Home Secretary, Theresa May’s new anti-terror measures are an assault to “British values”, writes Abdullah Noorrudeeen.
And so the assault on the gloriously arbitrary “British values” of human rights, democracy and rule of law continues with the unveiling of the new Counter Terrorism Bill by the right wing extremist, Theresa May. As a concerned Muslim, I felt it was necessary to write on this for the simple fact that the Muslim perspective has been ignored through much of the debate around this thus far.
Much of the mainstream media have not uttered a single word on the disproportionate and shotgun style of targeting under the PREVENT strategy. Even the dismal “Guardian View” ignored the discriminatory treatment resulting from the sledgehammer being wielded by the neocons through the flawed PREVENT strategy.
Before looking at the proposals it is worth recognising that those who are pushing these policies are driven by a “persuasion”, which believes in using “noble lies” to steer the “vulgar masses” towards a policy which serves the interests of the neocons. If this means bludgeoning “principles” of rule of law and human rights through their “prudence” unashamedly in name of these very “principles”, then so be it.
Building on a Successful Strategy?
The proposals make the draconian, Nazi-esque PREVENT strategy a statutory duty to “prevent people from being drawn into terrorism” with this duty being imposed on schools, colleges, prisons and local councils to help with this totalitarian surveillance programme. In the words of Arendt, totalitarian societies like Nazi Germany employed: “A system of ubiquitous spying, where everybody may be a police agent and each individual feels himself under constant surveillance.”
I have elucidated on the problems the PREVENT strategy has been causing. The breadth of definition of “extremism” and the ambiguity in its application will mean a continued increase of miscarriages of justice. The report on PREVENT by advocacy group CAGE outlines some of the absurdities which have been witnessed. Young children being referred for the Channel deradicalisation programme for possessing CD’s of Sufi scholars, and Muslim women being referred for increasing their religiosity, wearing the niqab and jilbab, whilst their families have been harassed by officers.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
Deaf female patients at hospitals have been referred under the Channel programme, with their laptops and phones confiscated for simply browsing online reports about Syria. The examples are shocking as they are despotic. On top of this, ACPO figures reveal that the Muslim minority continues to be disproportionately targeted by Channel. Between April 2012 and the end of March 2014, 56 percent of those referred for deradicalisation were Muslim. The Charity Commission, a partner agency of PREVENT, is also disproportionately targeting Muslim charities.
In the Trojan Hoax affair, the schools targeted in Birmingham and smeared in the media were clearly those with an overwhelmingly Muslim demographic. Aside from genuine issues of governance which can be easily found in non-Muslim majority schools, the desire to more accurately represent and cater for the needs of the Muslim pupils was interpreted and convoluted into an “Islamist plot”. The definitions used to determine extremism was in line with the PREVENT strategy. The policy is already being implemented without discrimination in Christian and Jewish schools not being similarly labelled for the same contentions.
So when May revealed that the proposals are “building on a successful strategy”, let it be known that the only thing PREVENT has been successful in achieving is discrimination based upon the right of holding a belief, and disproportionately focusing on the Muslim minority exasperating as opposed to countering negative stereotypes. The fact that the PREVENT strategy continues to single out “Islamism” as a threat, ignoring “Christianism”, and “Jewishism” (see also here) reinforces my point. At this juncture, it’s worth addressing a point I have seen regularly regurgitated to the effect that “well, its Muslims who are blowing up places here”.
Firstly, this type of argument is a justification for discrimination, which flies in the face of liberal values of non-discrimination currently being imposed on children in schools.
Secondly, it completely ignores the point as iterated by “terrorists” over the past years which directly points to Western foreign policy and economic exploitation as the cause of their anger.
The West continues in the extrajudicial bombing of Muslim civilians to pieces without expecting repercussions, and then blaming legitimate grievance on theology.
As Glen Greenwald sarcastically wrote: “Right: can you believe those primitive, irrational Muslims get angry when their countries are invaded, bombed and occupied and have dictators imposed on them rather than exuding gratitude toward the superior civilized people who do all that – all because of their weird, inscrutable religion that makes them dislike things such as foreign invasions, bombing campaigns and externally-imposed tyrants?”
Universities and “Extremist” Speakers
The Home Secretary is to be given increased powers to ban “extremist speakers” from campuses. Universities will need to show they have policies in place to deal with “extremist speakers”. As I’ve noted many times, the definition of extremism has entailed the holding and expressing of traditional, mainstream Islamic viewpoints on the Khilafah, gender segregation, music and homosexuality.
People like Maajid Nawaz of Quilliam Foundation regard “Islamism” as a form of extremism, which is ambiguously defined in the PREVENT strategy as a Muslim who: “deem[s] Western intervention in Muslim-majority countries as a ‘war on Islam’, creating a narrative of ‘them’ and ‘us’.They seek to impose a global Islamic State governed by their interpretation of Shariah as state law, rejecting liberal values such as democracy, the rule of law and equality”. Again the breadth of this definition is such that it can entail traditional mainstream Islamic beliefs as well as political dissent.
Thus as happened at Sir John Cass’s Foundation and Redcoat School, sanctions will be imposed for merely listening to an orator who holds Islamic beliefs, even though he may not even address any of the above issues in the lecture referenced. The elasticity of definitions means it can be stretched to encompass most mainstream Muslims. Yesterday’s Al Muhajiroun member is now being equated to Sufis, both who hold classical beliefs.
Yesterday’s “moderate”, as per the first version of the PREVENT strategy under Labour, has become today’s extremist resulting in what is tantamount to discrimination on the basis of religious belief: an Islamic scholar or speaker can no longer articulate an opinion at a venue where opinions are supposed to be debated and discussed.
As alluded to earlier, “extremism” has also been extended to political viewpoints. As per Peter Clarke’s report into the Trojan Hoax, posting anti-Israel, anti-American and anti-Western news links was regarded as “extremism” (p.72). In 1964, Malcolm X eloquently debated a Conservative, rather fittingly, on the topic of extremism at the Oxford Union. Malcolm X, labelled a “militant”, a “radical” and definitely an “extremist” using PREVENT’s definition (his views on Israel were blunt to say the least), would simply not have been able speak were his timeless words uttered at the Union today.
Being categorised as an extremist, Theresa May would relish in ordering a ban on a black man fighting for equality. As if the worst could not be increased upon, the proposals also target organisations who “repeatedly invite extremist speakers” – British McCarthyism reaches its zenith.
Excluding Britons Suspected of Fight Abroad
Other powers of abuse would include powers to exclude from the UK citizens suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activity abroad. Their travel documents will be cancelled, passports confiscated, citizenship revoked, and their names placed on no-fly lists for up to two years.
Note that this “terror activity” has yet to be tested in court. When it was to be tested in the case of Moazzam Begg, the charges against him were curiously dropped before seeing trial. The inherent incoherence in defining terrorism means Britons fighting abroad for the Kurdish Peshmerga, which inevitably involves indirect support of proscribed terrorist group, PKK is “different” for David Cameron. Fighting to overthrow a dictatorship whose brutality has far exceeded that of ISIS’ though, is most likely terrorism.
Crucially, the crux is that the burden of proof required is that of merely a “suspicion”. This suspicion will never be tested in a court of law, it would seem, jeopardising (again) the “British values” of rule of law.
And we are not talking about those hated human beings that are “immigrants”. We are talking about British citizens, born and bred in the UK. Those who have gone to fight for humanitarian causes will thus be left in limbo, as they are now, even when there is no credible evidence of them posing a threat.
Such irrational proposals ignore the motivations, actions and background of returning fighters as well as other options which may prove more effective in dealing with them (such as rehabilitation and reintegration).
Theresa May highlighted some statistics to soften the blow of the tearing up of democratic principles, rule of law and due process. She said there had been 753 counter-terrorism arrests, 212 people charged, 148 convicted, and 138 now in prison since May 2010.
Prima facie it would seem that perhaps more measures are needed to protect the security of Britain. However, the argument can be flipped on its head too – this highlights the failure of the PREVENT strategy and its Channel deradicalisation programme. Clearly it isn’t working.
A superficial analysis of the stats also highlights that of the 753 counter-terrorism arrests, less than 20% are actually convicted, which means 80% are not. Only 6% were in fact convicted on terrorism charges. A little-discussed issue also contributes to the increased perceived threat. The possibility of entrapment is being ignored. This is where naive or easily exploitable individuals are duped into committing an act, which would be deemed as a “terror offence” worthy by police and security services. The common tactic which has been exposed across the pond, (where the FBI actively trick individuals and encourage terrorism to secure arrests), leads to manufacturing terror threats.
More significantly though, lawyers are not challenging the assumptions of terrorism, encouraging defendants instead to plead guilty as an easy way out (the sentence is reduced if a guilty plea is secured). CAGE notes that: “Defendants often feel that they have no chance to receive a fair trial due to the Islamophobic climate.”
The possibility of a terrorist attack is not being denied here. What is being highlighted is that metrics are being thrown around without proper analysis to inflate the perceived threat which, whatever level it was at before, has only increased with Britain’s involvement in Iraq as inadvertently attested to be David Cameron and Boris Johnson himself.
Concluding Remarks
It is little wonder that human rights groups like CAGE, Amnesty International and Liberty have slammed Theresa May’s proposals. The Muslim minority has largely been the guinea pigs of these “strategies” and “programmes”.
It needs to be made loud and clear: these proposals disproportionately target the Muslim minority, are a source for fuelling resentment and is very possibly a causal factor of radicalisation. This on top of the fact that the government refuses to accept its own wrongs as contributory factors to potential backlash sets up the counter-terror strategy to fail.
Foreign policy has been a primary factor whilst the backbone of the PREVENT strategy, the empirically-wanting “conveyor-belt theory” is pedalled as truth and applied indiscriminately to the Muslim minority, which is now resulting in anyone believing in the integrals of the Islamic belief, much like the yellow badges that Jews were made to wear during Nazi Germany, publicly castigated and discriminated against through the labelling of “extremism”.
The PREVENT policy, and those proposals hanging off it are an unremitting assault on principles of human rights and rule of law. It must be scrapped.
@CoolnessOfHind
