UK Taxes fund terrorism?

[littleFred]

UK governments habitually pass anti-terrorism law in haste. It is currently rushing through measures to keep UK terrorist suspects out of (or inside) the UK. And revoke their passports and any other travel documents, of course. This isn't about convicted terrorists, merely suspects. And the definition of terrorism, given in Terrorism Act 2000 section 1, is rather wide. Freeloading peace-lovers often argue that the UK government is a terrorist organisation, and that other sections of the TA 2000 prohibit funding of terrorists, therefore we mustn't pay taxes.

It may seem unlikely that a government would create a law that forbids us from paying taxes, though stranger things have happened. Less surprisingly, SovCits claim this is one statute that they are obliged to follow.

The weakest point of the SovCit argument seemed to be: would a court agree that the government, under its own law, conducted terrorism? In a video, Chris Coverdale says it would. More, he claims that the highest UK court has already said this.

Last year [2013], the Supreme Court ruled that the military activities of the British Government are terrorism.

... This statement can now be used in court to prove that everyone in the UK who demands, collects or pays tax which is or may be used for military purposes is committing a crime under sections 15 to 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000... Paying tax is a criminal offence. ... All of us are committing a crime if we do not report these people for the crime of funding terrorism.

Coverdale is a "peace activist and top lawyer specialising in war" (although the spoil-sport Guardian calls him "a self-styled "war lawyer" who is neither a solicitor, barrister nor legal executive").

Coverdale accurately reads aloud a paragraph from a Supreme Court judgement, R v Gul (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 64.

28. As a matter of ordinary language, the definition [of terrorism] would seem to cover any violence or damage to property if it is carried out with a view to influencing a government or IGO in order to advance a very wide range of causes. Thus, it would appear to extend to military or quasi-military activity aimed at bringing down a foreign government, even where that activity is approved (officially or unofficially) by the UK government.

(My emphasis.)

Coverdale does not, of course, read the next paragraph:

29. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to express any concluded view whether the definition of “terrorism” goes that far, although it is not entirely easy to see why, at least in the absence of international law considerations, it does not. For present purposes it is enough to proceed on the basis that, subject to these considerations, the definition of terrorism in section 1 in the 2000 Act is, at least if read in its natural sense, very far reaching indeed. Thus, on occasions, activities which might command a measure of public understanding, if not support, may fall within it: for example, activities by the victims of oppression abroad, which might command a measure of public understanding, and even support in this country, may well fall within it.

So, Paragraph 28 is obiter dictum; the appeal didn't hinge on that point. Reading between the lines, Lord Neuberger thinks the definition of terrorism is too wide, and might extend to UK military activity aimed at bringing down a foreign government. (Should such a thing ever occur; I've never heard the UK government ever say that a military activity is ever aimed at toppling a foreign government. Should that happen, it always seems to be a happy side-effect.) A future court might say that some UK military activities could be considered as terrorism. The judgement doesn't rule it out.

But it didn't say what Coverdale claims, "that the Supreme Court ruled that the military activities of the British Government are terrorism."

Coverdale continues his argument, that funding terrorists is illegal, so:

We need to start refusing to pay tax, because it is a criminal offence. Refuse to pay Council Tax. Refuse to pay Income Tax, Corporation Tax and all the other taxes.

Further, we should report tax-payers to the police.

... but more importantly, report those people who do pay taxes. The company directors of the big banks, ... Further to s19 of TA 2000 I want to report a criminal offence.

But this is nonsense because the Supreme Court ruling is not what he claims.

Coverdale is an impressive speaker with clarity, authority and brevity, qualities often lacking in SovCit types. Is he deliberately lying? I guess he read what he wanted to read, and then played to his audience. At first glance, the judgement corresponded to his prejudice (that Tony Blair is a war criminal, etc). A happy side-effect, for the freeloaders, is that we are forbidden from paying taxes.

[Hercule Parrot]

In a video, Chris Coverdale says .....

I severely dislike these youtube videos, and I rarely watch them. I read at 200wpm, and they drone away at half that rate. Hammy rhetoric, mumbling accents and rubbish graphics effects are distracting, and I often have to rewind to relisten to some part instead of flicking my eyes up the text. Unfortunately they seem very popular amongst the GOOFies and FMOTL's.

[littleFred]

I agree about the unwatchability of most SovCit videos. My theory is that SovCits have poor abilities at both reading and writing. These days, it is easier to make a video that looks good, than to construct a good written argument.

This particular video is simply a record of a brief talk. Coverdale is a coherent speaker. But his claim about the Supreme Court judgement is either mistaken or a simple lie, though I expect it will bolster future UK tax-deniers. "It's on YouTube so it must be true!"