[JNV] Protest Against New Deportation Policy

[JNV]

1) Home Office Consultation closes tomorrow Friday
2) New JNV Leaflet and Petition
3) CAMPACC Demonstration, Downing Street, 3 September
4) Relevant Media Review entries (long)

Dear friends

As you will know, the government is trying to bring in new repressive laws in the name of 'counter terrorism', and has detained 10 Muslim men without charge prior to deporting them. Media reports suggest that many more Muslims may be arrested this weekend after the close of the Home Office "consultation" exercise on these new laws.

We apologise for delays in responding to your emails, and for the continuing hiccups in the daily email programme.

Best wishes

Maya Evans
Milan Rai
JNV


1) Home Office Consultation closes tomorrow Friday

We urge you to email the Home Office with a protest (however brief) against these new laws. There are now less than 24 hours to go.

Will our contributions alter policy? No. But if we do not register our protest, the government will claim that there is no opposition.

Their email address is <exclusionpolicyconsultation@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>

Some points you may wish to make are shortly to be up on the JNV site <www.j-n-v.org>.



2) New JNV Leaflet and Petition

We have produced a leaflet and petition to use on the street against these new laws. Next week we hope to put together a short information briefing to back up the leaflet/petition.

Given the level of demonisation of 'radical Muslims' and 'terrorist suspects', this is a very difficult topic to approach people with. If you have any campaigning experiences that could improve our materials, please do let us know.

The petition comes in two versions, one a 'national' petition that we will send to Charles Clarke. If you would prefer to have a local petition aimed at your MP, there is a version for that, which just lists our website at the bottom of the petition for further information.

Our materials are available from our home page <www.j-n-v.org>.

If you think that the leaflet and petition are useful, please do let other people know about them.



3) CAMPACC Demonstration, Downing Street, 3 September

The Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC), which is the lead grassroots group on this issue, is organising a demonstration at Downing Street on Saturday 3 September:

2-4PM 10, Downing Street, Westminster

Supported by Liberty, Haldane Society, Statewatch, Stop Political Terror, Green Party, The Muslim Parliament, Peace and Justice in East London, Sutton for Peace and Justice, JNV and others.

More information <www.campacc.org.uk>



4) MEDIA REVIEWS

These comments, with links to relevant material, are on our site:


13 August: LETTER

A letter in the Independent sums up much of the current mood. James C Akley writes (from the United States): 

'I can understand the reluctance to deport people who face torture in their home countries. However, when it comes to extremists, I would rather risk that they might face torture, instead of my friends and neighbours face death and explosions on their way to and from work. I am not saying I support torture, but the safety of citizens should be the Government's first concern.'

The whole point of the Blair proposals, however, and of the Belmarsh detention system before it, is that they are targeted against men (and perhaps one day women) against whom there is insuffient evidence to lay a criminal charge.

If there was evidence that these ten men were about to concoct 'deaths and explosions', they would be arrested and tried for their crimes. 

They are being detained, and may be deported, not for what they have done, but for what they have said, for what they believe.

Therefore, it is hard to see how the personal safety of James Akley's friends and neighbours has been improved by the detention of these men. 

LONDONISTAN

In fact, a strong case can be made that the personal safety of Mr Akley's friends and neighbours has been eroded enormously the new proposals.

On Monday, Channel 4's Dispatches programme was devoted to the 7/7 bombings, asking, 'Why Bomb London?'

The thesis of the programme was that the events of 7/7 and 21/7 were the result of a lax British policy of granting asylum to Middle Eastern extremists, creating 'Londonistan', a hub for planning operations, recruiting militants and so on.

Curiously, this conclusion was undermined by the evidence at the core of the programme. 

For example, in the case of Abu Qatada, currently in detention as one of the ten deportees-in-waiting, the programme revealed that British intelligence assessed the preacher and concluded he was an asset rather than a danger. They believed he would use his influence to keep hotheads off the streets of London. 

A document was displayed on the screen, headed "Special Immigration Appeals Commission", quoting the evidence of one intelligence officer who had interviewed Abu Qatada several times: 'I fully expected him to use that influence, wherever he could, to control the hotheads and ensure terrorism remained off the streets of London and throughout the United Kingdom'.

No evidence was presented that this expectation was not realised.

Turning to the current issue of Prospect magazine, this contains an interview with Hassan Butt, formerly of Hizb ut-Tahrir and of al-Muhajiroun (he split from them for being insufficiently militant). Mr Butt explained why Britain had been immune from attacks (apart from the Qur'anic 'covenant of security' which binds Muslims seeking protection in a non-Muslim state):

'It would be unwise to carry out military operations here. It would harm a lot of people. Britain is a very liberal country in comparison to America where Muslims don't have many rights. This is the type of country where you do have a lot more rights. Now with Afghanistan gone, Muslims don't really have a place where they can come back to and regroup, have time to think and relax without the authorities breathing down your neck.' (page 20)

'A bomb in Britain would be strategically damaging to Muslims here. Immigration is lax in Britain - you know as well as I that London has more radical Muslims than anywhere in the Muslim world. A bomb would jeopardise everyone's position. There has got to be a place we can come.'
Q: 'You mean that different groups have agreed not to attack Britain for strategic reasons?'
HB: 'Oh yeah, definitely.' (page 23)

Hassan Butt speculated (prophetically): 'If someone was to attack Britain, they would be a completely and utterly loose cannon. It would be someone who wasn't involved in the network.... I mean the jihad network.' (page 23)

This does indeed seem to be the case, as we noted in an earlier Media Review, and as is reported on the front page of the Independent today.

Returning to Channel 4's Dispatches programme, the "Londonistan=7/7" argument was rebutted by Dominique Thomas, the author of the book Londonistan:

'The UK has become a target for radical Islamists for two reasons. The first factor is the British government's change of attitude after 11 September: arrests, a change in legislation, a suppression of propaganda. This was considered the first act of aggression. The second factor is British military involvement alongside the US in Iraq. This was considered the second act of aggression. A clear act of war. The fact that Britain is militarily involved against a Muslim country exposes it to becoming a definitive target.'

In other words, Britain was not attacked when it permitted asylum and freedom of expression and association, but it started to become a target when it started to repress asylum seekers.

Of course, the other factor was the move from "passive oppression" in foreign policy to "active oppression" (see the Young Muslims and Extremism report).

On this topic, Dispatches talked to Dr Saad al-Fagih, a Saudi dissident now living in London, and head of the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia:

'The war in Iraq did two things. First, it increased the reasons to sympathise with al Qaeda causes, it increased those reasons to ten folds. And second, to give bin Laden the most effective and secure and powerful base - a replacement for what he lost in Afghanistan.'

Reporter Deborah Davies at one point says of young Muslim extremism: 'The driving force is not social deprivation, it's global politics'. She notes that earlier Dispatches programmes exposed the wide availability of violent videos in militant circles: 'These kind of videos are emotional and powerful, stirring up a real anger at the suffering of Muslims worldwide.'

Despite expert witness and Dispatches' own analysis/evidence, the programme concludes that, 'there's been a decade of government policy which allowed extremists here to pour out their message of hate. And we've witnessed the result.'

The indications are rather that it was not 'messages of hate', but the reality of Muslim suffering, which led to these 'results'. The indications are that the 'jihadi network' of foreign extremists actually restrained attacks in the UK - for strategic and self-interested reasons.


15 August: US RIGHT FEARS BLAIR PROPOSALS

In the United States, the new moves are viewed with alarm across the political spectrum. The Times also reports (13 August, page 4) that, 'Hawks agree with liberals – Blair's laws are too much'. Right-wingers concerned at the Patriot Act, are realising that 'even these measures pale into insignificance compared with Mr Blair’s proposals. For instance, the Patriot Act does not make any effort to criminalise the incitement of hatred or deport extremists who might damage a culture of tolerance.'

'David Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union, told The Times: “When you are cracking down on someone simply because of their beliefs, I think you have a problem. You are on a slippery slope.” Others cited the case of Eugene Debs, a newspaper editor jailed in 1918 for criticising the First World War, as evidence of what can go wrong when liberty is sacrificed for security.'

'Roger Pilon, the director of the centre for constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said yesterday that the British Government’s proposals were fraught with peril, adding: “The further you go down this route, the more you depend on ‘good men and women’ to enforce the law because legislation can be crafted with only limited precision.” '

'He suggested that British proposals could even be used to silence views which are commonplace on the American Right. “I believe it’s British policy to respect the rights of homosexuals. Is someone who is critical of that on religious grounds going to be deported because they are deemed to be undermining your culture of tolerance?” he asked.' [The government's new proposals effectively criminalises 'extreme views that are in conflict with the UK’s culture of tolerance'. See the consultation document.]

'James Carafano, a homeland security expert at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, said yesterday: “I’m worried that Tony Blair is making a knee-jerk response. Criminalising free speech is not the best strategy. Britain may well have tolerated some of these Islamic extremists for too long — but the way to deal with it has to be in the war of ideas.” '

'In a message to opponents of President Bush’s law, Mr Carafano said: “It could be worse, you could be living in Britain.” '

 
16 August: MORE EXPULSIONS ON THE WAY

'Charles Clarke yesterday signalled a fresh wave of expulsions and exclusions of extremist Islamists once the Government has concluded its review of the law later this month...' (Telegraph, page 8)

'Mr Clarke said: "We will be looking at further steps that need to be taken to ensure that people who are working against the interests of this country are properly dealt with." ' (Telegraph, page 8)

What about Tony Blair, who invaded Iraq despite being warned by British intelligence that this would 'heighten' the risk of al Qaeda terrorist attacks against 'Western interests'?

Almost every step Mr Blair takes in the Global War On Terrorism (President Bush has blocked the new term 'Struggle Against Violent Extremism') has worked against the interests of this country and heightened the risk of terrorism.

BOOKSHOP OWNERS, WRITERS, TEACHERS AT RISK

'The security services and immigration officials are understood to have drawn up a list of foreign extremists to be deported. Many are understood to be young clerics who have come in recent years from Pakistan and North Africa. These so-called preachers of hate are not as well known as clerics such as Abu Qatada and Omar Bakri Mohammed but are seen as stirring up hatred and extremism among young followers.'

'Muslim leaders have been consulted about a number of the suspects who are expected to be arrested shortly. Their identities are being kept secret for fear that the men may go into hiding before arrests can be made. As well as clerics, the list is understood to include owners of radical Islamic bookshops, writers, a number of teachers and website operators of different nationalities.' (Times, page 8)

ARAB FEARS GROW: BLAIR FEEDS FEAR

A report in the FT indicates that the Blair proposals are not increasing security, but are bolstering the extremists.

'But the planned deportations and a raft of other proposed measures to curb militant Islamist activity in the wake of the July bombs in London, are bashing a fresh dent in Britain's reputation in the wider Arab world.'

'Dia Rashwan, an expert in Islamism at the Cairo-based Al Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, argues they could be counter-productive by playing to the perception that in the war on terror, the rights of all Muslims are under attack.'

'Many exiled radicals in London have been under close surveillance, he argues, and there is no proven legal case yet that they have contributed to radicalising British-born Muslims who carried out the bombings.'

'Yassir al-Sirri, a London-based Egyptian condemned to death in absentiain Egypt, goes further, suggesting the government's measures, if adopted, would hand a victory to extremists. He was among a small group of Islamist exiles in London who urged the British government yesterday not to betray Muslims "by deporting them to countries from which they fled".'

'After a decade in which London's position as a centre for Arab publishing and political debate has been reinforced, the reverberations are also felt further afield.'

' "We don't want the UK to act like a third world country when it comes to the law. We look at the UK as a country of freedoms where Arabs and Muslims have had an opportunity to breath," said Mohammed Habib, the deputy leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, the outlawed opposition group.'

'His view of Britain is widespread in both secular and Islamist circles in North Africa and the Middle East.'

'Despite hostility to Britain's involvement in the Iraq war, the UK has been seen by many Arabs to distinguish itself from the US by resisting the temptation to adopt measures such as restricting visas.'

No longer. And are we the safer for it?

Yet again, the government follows a policy that is wrong in itself, and that also damages the national security of Britain.