The London Blasts: Media Review

ONE MONTH ON

DAY 39: 15 August 2005

OMAR BAKRI MOHAMMED - TWO TELEGRAPH LETTERS

From the Telegraph letters page:

Sir - You carry 12 letters (Aug 12) about Mr Bakri. The balance of criticism against him seems to be directed at his refusal to pass information to the police and the fact that he uses the welfare state through the benefits system and the National Health Service.

Using British soap operas as a barometer of national behaviour, I would say that these attitudes are very much embedded in British culture, rather than contrary to it.

Jerry Spencer, Ditchling, E Sussex

JNV comment:

No comment.

Sir - Sam Leith's flippant comments about Omar Bakri (Opinion, Aug 13), describing him as a "silly, bearded man in love with the sound of his own voice", remind me of my mother's recollections of growing up in 1930s Berlin, when she and her peers laughed at a similarly ludicrous character with a silly voice and a funny moustache.

We all know what a bundle of fun he turned out to be.

While it is important not to over-react in the present circumstances, history has shown that it can be frighteningly easy for a group of fanatics to garner support from impressionable young people, leading to decades of misery for the majority of the population.

Eva Worobiec, Wareham, Dorset

JNV comments:

1) Adolf Hitler was not a magician.

He gained power not through supernatural powers, but because there was a large, dispossessed, discontented section of German society which resented the treatment it had received from the great powers of the world, and because powerful sectors of German society chose to adopt him at a crucial point in his career, believing that they could exploit and control him. (Until Hitler's party was taken under the wing of the more mainstream DNVP party, given publicity by the DNVP leader Alfred Hugenberg's mass publications, and gained financial support from right-wing business leaders associated with the DNVP, it was electorally insignificant - see the third paragraph in this Encarta entry, and this biographical note on Hugenberg).

The conditions which made mass Nazism possible were created in large part by the great powers of the world, and by the conscious decisions of rich and powerful men inside Germany.

If we want to prevent new Fuhrers, the primary task before us is to prevent these kinds of conditions arising once again, either amongst minority groups or in the broad society. For non-Muslims, this is mainly to do with the policies and attitudes we take towards Muslim minorities, ensuring that we do not create deprivation and resentment.

Instead, the Prime Minister and his government promise no action on deprivation, and plenty of action on resentment - creating more of it by targeting Muslims for repressive action.

2) Omar Bakri Mohammed is not an activist.

Adolf Hitler was an activist who led a large army of thugs who regularly dispensed violence on a large scale. He practiced violence when he could.

Omar Bakri Mohammed is a talker who appears to lead a small group of thugs in Britain who occasionally dispense violence on a relatively small scale, and who claims to have been involved logistical support for Muslim fighters in Chechnya and elsewhere. He praises violence ('martyrdom'), but there is no evidence that he has practiced violence. (See this BBC profile. Even this Israeli profile does not allege that the preacher has practiced violence or led violent campaigns.)

OMAR BAKRI MOHAMMED - CLARKE'S BAN

On Friday 12 August, Home Secretary Charles Clarke banned Omar Bakri Mohammed from returning to the UK (he is currently in the Lebanon), using a 'personal power':

'It appears that Home Office officials have established that Mr Clarke has the power to exclude him on the grounds that "his presence is not conducive to the public good".'

'This is a different power to that used to detain 10 foreign nationals on Thursday pending their deportation as "a threat to national security".'

'It is thought the need to use a different procedure reflects the official Home Office assessment that Mr Bakri is an extremist who incites hate but is not himself dangerous.' (Guardian, 13 August, page 1)

Interestingly, this was one of the few reports to accurately relate what the preacher said about possible future bombers:

'Pressure grew to ban or prosecute him after he said this week that he would not report to the police anyone planning a suicide bomb attack, although he added that he would risk his life to stop such an attack.'

The Guardian reported his words on another page (page 11) of the same edition:

'On the issue of violence, Mr Bakri said this week that, while he would not hand over people who were plotting attacks to the police, he would "stand beside" his Muslim brothers to prevent them from carrying out the attack.'

Is there any basis for believing this to be anything other than a cynical tactic?

Journalist and broadcaster Jon Ronson (who is Jewish) had free access to Omar Bakri Mohammed in preparation for his book "Them: Adventures with Extremists". Ronson rang the preacher a few times after the book came out:

' "I phoned him on the day of the 9/11 attacks and he clearly said to me that it was a terrible thing to happen - and he meant it." '

Ronson believes that Bakri Mohammed was so taken aback by the al Qaeda attack that he didn't actually know how to react.

'After some media prodding, says Jon Ronson, the cleric appeared to revert to type and once more play to the image of a man organising jihad from a north London suburb.'

Returning to the ban itself, 'The decision came three days after John Prescott said that Bakri would be free to return to London from Lebanon because there was nothing in law to stop him doing so. "It's a democracy, not a dictatorship," the Deputy Prime Minister said.'

'The Home Office refused to say why Bakri, who came to Britain seeking asylum 20 years ago, was being banned now when for years his controversial activities were tolerated by the authorities.' (Telegraph, 13 August, page 4)

The power to exclude individuals for 'not being conducive to the public good' has up until now rested on one of four conditions:

• threats to national security

• threats to public order or the rule of law in the UK

• threats to the UK’s good relations with a third country

• being involved or having been involved, in war crimes or crimes against humanity regardless of whether convicted

After Mr Bakri was excluded, The Times (13 August, page 4) reported:

'This power has always been at Mr Clarke’s disposal but he would not say why he had not used it until now. The Home Office also refused to disclose whether the cleric was being banned on the ground of national security, public order or Britain’s good relations with another country. Last night ministers denied tampering with the rules so that they could be seen taking action against fanatics.'

If the government is acting lawfully, this seems to be an important issue, though Mr Bakri is unlikely to turn to legal proceedings, on ideological grounds.

'Anjem Choudray, the cleric’s deputy, condemned the ban as “outrageous” and claimed that ministers were making up new rules as they went along to ensure that the leader of al Muhajiroun group could not come back. He challenged the Home Office to explain what Sheikh Bakri Mohammed had done in the past week, when he had been in Beirut, that justified the sudden ban.'

Valid comments.

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.” '

BIG MOUTH

Incidentally, Mr Bakri's neighbours in Lebanon are rather dismissive of the preacher: 'This man has a big mouth and he talks a lot without doing any actions,' said a young neighbour. 'He talks a lot of words but I don't think he makes things happen... The daughter of the brother was always saying: "we think he talks much and does little".' (Guardian, 13 August, page 11)

This is the man who the British government has now put within reach of the Syria authorities who would like Lebanon to hand him over - though they deny formally requesting extradition. Syria's record on torture is grim. Human Rights Watch put together a report this April on the hollowness of the 'assurances' given by torture states when re-admitting forcibly-repatriated asylum-seekers.

JNV welcomes feedback.