The UK's Schedule 7 is the most authoritarian thing I've ever seen.

[joshcryer]

Contrary to those saying otherwise, it does not require a suspicion of one being a terrorist to stop and detain someone. They can take your possessions for any reason whatsoever. If you refuse you get arrested immediately.

Found this site explaining how powerful the police consider it:

Unlike most other police powers, the power to stop, question, search and, if necessary, detain persons under Schedule 7 does not require prior authority or any suspicion that the person stopped is involved in terrorism.

I thought, this can't be right, because the UK may be the worlds largest and most expansive surveillance state known to man, but their rights must be similar to ours, so surely this is an exaggeration and the site is wrong.

Except the legislation is so weaselly worded that it says that you can be detained, questioned, and searched for the purpose of determining if you're a terrorist. And once you've been questioned it enables the officer to take your property.

One might say, "but 40(1)(b) prevents them from searching us because we're not terrorists."

This what it says:

40.—(1) In this Part “terrorist” means a person who— Terrorist:
(a) has committed an o interpretation. ffence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

Nice, right? But the legislation says this:

2 (1) An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).

In other words, they get to stop you and ask you if you're a terrorist and there's nothing you can do about it. And you don't even have to be entering the country or leaving the country, you just have to be at a port or border.

This is very similar to the US's border stops. Except those are illegal in the US. And citizens are actively fighting it.

How does the officer "determine whether one appears to be a terrorist"?

Oh, well, by going through all your stuff:

5 A person who is questioned under paragraph 2 or 3 must—
(a) give the examining officer any information in his possession which the officer requests;
(b) give the examining officer on request either a valid passport which includes a photograph or another document which establishes his identity;
(c) declare whether he has with him documents of a kind specified by the examining officer;
(d) give the examining officer on request any document which he has with him and which is of a kind specified by the officer.

Oh, and once you've been questioned, guess what? That means that you get to be searched, immediately. Your only defense is whether it'd be considered "unreasonable" that your possessions had been or would be traveling. Except most possessions would fall under that (backpack, luggage, bag, anything like that), except for personal identification, which section 5 already established you must provide immediately upon being questioned.

8(1) An examining officer who questions a person under paragraph 2 may, for the purpose of determining whether he falls within section 40(1)(b)—
(a) search the person;
(b) search anything which he has with him, or which belongs to him, and which is on a ship or aircraft;
(c) search anything which he has with him, or which belongs to him, and which the examining officer reasonably believes has been, or is about to be, on a ship or aircraft;

Detention of property is just precious, too. Simply questioning someone leads to the detention of their property, no reason need even be given:

11(1) This paragraph applies to anything which—

(a) is given to an examining officer in accordance with paragraph 5(d), (questioning, asking for documents)
(b) is searched or found on a search under paragraph 8, or (searching)
(c) is examined under paragraph 9.
(2) An examining officer may detain the thing—
(a) for the purpose of examination, for a period not exceeding seven days beginning with the day on which the detention commences,
(b) while he believes that it may be needed for use as evidence in criminal proceedings

They can take your property for the "purpose of examination." They don't have to establish that they have probable cause except that they reasonably believe the property has or will be traveling. Other than that you're fucked.

There's a site that discusses Schedule 7 oppression: http://schedule7stories.com/

Apparently it has been used to increasingly target activists as a form of intimidation and oppression. Not unlike the TSA, but with broader territory and discretion. It's TSA on steroids, enabling any officer to question you with broad discretion in a port or border. It's incredible.

[leveymg]

1. US Customs & Border Patrol (CPD) have virtually the same powers to seize and question at the port of

entry. The border is a sort of constitutional no-man's land, and they've been stopping travelers and seizing people's electronics for years. It takes far longer than 7 days before they'll return anything to you, as well.

Hate to disabuse you of one notion. Nobody in America is really fighting this, at this late stage.

Thanks for the rundown on the UK version of the decline of rights in the West. Feel any safer, now?

[joshcryer]

8. The US tends to do things administratively.

So the laws enabling CPD and such are vague and enabling of the sub-administrations. So in theory you can relax the restrictions from one administration to the next, with the right people in charge. And there's always an appeal process.

This law here is enshrined and has to be overturned for the methods to change, imho. I think you could change CPD easier because you don't need to overturn anything, just appoint the right people.

[On the Road]

2. Does England Have a Bill of Rights Equivalent to the US?

(or at least used to have one?)

I am shocked at the provisions of the law, and I don't even really care about Greenwald.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. The functional equivalent is the European Convention of Human Rights

There is a 'Bill of Rights' from 1689, but it doesn't go into that much individual protection (it mainly limits the power of the monarch).

More important is the European Convention of Human Rights, which, for instance, Liberty (the British equivalent of the ACLU) successfully used to challenge Section 44 of the 2000 Terrorism Act - the in-country equivalent of Schedule 7:

Liberty welcomes the decision of the Home Office to review broad and
intrusive powers to stop and search individuals at ports without suspicion under
Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA). Overly broad stop and search without
suspicion powers have been a blot on our legal landscape for many years and have
been shown to have significant unintended and discriminatory consequences. The
repeal of section 44 of the TA and its replacement with the more tightly circumscribed
section 47A was an extremely welcome development. The need to reform this
dangerously broad power was underlined by Liberty’s successful challenge in the
European Court of Human Rights in the case of Gillan and Quinton v United
Kingdom.1 The potential for discriminatory use of the power was held by the Court to
be “a very real consideration” leading to a finding that section 44 breached the right
to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.2 We
maintain that the powers set out in Schedule 7, whilst more limited in geographical
scope, allow for even greater intrusion than the now discredited section 44, whilst
raising all the same concerns around powers unrestrained by the need for suspicion
of criminality.

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy12/liberty-s-response-to-the-consultation-on-the-operation-of-schedule-7-dec-20.pdf

The ECHR is similar to the American Bill of Rights, but tends to allow more leeway to government to do what is 'necessary'. For instance, Article 8 reads:

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The UK government will no doubt argue that Schedule 7 is 'necessary' "in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime". But a court (since 1998, British courts can take into account the ECHR, and right of appeal to the European Court of Human Rights has always existed) can make rulings about what is 'necessary', or what may be too broad.

[Rex]

3. Ya...it should be called the Just Because Law.

Fucking insane right?

[NYC_SKP]

4. And, nearly 2/3 of Americans live in a "Constitution Free Zone", per ACLU:

Are You Living in a Constitution Free Zone?

Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

The government is assuming extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals within this zone. This is not just about the border: This " Constitution-Free Zone" includes most of the nation's largest metropolitan areas.

We urge you to call on Congress to hold hearings on and pass legislation to end these egregious violations of Americans' civil rights.

http://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-constitution-free-zone-map

[joshcryer]

5. Indeed, I mentioned US border stops in my post.

But it's being actively fought and some citizens have successfully skipped those checkpoints.

[bhikkhu]

6. It replaced a much harsher law

The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, which allowed the detention of suspects without charge for up to seven days.

And I believe its milder than the US law which allows holding a prisoner for 24 hours without charge (if I remember right?)

...in any case, the Section 7 law itself is considered a reform of stricter and more authoritarian prior law to better agree with international humanitarian standards.

Some history on that: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/uk-pre-charge-detention.php

[joshcryer]

7. Ahh, yeah, I knew that, IRA and all.

It's just that it's amazing what these governments can get away with (not excluding the US, but we've seen cases of people stripping stark naked due to a TSA search and get away with it, which to me means we've got a bit more wiggle room though it's obviously dwindling).