A late visitor calls - The morning star: February 2009

Wednesday 25 February 2009

Anti-terror code 'would alienate most Muslims'

Draft strategy brands thousands as extremists • Ministers ponder plan to be unveiled next month

The government is considering plans that would lead to thousands more British Muslims being branded as extremists, the Guardian has learned.

The proposals are in a counterterrorism strategy which ministers and security officials are drawing up that is due to be unveiled next month.

Some say the plans would see views held by most Muslims in Britain being classed by the government as extreme.

According to a draft of the strategy, Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:
• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.
• They promote Sharia law.
• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.
• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.
• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Contest 2 would widen the definition of extremists to those who hold views that clash with what the government defines as shared British values. Those who advocate the wider definition say hardline Islamist interpretation of the Qur'an leads to views that are the root cause of the terrorism threat Britain faces. But opponents say the strategy would brand the vast majority of British Muslims as extremists and alienate them even further.

The Guardian has also learned of a separate secret Whitehall counterterrorism report advocating widening the definition of who is considered extremist. Not all in Whitehall agree with the proposals and one official source said plans to widen the definition were "incendiary" and could alienate Muslims, whose support in the counterterrorism effort is needed. There were also fears it could aid the far right.

Contest 2 is still being finalised by officials and ministers. Those considered extreme would not be targeted by the criminal law, but would be sidelined and denied public funds. Ed Husain, of the Quilliam Foundation thinktank, said the root causes of terrorism were extremist views, even if those advocating the views did not call for violence.

Husain, once an extremist himself, said: "Violent extremism is produced by Islamist extremism and it's only right to get into the root causes."

Inayat Bunglawala, a former spokesman for the Muslim Council of Great Britain, said such plans would affect many British Muslims. Bunglawala, who now runs Engage, which tries to get Muslims to participate in politics and civic society, said: "That would alienate the majority of the British Muslim public. It would be counterproductive and class most Muslims as extremists."
In a speech in December, the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said the government's counterterrorism strategy had to include challenging nonviolent extremist groups that "skirt the fringes of the law ... to promote hate-filled ideologies".

The Contest strategy was put in place in 2003 as the UK beefed up its response to the threat of al-Qaida inspired terrorism.

But the security service's assessment shows no drop in those they consider dangerous and the UK's terror threat level remains at severe general.

The Home Office said: "We don't comment on leaked documents."

Monday 16 February 2009

Is it working

Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel
on

Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights

http://www.icj.org/IMG/EJPReport.pdf

New tactic in the battle with extremism

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_7891000/7891612.stm

Britain is once again searching for new answers to terrorism and radicalisation. We may not have had a major terrorist attack since the London bombings of July 2005 but the ideological battle against al-Qaeda is being lost at home.
Take the case of Nicky Reilly, a young man with Asperger's Syndrome who lived in Plymouth with his mother.

He was persuaded last year that he would join the ranks of the martyrs if he blew himself up in a packed family restaurant in Exeter.

Fortunately his bomb-making skills were poor, but what is worrying the security services is the intent - he had been convinced by as yet unknown hands that he was acting in the name of God.
Nicky Reilly, the gentle giant as he was known, had never stepped abroad but had been infected by al-Qaeda's ideology in Britain.

Existing policy
Recent demonstrations in London against Israeli attacks in Gaza are causing concern.
They have exposed the raw wounds of grievances felt by many Muslims about Britain's stance on Muslim affairs abroad.

Legitimate political dissent was exploited by a minority of violent extremists to bolster their hatred of Britain.

"Let's have a... war", one of them shouted as missiles were thrown at the police. From this pool, new terrorists may come.

So what action should the government take? They could continue with the existing policy called Preventing Violent Extremism.

This, as the title suggests, has been focused on those promoting violence.
Investigate them, place them under surveillance, prosecute or deport them, cut out the cancer of extremism and the threat will subside.

Well it has not proved as simple as that. Judging by the number of terrorist plots under investigation by MI5 - more than 200 - there is no shortage of young Muslims who are learning to view Britain with hatred.

When the policy was set in 2006 the government was scared of alienating people so it set the bar of what was "unacceptable" very high.

In other words, only those at the far end of the extremist spectrum were to be challenged.

'Lesser of two evils'
The flipside to this meant that those who denounced violence but who promoted intolerance and held offensive, anti-British views were tolerated.

More than this, some radicals were even courted as part of our counter-terrorism strategy. The idea was that so long as they denounced terror, other views would be ignored.

This was seen as the lesser of two evils - backing certain radicals even if they preached intolerance of homosexuals or women's rights was seen as a way of protecting Britain.

But this has been a dangerous path and shows little sign of working.

The radicals took much succour from engagement with the state. Advising the government or the police is an impressive calling card. They can claim their deeply conservative views about life in Britain are being endorsed.

This has helped make these views seem legitimate in the eyes of ordinary Muslim citizens and has added to the climate of Islamic conservatism in Britain today.

Take a walk in any city with a large Muslim population and you will see that second and third generation Muslims are far more conservative than their parents.

Ayesha, a young woman I interviewed for my Panorama film Muslim First, British Second, is an example.

She is a medical school graduate who defends those who preach intolerance of homosexuals.
In terms of her faith, she is also more conservative than her liberal parents, covering herself with the niqab against their wishes.

Forced to change
Those driving counter-terrorism policy believe the old policy has failed. As Panorama will reveal, the government is planning a new approach.

There will be much more emphasis on shared British values and those who preach intolerance will be shunned even if their views do not break the law.

And so the Preventing Violent Extremism policy will effectively change to Preventing Extremism.

This shift will be uncomfortable for the police - they do not police ideas or ideology unless they contravene the law.

But it is right that they should be careful about who they back and who they fund.
Likewise the government will be more open about criticising Islamic radicals who preach against shared democratic values but stay on the right side of the law.

The argument comes down to the use of public money. It certainly makes sense to sit down and talk with radicals, so long as they do not promote violence and are willing to act within the law.
For pragmatic reasons the police and counter-terrorism officers need lines of communication into radical communities.

Britain also has a long tradition of tolerating political dissent. But moderate Muslims argue using taxpayers' funds to support or endorse isolationist views makes little sense and the government is right to move against this now.

But this is a complex situation; the arguments are not black and white.

While cracking down on divisive preachers may make Britain more resilient to terrorism by creating a stronger sense of community cohesion, this is a 10 or 20-year plan.

Grand sociological aspirations may be desirable but in the shorter term the police and MI5 must worry about the next attack.

Given there is little evidence that the appetite for extremism is fading, the government has little choice but to try a new approach.

Anti-terror tactics 'weaken law'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/7892387.stm

The independent International Commission of Jurists carried out a three-year global study.
It concluded that many measures introduced to fight terrorism were illegal and counter-productive.

It called for justice systems to be strengthened and warned that temporary measures should not become permanent.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is a non-governmental organisation which promotes the observance of the rule of law and the legal protection of human rights.
After a painstaking study carried out over three years in several countries, the panel of eminent lawyers and judges concluded that the framework of international law that existed before the 9/11 attacks on the US was robust and effective.

Lack of safeguards
But now, it said, it was being actively undermined by many states and liberal democracies like the US and the UK.

The report remarks upon the extent to which undemocratic regimes with poor human rights records have referred to counter-terror practices of countries like the US to justify their own abusive policies.

The report will make uncomfortable reading for many in governments on both sides of the Atlantic, says BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner.

The panel said the legal systems put in place after World War II were "well-equipped to handle current terror threats".

It said countries should use civilian legal systems to try suspects and "not resort to ad-hoc tribunals or military courts to try terror suspects".

The report's authors expressed concern at the lack of adequate safeguards in the use of control orders, the weakness of diplomatic assurances in relation to deportations and "excessive detention without charge".

Public protection
Britain's pre-trial detention time limit of 28 days is one of the longest in the world.
The British Home Office said the UK faced a severe threat from terrorism.

"We recognise clearly our obligations to protect the public from terrorist atrocities whilst upholding our firm commitment to human rights and civil liberties," it said in a statement.

"Our policies strike that balance, with new legislation facing rigorous scrutiny through external consultation and in Parliament as well as being subject to the Human Rights Act, which the UK government enacted."

The ICJ report recommended an urgent review of counter-terrorism laws and policies to prevent serious and permanent damage to fundamental human rights principles.

Fear of terrorism
The panel reviewed counter-terrorism measures in over 40 countries, and heard from government officials, victims of terror attacks, and from people detained on suspicion of terrorism.

It found that many states have used the fear of terrorism to introduce measures which are illegal such as torture, detention without trial, and enforced disappearance.

Some of the world's top international law experts served on the ICJ panel, including Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and former United Nations human rights commissioner, and Arthur Chaskelson, former president of the constitutional court of south Africa.

Mr Chaskelson, chairman of the panel, said: "In the course of this inquiry, we have been shocked by the extent of the damage done over the past seven years by excessive or abusive counter-terrorism measures in a wide range of countries around the world.

"Many governments, ignoring the lessons of history, have allowed themselves to be rushed into hasty responses to terrorism that have undermined cherished values and violated human rights.

"The result is a serious threat to the integrity of the international human rights legal framework."

The report also called on the US administration of President Barack Obama to repeal any policies that were instigated under the "'war on terror' paradigm" that were inconsistent with international human rights law.

"In particular, it should renounce the use of torture and other proscribed interrogation techniques, extraordinary renditions, and secret and prolonged detention without charge or trial," the report recommended.

It added that the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay should be closed in a "human rights compliant manner", with inmates either released or charged.

President Obama ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay within hours of becoming president last month, as well as ordering a review of military trials for terror suspects and a ban on harsh interrogation methods.

Terrorist or Freedom Fighter

The Changing Faces of Terrorism

By Professor Adam Roberts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/sept_11/changing_faces_01.shtml

The oft-repeated statement 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' reflects genuine doubts about what constitutes 'terrorism'. Sir Adam Roberts surveys the ever-changing definition of terrorist activity, including mass murder of civilians exemplified by the events of September 11.

Origins
The attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11 confirmed that terrorism had acquired a new face. Terrorists were now engaged in a campaign of suicide and mass murder on a huge scale. Previously it had been possible to believe that there were limits beyond which even terrorists would not go. After the thousands of deaths on September 11, it was evident that at least one group would stop at nothing.

Terrorism was not always like this. Its history is as much European as Middle Eastern, and as much secular as religious. Far from being wilfully indiscriminate, it was often pointedly discriminate. Yet there are some common threads that can be traced through the history of terrorism. What happened on September 11 was a sinister new twist in an old story of fascination with political violence.

The word 'terrorism' entered into European languages in the wake of the French revolution of 1789. In the early revolutionary years, it was largely by violence that governments in Paris tried to impose their radical new order on a reluctant citizenry. As a result, the first meaning of the word 'terrorism', as recorded by the Académie Française in 1798, was 'system or rule of terror'. This serves as a healthy reminder that terror is often at its bloodiest when used by dictatorial governments against their own citizens.

Photographers angry at terror law

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892273.stm

Hundreds of photographers have staged a protest outside Scotland Yard against a new law which they say could stop them taking pictures of the police.

The law makes it an offence to gather information on security personnel if that data could be used for a purpose linked to terrorism.

The National Union of Journalists said the law could be used to harass photographers working legitimately.

The Home Office said it was designed to protect counter-terrorism officers.

The NUJ wants the government to issue guidance to police forces on how exactly the law should be used by individual officers on the ground.

'Treated as terrorists'

The photographers, both professional and amateur, held a mass photo-call outside the Met Police headquarters at Scotland Yard on Monday.

They are angry at the introduction of Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act and argue it can be used by police to stop and search them in any situation.

It makes it an offence to "elicit, publish or communicate information" relating to members of the Armed Forces, intelligence services and police, which is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

Vice President of the NUJ Pete Murray said it was absurd to treat photographers as terrorists simply for doing their job.

"If the police officer isn't doing anything wrong then what are they worried about?" he told the BBC.

"I mean, we as citizens constantly get told that these extra security laws, terrorism laws, all of this surveillance stuff, is not a threat to us if we're not doing anything wrong.

"So why on earth it becomes a threat to a police officer to have a photographer, a working journalist, a photographer taking a picture of them is quite beyond me."

He said that even if an officer were in the background of a shot - for example, at a football match or street parade - "the photographer may end up on the wrong side of the law".

Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, backed a call by Grimsby MP Austin Mitchell to introduce a formal code to clarify the position of both the police and photographers.

"Its aim should be to facilitate photography wherever possible, rather than seek reasons to bar it," he said.

"Police and photographers share the streets and the Met Federation earnestly wants to see them doing so harmoniously.

"As things stand, there is a real risk of photographers being hampered in carrying out their legitimate work and of police officers facing opprobrium for carrying out what they genuinely, if mistakenly, believe are duties imposed on them by the law."

'Reasonable suspicion'

In a statement, the Home Office said taking pictures of police officers would only be deemed an offence in "very exceptional circumstances".

"The new offence is intended to help protect those in the front line of our counter terrorism operations from terrorist attack," it said.

"For the offence to be committed, the information would have to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to provide practical assistance to terrorists."

The Home Office added that anyone accused under the act could defend themselves by proving they had "a reasonable excuse" for taking the picture.

Anyone convicted under Section 76 could face a fine or a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment.

Thursday 12 February 2009

Poem - My worry / Your worry

Author not known

Look into my eyes
And tell me what you see.
You don't see a damn thing,
'cause you can't possibly relate to me.

You're blinded by our differences.
My life makes no sense to you.
I'm the persecuted Palestinian.
You're the American red, white and blue

Each day you wake in tranquility,
No fears to cross your eyes.
Each day I wake in gratitude,
Thanking God He let me rise.

You worry about your education
And the bills you have to pay.
I worry about my vulnerable life
And if I'll survive another day.

Your biggest fear is getting ticketed
As you cruise your Cadillac.
My fear is that the tank that just left
Will turn around and come back.

American, do you realize,
That the taxes that you pay
Feed the forces that traumatize
My every living day?

The bulldozers and the tanks,
The gases and the guns,
The bombs that fall outside my door,
All due to American funds.

Yet do you know the truth
Of where your money goes?
Do you let your media deceive your mind?
Is this a truth that no one knows?

You blame me for defending myself
Against the ways of Zionists.
I'm terrorized in my own land
And I'm the terrorist?

You think you know all about terrorism
But you don't know it the way I do,
So let me define the term for you,
And teach you what you thought you knew.

I've known terrorism for quite some time,
Fifty-five years and more.
It's the fruitless garden uprooted in my yard.
It's the bulldozer in front of my door.

Terrorism breathes the air I breathe.
It's the checkpoint on my way to school.
It's the curfew that jails me in my own home,
And the penalties of breaking that curfew rule.

Terrorism is the robbery of my land,
And the torture of my mother,
The imprisonment of my innocent father,
The bullet in my baby brother.

So American, don't tell me you know about
< /SPAN>The things I feel and see.
I'm terrorized in my own land
And the blame is put on me.

But I will not rest, I shall never settle
For the injustice my people endure.
Palestine is our land and there we'll remain
Until the day our homeland is secure.

And if that time shall never come,
Then we will never see a day of peace.
I will not be thrown from my own home,
Nor will my fight for justice cease.

And if I am killed, it will be in Falasteen.
It's written on my every breath.
So in your own patriotic words,
Give me liberty or give me death.