/a>\u00a0by Britain, such as Hamas or Hezbollah, may be \u201cde facto authorities performing a diversity of civilian functions, including governance, humanitarian and medical activities, and provision of social services, public utilities and education\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cExpressing support for any of these ordinary civilian activities by the organization could constitute expressing support for it, no matter how remote such expression is from support for any violent terrorist acts by the group.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar alarm was sounded about the wording of\u00a0Schedule 3<\/a>\u00a0of the 2019 Counter-Terrorism and Border Act, under which The Grayzone\u2019s Kit Klarenberg was detained upon returning to his home city of London in May 2023. It stipulates that\u00a0anyone entering<\/a>\u00a0British territory suspected of \u201chostile activity\u201d on behalf of a foreign power can be held against their will and interrogated for up to six hours, while the contents of their digital devices are seized and stored. Non-compliance automatically results in arrest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n See the notice of detention issued by British state security to journalist Kit Klarenberg under Schedule 3 of the UK\u2019s Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act of 2019\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ever more disturbingly, Schedule 3 is suspicionless. Under\u00a0the\u00a0legislation\u2019s terms<\/a>, \u201cit is immaterial whether a person is aware that activity in which they are or have been engaged is hostile activity, or whether a state for or on behalf of which, or in the interests of which, a hostile act is carried out has instigated, sanctioned, or is otherwise aware of, the carrying out of the act.\u201d In other words, no conspirator in a suspected conspiracy has to have consented to potentially illegal activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHostile acts\u201d are defined as any behavior deemed threatening to London\u2019s \u201cnational security\u201d or \u201ceconomic well-being.\u201d Again, the rapporteurs condemned this language as \u201cvague and over-broad.\u201d They concluded the phrasing granted British authorities \u201cextraordinary discretion\u201d to engage in \u201cunnecessary, disproportionate or otherwise arbitrary interferences in the rights to liberty and privacy\u201d of individuals detained under these powers. Moreover, as the Act\u2019s targets are not formally under formal criminal investigation or arrest, or suspected of having committed any offense, they have no right to remain silent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN branded this distinction as \u201cartificial\u2026 given the punitive sanctions for non-compliance,\u201d branding it as \u201cinconsistent with the accepted meaning of \u2018arrest\u2019 or \u2018detention\u2019\u201d under\u00a0Article 9<\/a>\u00a0of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The \u201cextreme breadth\u201d of Schedule 3 also \u201cenables unnecessary, disproportionate, arbitrary or discriminatory interference with an individual\u2019s rights, including freedom from arbitrary detention, freedom of movement\u2026and the rights to leave and enter one\u2019s own country.\u201d\u00a0Article 17<\/a>\u00a0of the ICCPR also states:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with [their] privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on [their] honour and reputation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is explicitly contrary to Klarenberg\u2019s May 2023 experience at Luton airport. There, as the rapporteurs documented, he was \u201cfingerprinted, subjected to oral DNA swabs, and photographed by the examining officer,\u201d while asked excessively invasive questions about his financial affairs, personal and professional relationships, and living situation in his adopted home country of Serbia. His belongings were extensively \u201csearched and he was compelled to provide the passwords to his digital devices, which included a smartphone, tablet, and two cameras.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not only was all data on these devices copied, but \u201cthe memory cards and SIM cards of the electronic devices were copied outside the interrogation room\u201d and \u201cretained by the police.\u201d As of the letter\u2019s dispatch, one of Klarenberg\u2019s memory cards had \u201cbeen retained for a period exceeding a year and five months\u201d by British authorities, suggesting he \u201cremains under criminal investigation\u201d for uncertain offenses he did not knowingly or willingly commit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The rapporteurs noted Klarenberg was among several journalists detained by British border officials whose \u201celectronic devices [were] confiscated for a significant period of time and have not been updated on the use, retention or destruction of their data, or advised in relation to their personal data protection rights.\u201d In\u00a0many cases<\/a>, these seized items have never been returned, without satisfactory explanation or seeming legal justification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In closing, the UN rapporteurs \u201cencouraged\u201d London to repeal legislation under which dissidents have been persecuted, or \u201camend it to protect freedom of expression, and\u2026develop prosecutorial guidelines for its appropriate use to avoid the unnecessary or disproportionate incrimination of political dissent.\u201d They further implored London to \u201cindicate how the application of counter-terrorism laws\u201d against activists and journalists \u201cis consistent with international human rights law, and an appropriate application of the law,\u201d while providing \u201can update on the retention of data taken from the journalists.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n They went on to \u201curge\u201d the British government to \u201cconsider the growing number of instances\u201d where laws purportedly intended to deal with violent terrorist threats \u201cmay have been inappropriately directed towards journalists and activists, and to consider addressing this through amendments to the legislation, guidance for relevant officials, and training of border security officers.\u201d Britain\u2019s failure to respond to the UN\u2019s letter, and ever-ratcheting attacks on domestic dissent subsequently, amply indicate these entreaties have fallen on determinedly deaf ears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In\u00a0December 2023<\/a>, Britain rammed through a new round of draconian legislation reinforcing and further codifying the \u201cvague and over-broad\u201d terms of the laws condemned by the UN, under the auspices of the National Security Act. Its terms introduce a number of completely new criminal offenses with severe penalties, and wide-ranging consequences for freedom of speech. Explicitly enacted to neutralize investigative journalism and prevent the emergence of a new WikiLeaks, the Act is so expansive, individuals will almost inevitably break the law without wanting to, intending to, or even knowing they have.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At almost exactly the same time when UN rapporteurs complained to the British government about its abuse of \u201ccounter-terror\u201d legislation to persecute dissidents, independent journalist Johnny Miller was\u00a0granted asylum<\/a>\u00a0in Russia. Miller, a British citizen, had reported from the front lines of the Ukraine proxy war for two-and-a-half years. During this period, supporters of the government of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky subjected him a campaign of intensive harassment, hacking his digital devices and Telegram account, bombarding him and his family with anonymous death threats, and publicly stalking him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Miller told The Grayzone he\u2019s not sure who or what was ultimately behind the campaign of harassment, but strongly suspects British and\/or Ukrainian intelligence played a role. He says it was evident from the start of 2024 his movements in Moscow were being closely tracked while he travelled around the city, and seemingly in advance. At repeated meetings with friends and sources in bars, cafes and restaurants in the Russian capital, individuals would be waiting there for him, staring at him menacingly:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt might sound crazy, but I think that\u2019s the point. The purpose was to drive me insane, and make me look insane if I ever spoke up about this publicly. But these intimidating encounters from afar happened too many times to be a coincidence, and were witnessed by those I met with. One of them was George Dusoe, a US diplomat who quit out of protest over Gaza, after growing disillusionment with US government policy, and then moved to Russia.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Miller met with Dusoe for a coffee a day before a\u00a0formal interview.<\/a>\u00a0Afterwards, as they headed for the central Moscow metro, Dusoe quietly informed him they were being followed by multiple people. \u201cHe\u2019d not only experienced that personally while posted abroad, but was specially trained in how to spot and evade it,\u201d Miller noted. While the pair eventually eluded their stalkers, losing them in the metro, the experience shook Miller.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To this day, he can\u2019t help but wonder, \u201cwhat if I was alone, and this happened at night?,\u201d citing the example of Adrian Bocquet. A French military veteran, he travelled to Ukraine in April 2022, witnessed Kiev\u2019s forces commit countless grave war crimes,\u00a0publicly testified<\/a>\u00a0to these atrocities while disputing\u00a0Western claims<\/a>\u00a0of Russian atrocities in Bucha after returning home, then was stabbed in Turkey by Ukrainian nationalists. Miller is understandably relieved to finally be granted a degree of legal protection, personally and professionally:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cTheir aim was to make me so scared for my life I stopped my work, and they almost succeeded. The psychological impact was massive, it was a form of warfare, and it stressed me like nothing I\u2019ve ever experienced before,\u201d he commented. \u201cIt\u2019s a sick irony that one of the main reasons I sought asylum in Russia is [in order] to apply for a new passport, I would\u2019ve had to give the British embassy in Moscow my address. No way!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n While detained in Luton airport in May 2023, The Grayzone\u2019s Kit Klarenberg was not only forced under threat of arrest and prosecution to provide British counter-terror police his apartment address in Belgrade, but its location within the building, how much he paid for rent, and whether energy bills were included in that price. To what malign ends this information was put isn\u2019t clear. From Miller\u2019s point of view, British intelligence is determined to harass dissidents wherever they are, inside the country or thousands of miles away.<\/p>\n\n \n <\/div>\r\n As the British state harasses and arrests a growing number of activists and dissident journalists, including the author of this piece, UN rapporteurs delivered a forceful letter of protest to London condemning its abuse of counter-terror legislation. In December 2024, a quartet of UN rapporteurs focused on \u201cpeaceful assembly and of association\u201d and the \u201cright […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":132337,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12022],"tags":[16834,6857,35192,12685,8152],"dealstore":[],"offerexpiration":[],"class_list":["post-132336","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-activist","tag-abuse","tag-answers","tag-demands","tag-law","tag-terror"],"yoast_head":"\n![](\"https:\/\/www.activistpost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Offgrid-Survival-Toolkit-2.jpg\"\/)
<\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n\u201cVague and broad\u201d laws mean mass-persecution<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Working for \u201chostile\u201d governments without knowing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
New British laws further criminalize dissent<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
British journalist Johnny Miller seeks asylum in Russia following campaign of harassment<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"