Category Archives: State Oppression

Anti-terror laws alienate Muslims, says top policeman

Posted on by Bob Pitt

tarique ghaffurOne of Britain’s top police officers will today warn that anti-terrorism laws are discriminating against Muslims and law enforcement agencies are running a “real risk” of criminalising ethnic minorities.

Tarique Ghaffur, assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan police, will also call for “an independent judicial review” of why some young British Muslims turn to extremism. He warns that more work is needed to stop the “flight, fright or separation” of British Muslim communities after the July 7 2005 bombings in London.

Mr Ghaffur, Britain’s highest-ranking Muslim police officer, will today address a National Black Police Association conference in Manchester and tell how racism has blighted his own career. Since the September 11 2001 attacks on the United States, western countries have toughened counter-terrorism laws. Mr Ghaffur will say:

“Not only has anti-terrorism and security legislation been tightened across many European countries with the effect of indirectly discriminating against Muslims, but other equally unwanted practices have also emerged, including ‘passenger profiling’ as well as increased stop and search and arrest under terrorism legislation.”

In Britain, people of Asian appearance have borne the brunt of increased stopping and searching. Police have said the practice is “intelligence-led”, but Mr Ghaffur appears to cast doubt on this repeated defence: “These practices tend to be based more on physical appearance than being intelligence-led.”

Guardian, 7 August 2006

Muslims ‘boycott’ Glasgow airport

Posted on by Eddie Truman

Muslim business travellers are boycotting Glasgow airport, according to a leading Scottish figure. Bashir Mann, from the Muslim Council of Great Britan, complained of heavy-handed and humiliating searches by anti-terrorist police officers.

Strathclyde Police said it was looking at training to raise awareness of cultural and religious sensitivities. Mr Mann said: “I’d never experienced anything like that before in Scotland. This was a show of sheer discrimination, victimisation of certain sections of the community in Scotland.”

BBC News, 23 July 2006

Protest niqab ban in Norway

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Last month, the Directorate for Primary and Secondary Education of Norway gave permission for the niqab (which covers the whole face except the eyes) to be banned in schools. This law denies Muslim girls many fundamental rights including the freedom to practice one?s religion and the right to education.

Erling Lae, the leader of Oslo City Council, has decided to remove the veil in schools because it causes problems for teachers who cannot see their students’ faces. The ruling will now make it possible for the niqab to be banned from schools in other municipalities in Norway. The Oslo city councillor for schools and education has said that the niqab makes communication impossible between teachers and students and between students as well.

However, under Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of religion unless it is in the interest of public safety and health. It is clear that wearing the niqab in classrooms does not pose any threats to other students and teachers. Furthermore, in some schools of thought within Islam, wearing a niqab is obligatory and so a ban is clearly an infringement on religious freedom.

France, and parts of Germany and Belgium have already prohibited the wearing of the headscarf in schools and unless effective action is taken, the ban will spread throughout the whole of Europe.

Please contact your political representative, the Foreign Minister of your country and the Norwegian Embassy in your respective countries to condemn the law.

IHRC alert, 19 July 2006

Al Muhajiroun banned

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Two UK-based Islamist groups are to become the first to be banned under laws outlawing the glorification of terrorism, the home secretary has said. John Reid said he was taking action against Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect. Under an order put down in Parliament, it will be an offence to belong to the groups, encourage support for them or wear clothes suggesting support. Mr Reid said the move sent a signal that the UK would not tolerate people who supported terrorism. The groups are both thought to be offshoots of Al Muhajiroun, which was founded by controversial cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed.

BBC News, 17 July 2006

Quite what will be accomplished by banning the few dozen idiots who make up the membership of these groups is difficult to see. And an offence of “wearing clothes suggesting support” sounds open to abuse to say the least. However, it looks as though press reports that Hizb ut-Tahrir would be illegalised were inaccurate – for now. Asked about Hizb, a Home Office spokesman said: “This does remain a group about which we have real concerns and we are keeping the situation under review.”

For Inayat Bunglawala’s comments, see Islam Online, 18 July 2006

Government to carry out threat to ban Hizb?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

HizbA number of radical Muslim groups are to be proscribed despite concern that this will drive them underground where they cannot be monitored. As part of the Prime Minister’s 12-point plan to tackle terrorism, announced after the London bombings on 7 July last year, the government is to unveil a list of organisations it wants to ban under the Terrorism Act 2006. The list is expected to include Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Shortly after the 7/7 bombings, Tony Blair signalled his intention to proscribe this group. But such a move will prove highly controversial. Hizb ut-Tahrir claims to oppose violence and it has condemned the 7/7 bombings, as well as the atrocities in Madrid and Bali. The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) has questioned the merits of banning the group, as have human rights lawyers. “The Prime Minister correctly said fighting terrorism is an ideological battle,” said Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty. “How are we to fight the war of ideas if non-violent political groups are driven underground?”

Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “We have major differences with Hizb ut-Tahrir, in particular its non-participation in the democratic process. Having said that, we think banning it is entirely wrong. It is non-violent.”

Observer, 16 July 2006

‘Time to round up the enemy within’, says Jon Gaunt

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Time to round up the enemy within

By Jon Gaunt, The Sun, 11 July 2006

Now that cricket-loving ordinary Brit Shehzad Tanweer has released his video will, can we stop all the conspiracy theories and demands for a public inquiry into July 7.

Tony Blair was completely right to say that so-called Muslim leaders need to openly condemn the cancer that exists within their communities. And whether they like it or not this is a MUSLIM problem.

That doesn’t mean all Muslims are terrorists but it does mean that all the terrorists we are facing at the moment were or are Muslims, so the prime responsibility lies with the Muslim community.

Now after the disgusting statistic that 13 per cent – or more than 200,000 – British Muslims consider these scum to be martyrs, it is time for action and even more harsh words from Blair.

Forget about Muslim taskforces, social deprivation and exclusion. I want madmen like this cleaned off the streets. This 13 per cent needs to be identified and rounded up.

Continue reading →

The Times and Omar Deghayes

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Correspondents in Brighton have sent us the following report on the Omar Deghayes case:

The Sunday Times on 18th June published an article attacking the brother of the British-resident Guantánamo detainee Omar Deghayes. The Save Omar campaign has widespread support in Sussex, where Omar lived for many years and where his family still live. He came to live near Brighton as a child refugee, after his father had been assassinated in Libya. The campaign to secure Omar’s release is backed by the Argus newspaper in Brighton and by all six of the Sussex MPs – Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative. The Sunday Times article seems to be deliberately aimed at undermining this broad support.

At no time were campaign members consulted about any of the allegations made, so any reporting that the “revelation surprised supporters of the campaign” is untrue. They heard nothing of the allegations until the paper appeared, and they gradually realised that a man who introduced himself at a campaign meeting as a visitor to Brighton who had come to look after a sick relative for a fortnight, and asked if he could join the meeting, was in fact an undercover reporter.

The article presents a highly confused account of two separate issues: the history of the mosque, of which Abu Baker Deghayes is not the imam; and the campaign for justice for his brother, which is entirely separate from the mosque, and emerged from a local anti-war movement and Amnesty International. As a campaign for due process which grew out of concern for the preservation of civil liberties in the troubled waters of the war on terror, we support the family of Omar Deghayes and their quest for justice. Omar has been detained without charge or trial for four years. Nothing is known of his guilt or innocence, because he has been denied due process. Omar is in the legal vacuum created by the war on terror.

The campaigners point out that an hour of clandestine note-taking is not enough to come to anything like a real understanding of the long and painful history of the Deghayes family, and the making of allegations as to the character of Abu Baker Deghayes is shabby and tendentious.

Thousands march with family raided by police

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Forest Gate demonstrationThousands of protesters led by members of the family caught up in the anti-terrorist raid in east London two weeks ago demanded an apology from police yesterday for their “barbaric and unacceptable” treatment.

The march ended in a demonstration outside Forest Gate police station, where protesters attacked the leaking of “lies and misinformation” after the arrest and questioned the failures of intelligence which led to the disastrous raid.

“The police are doing their job, but they should be doing it properly,” said Muddassar Ahmed, a spokesman for the march organising committee. “The intelligence agencies have much more to answer for.”

March organisers estimated that 5,000 gathered for yesterday’s protest, which was the first mainstream demonstration to take place near the scene of the raid. It drew together a diverse coalition including moderate Muslim groups, Respect, the Conservatives and Stop the War.

Two elderly white women wearing floral print dresses mingled with women in hijab and men in white shalwar kameez. One of the women, Madeline Channer, 63, said: “The police were very heavy-handed and abused these two young men. I was brought up to respect the police but this sort of behaviour eradicates that respect.”

Guardian, 19 June 2006

Pass this test, Dutch government tells Muslims

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A draconian new law is expected to force immigrants to the Netherlands to sit a tough exam on Dutch history, geography and culture or face heavy fines. The rules, drafted by the country’s hardline immigration minister, “Iron Rita” Verdonk, and likely to be approved this autumn, will set a challenge for up to half a million mainly Muslim immigrants, including some who have lived in Holland for 30 years. The legislation, which is due to come into force on January 1 next year, requires immigrants to attend 600 hours of coursework before being tested. Failure to attend the course or pass the exam within five years will trigger an annual fine of almost £700, cuts in benefits or the termination of a residence permit.

Sunday Times, 18 June 2006