S.O.S Posted February 17, 2009 Anti-terror code 'would alienate most Muslims' • Draft strategy brands thousands as extremists • Ministers ponder plan to be unveiled next month Vikram Dodd The Guardian, Tuesday 17 February 2009 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." The Guardian Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S.O.S Posted March 6, 2009 Police attack on Gaza convoy: Terrorising Solidarity Campaign Against Criminalizing Communities | 03.03.2009 20:53 On 13th February anti-terror powers were used to detain Burnley supporters of the Viva Palestina aid convoy enroute from Britain to Gaza. [1] Police also cordoned off two houses of British Asians during a search, thus portraying them as a threat. An Imam and his wife were subjected to strip searches in their own home. Information on the arrests was fed to the mass media — for publication at the same time as delegations from many parts of Britain converged on London for the Gaza trip. By 15th February, six of the detainees had been released but without passports. Three from Burnley were still being held; plus the ambulance that they were driving. By 17th February all detainees were finally released – without charge. But cash and mobile phones were still not returned by the police. When police disrupted the Viva Palestina convoy enroute to Gaza, they attacked solidarity here with people resisting oppression abroad and discouraged donations. These effects were deliberate. If anyone had ever wanted to smuggle funds to Gaza to buy arms, they would hardly have chosen to travel with a group that was deliberately seeking publicity, with an embedded journalist reporting daily on its progress. Nor would they have chosen a convoy so obviously likely to be scrutinised and/or blocked by the Israeli authorities. The Viva Palestina convoy is supported by the Stop the War Coalition, the Respect Party, the Anglo-Arab Organisation, several UK trade unions and Muslim organisations. Yet again the police have used ‘anti-terror’ laws to promote a politics of fear, aimed at isolating migrant and Muslim communities, while justifying unjust powers. Yet again they have turned cash and mobile phones into objects of suspicion. The police attack put convoy supporters on the defensive for carrying cash. According to one supporter, ‘There was cash around because none of the main banks would allow us to open an account.’ [2] Indeed, police attacks and investigations frighten banks into refusing or closing accounts for charitable as well as political activities. Therefore those trying to transfer money must find alternatives, such as carrying cash, which police turn into a focus of suspicion. Kurdish and Turkish activists have been prosecuted for supposedly raising funds for terrorism, though they were not convicted by the jury. [3] As in the Viva Palestina incident, the climate of suspicion generated by the ‘war on terror’ means that banks perceive a risk of being investigated for ‘terrorist’ funds if they handle certain accounts. Under such suspicion, the Muslim charity Interpal has had banking facilities suspended several times, though no incriminating evidence was ever found. Interpal was investigated by the Charity Commission in 1996 and 2003 because of accusations of funding Hamas but was cleared on both occasions. Then in 2007 its account was closed by NatWest. In January 2008 Lloyds Bank suspended international clearing facilities by Lloyds for Interpal’s account with the Islamic Bank of Britain, citing pressure from the US authorities over the fact that Interpal has been banned in the USA because of its supposed association with Hamas. [4] The Palestine Solidarity Campaign as well as HHUGS, which helps Muslim prisoners and immigration detainees, have also had banking facilities withdrawn because bank fear being investigated for indirectly supporting ‘terrorist’ organisations. The Viva Palestina incident adds to this list of cases which illustrate how so-called ‘anti-terror’ powers are often used to harass peaceful political activities, especially those involving migrants, Muslims or refugees. They are treated as suspect communities through an implied association with terrorism. The mass media report such arrests through the official language of ‘terrorism’, thus colluding with the state. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, ‘terrorism’ is vaguely defined to encompass any activity which may threaten damage to property in pursuit of political aims. In implementing the law, ‘terrorism’ is effectively defined as resistance to oppressive regimes, especially those allied with the UK. Hamas is officially banned here as a terrorist organisation, while Israeli terrorism is treated as self-defence. In this country, solidarity activity is persecuted and even criminalised under anti-terror powers. Such powers are used to protect state terrorism by terrorising opponents. The police attack on the Gaza convoy undermined participation in democratic politics, as George Galloway has rightly said. [5] More generally, participation in international solidarity activity here is being persecuted in the name of preventing terrorism. Similar powers have also been used against Tamil, Kurdish and Baloch activists, among others. [6] Indeed, this is a main reason why the state has ‘anti-terror’ powers, which are not needed to protect the public from violence. Therefore such powers and their use should be opposed by everyone who supports democratic rights of free expression and association. Solidarity is needed for political and charitable activities which may be targeted in the future. Link NOTES [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/7890 221.stm; http://www.vivapalestina.org/ [2] ‘Galloway seeks inquiry into convoy arrests’, The Guardian, 21 February, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/21/gal loway-viva-palestina-arrests-aid/print [3] CAMPACC, Terrorising Minority Communities with ‘Anti-Terrorism’ Powers: their Use and Abuse, Submission to the Privy Council Review of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, August 2003, http://www.campacc.org.uk/ATCSA_consult-final.pdf [4] Interpal references: The Times, 05.09.08; http://www.islamictimes.co.uk/content/view/578/39, http://www.interpal.info/archives/2112#more-2112 [5] According to Galloway’s statement of 19 February: ‘Anyone with any sense can see that it is in everyone's interest to encourage Britain's Muslim community to engage themselves in democratic politics…. The timing of the operation is seen locally as an attempt to smear and intimidate the Muslim community and I must say they seem to be right. The arrests were clearly deliberately timed for the eve of the departure of the convoy. Photographs of the high-profile snatch on the M65 were immediately fed to the press to maximise the newsworthiness of the smear that was being perpetrated on the convoy.’ See http://www.vivapalestina.org/ [6] Les Levidow, Opposing the UK ‘Terrorist’ List: Persistence as Resistance, February 2009, http://www.campacc.org.uk/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nur Posted March 13, 2009 SOS bro. Is there a spelling error here? I think Muslims are TOURISTS, not TERRORISTS! I mean aren't we on a grand tour on planet earth on our way to the Next World ? Nur Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Khayr Posted March 13, 2009 • 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. Its a draft albeit an extreme one. Tactfulness and diplomacy is how governments operate. This draft is extremely racist and very blatant. No Communications branch in any government would approve of it. It would be a Public Relations diseaster. It is a right - wing, draft. I don't see UK nomads giving two shinglings worth of time on this. Why is that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
