Dear friend

We would appreciate if you could write a letter to your MP opposing the government seeking draconian police powers such as the extension of pre-charge detention from 28 to 56 days. You can find all the arguments against these measures and resources including a draft letter on our website www.campacc.org.uk Please forward this email to your contact list.

However if you want to send a quick letter by email, you can do it in less than 5 minutes by following these steps

1. Please click this link  http://www.writetothem.com/
2. A separate window will appear. Put in your post code and you will get a link to your MP. 3. Click that it will take to a form. entering your details and space for the letter
4. Then copy this letter below and paste it in the space for the letter in the form. Edit it.
5. Send
6. Go back to your email. You will get a message to confirm that you want to send the message. Click the link.

Draft letter
Re: Counter Terrorism Bill 2007 proposals

I am writing to you as your constituent to express my concerns about the government’s proposals for the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2007.

These proposals seek to extend the injustice of current police powers, which are extensive already. These proposals are based on the Terrorism Act 2000, which has defined terrorism so broadly as criminalise many normal political activities in this country and resistance to oppressive regimes abroad. That Act created the ‘terrorist’ offences of belonging to certain organisations, sharing a platform with their members, and helping them financially, for example by selling publications.


In particular I oppose the following new powers, which would be inherently unjust:

1. Detention without charge would be extended from 28 days to 56 days or possibly even 90 days. For anyone deemed a ‘terror suspect’, the current limit of 28 days already represents a drastic extension from that before the Terrorism Act 2000. There are no credible grounds for why such a long time would be necessary. It is equivalent to 8 weeks of custodial sentence. The 28-day detention period has been used as a substitute for a proper criminal investigation, instead intimidating and stigmatising people as ‘terror suspects’. Extending pre-charge detention would be equivalent to 4 months of custodial sentence having serious impact on an individuals job prospects and family life. The majority of the people arrested under anti-terror laws are innocent and they need to be protected. Such a long detention amounts to internment in all but name, thus violating the principle of habeas corpus. It ignores the principle that citizens must be considered innocent until proven guilty. Police naturally want as much time as possible to lean on a suspect before honouring this principle. They may also lobby government to give them such powers, but in a free society, the police enforce the law, they don't make it.

2. Post-charge questioning of ‘terror suspects’
Likewise such powers can be used to intimidate detainees, as a substitute for an adequate basis for the criminal charge in the first place. There needs to appropriate judicial oversight to ensure that this is supervised rigorously to prevent intimidation and pro-longed interrogation.

3. A new criminal offence of seeking ‘information which could be useful for terrorism’.
This offence would apply regardless of whether or not the seeker intends a ‘terrorist’ use – again terrorism being defined in such a broad way as to encompass many non-violent activities and to criminalise the peace movement, some strikers, or anyone planning boycotts, pickets, blockades etc. Information ‘which could be useful for terrorism’ can mean nearly anything, e.g. having maps or researching companies, and would be used for speculative charges to harass or criminalise political activists.


4. Travel restrictions for ‘suspects’
For mere suspicion of involvement in terrorism, anyone could face travel restrictions and be deprived of their passport. Protesters could be prevented from travelling to international demonstrations. Like control orders, this would be punishment without trial.

5. Collective punishment of families of convicted terrorists
Under control orders, the imposing of curfews, electronic tagging, restrictions on the use of telephones (and mobile phones and the Internet) and restrictions on visits by relatives and friends, even of children, have turned homes into prisons for the family as a whole. The proposal to make it easier for the court to order the forfeiture of complex assets, such as a house and a flat of a convicted terrorist would punish the family. Given the recent convictions for possessing DVDs however radical under the provisions of the ‘glorification of terrorism’, this move is extremely serious.

The counter terrorism powers that exist and the new ones the government is seeking are best judged by the potential effect they have on every citizen. Government has a responsibility to protect society from terrorist attacks; however, Parliament has a responsibility to protect citizens from excessive powers wielded by the state.

For all the reasons stated above, I ask that you give an undertaking not to vote for the renewal or extension of any ‘anti-terror’ powers.

I would be grateful if you let me know your views on the new proposals and where you stand in relation to specific proposals as soon as possible as time is of the essence.

I shall be contacting your constituency office for an appointment to discuss these issues with you in person.

I look forward to hearing from you.



Yours sincerely,








Send it/