Assessing Damage, Urging Action 2005 for leading a political protest.313 Some countries (see Australia,314 Canada315 and Tanzania316) have attempted to limit the risks by including specific exclusionary clauses regarding advocacy and protest not directed against life or person, and this may provide some safeguard against misuse. Even disregarding the danger of abuse, witnesses at the various Hearings expressed grave doubts about the “new” offences now being created. Trained lawyers testified that the language of the statutes was often so vague as to make it difficult for them, still less for members of the public, to predict, with a reasonable degree of certainty, what kind of activities would constitute such offences. The principle of “legal certainty” is an important one, and yet it is being undermined by much of the legislation discussed before the Panel. 2.2 Freedom of expression, free speech Many witnesses at the Hearings expressed concern that new offences under counterterrorism laws are being used to restrict basic freedoms of speech and expression (as well as freedoms of association and assembly, addressed subsequently). International law sets out binding standards in the area of freedom of expression; it also recognises that there can be valid limitations placed on the right. It is clear that speech and other forms of expression can incite terrorism, and that it is legitimate to criminalise such activities. Any limitation must, however, respect international law and not limit forms of expression that are merely controversial. Article 19 of the ICCPR, for example, recognises that the right to freedom of expression may be “subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.” Moreover, Article 20 (2) of the ICCPR explicitly requires States to prohibit by law “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. Given this obligation, and in response to the current threats from terrorism, the Security Council has called on all UN Member States (Security Council Resolution 1624), to prohibit by law “incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts”.317 Regional instruments have 313 At the EJP South Asia Hearing, Husnu Al Suood, the Maldives Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, testified to several cases in which terrorism legislation was used against political activists. 314 Section 100.1 of the Criminal Code of Australia containing the definition of a “terrorist act” excludes: “(3) Action falls within this subsection if it: (a) is advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action; and (b) is not intended: (i) to cause serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or (ii) to cause a person’s death; or (iii) to endanger the life of a person, other than the person taking the action; or (iv) to create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.” 315 Paragraph 83.01(1)(b)(ii)(E) of the Criminal Code, as amended by the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act of Canada. 316 Article 4 (4)(b) of the 2002 Prevention of Terrorism Act of Tanzania. 317 UN Security Council Resolution 1624 (2005) adopted on 14 September 2005, UN Doc. S/RES/1624 (2005). 127