The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 46: 22 August 2005

Contents

Repression - Public Support High

Islam - Panorama Programme (First Note)

REPRESSION - PUBLIC SUPPORT HIGH

GUARDIAN POLL: CIVIL LIBERTIES SHOULD BE ERODED FOR SECURITY

Today the Guardian reports the results of a poll by ICM (with 1,006 respondents), showing that,

'Almost three-quarters of the public believe that it is right to give up civil liberties to improve our security against terrorist attacks.'

Only 17 per cent of respondents rejected this suggestion outright.

The results were fairly uniform across the mainstream political spectrum: 'Tories were readier to sacrifice civil liberties than Labour and Lib Dem supporters: 79% were willing to do so, compared with 72% of Labour voters and 70% of Lib Dems.' This is a spread of only 9 percentage points across mainstream politics.

The Guardian suggested that, 'The results provide evidence of public support for Tony Blair's anti-terrorist reforms which he unveiled before leaving on his summer holiday earlier this month.' The poll asked about specific proposals that have been put forward:

'Asked for their view on the deportation of foreign nationals who spread radical Islamist views, even if they were returned to countries which use torture, 62% of respondents were in favour. Only 19% were opposed. But Mr Blair could still face controversy when he attempts to implement the policy, given that judges may find such a policy breaches the Human Rights Act.'

'The prime minister has said he will amend the act if necessary, but a sizable minority of the public want to protect the independence of the courts. While 52% agreed that judges should not be able to overturn government measures, since they had been agreed by parliament, 40% chose the opposing statement: "Judges should protect our civil liberty and continue to overturn anti-terrorist measures if they feel it is right to do so." '

'There was also ambivalence about banning non-violent groups which promoted radical Islamist views: 45% were in favour but 31% against.'

'Interviewees also backed a controversial call from the Association of Chief Police Officers for new powers to hold terror suspects for three months without charge, rather than 14 days as at present. Only 19% opposed the move while 68% supported it.'

The poll was held between 12 and 14 August, before the last week's revelations about the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, and alleged police cover-up. It is not clear how these events will have affected public attitudes.

AT A GLANCE

Police should be able to hold terror suspects for three months without charge?

Yes 68% No 19% Don't Know 13%

Deport foreign nationals who spread 'radical Islamist views' even to torture states?

Yes 62% No 19% Don't Know 19%

Judges should not be able to overturn government measures when they feel civil liberties are at risk?

Yes 52% No 40% Don't Know 8%

Ban 'radical Islamist groups' even if they don't advocate violence?

Yes 45% No 31% Don't Know 24%

THE TIMES POLL

As we noted back on 12 July, The Times reported the results of a similar poll conducted by Populus (with 1,005 respondents) also showing overwhelming support for new police powers:

'A large majority supported measures to reduce the threat of any future terrorist attacks. Nearly nine out of ten favoured giving the police new powers to arrest people they suspect of planning terrorist acts (86 per cent), tighter controls on who comes into the country (88 per cent) and security check and baggage inspections at stations (89 per cent).'

'More than two thirds of the public (70 per cent) backed an increase in police powers to stop and search people on the street, while three fifths (61 per cent) said that they supported the introduction of ID cards... Those living the furthest away from London were the strongest supporters of tough action.While 95 per cent of Scots support security checks and baggage inspections at stations, 84 per cent in London and the South East back this measure.'

'Working-class respondents were stronger supporters than the middle classes of giving the police new powers. While 93 per cent of unskilled workers wanted the police to have new powers to arrest people suspected of planning terrorist acts, 79 per cent of professionals and managers did so.'

Interestingly, the poll 'highlighted stark divisions in attitudes between people living in London and the South East, and those in the rest of the country. The further away from London respondents lived, the stronger their support for tough new measures.' (There was apparently a similar phenomenon in the United States after 11 September 2001, where the further people were from New York, the more angry they seemed to be towards the perpetrators.)

OUR POSITION

The human rights group Liberty responded to the poll thus:

'Obviously these figures do give cause for concern. However, we believe that as people realise that there is not a strict balance between civil liberties and security, but rather that we as a society are safer if we stand in defence of our basic values, then they will understand that measures which may seem superficially attractive are in fact counter-productive. We believe that if the population has time to consider these proposals they will support measures which are appropriate and not just adopt kneejerk laws.'

Civil liberties have lost majority support.

That is just a fact which must be digested by those with a concern for freedom. Arguments that begin and end with civil liberties principles will not gain support amongst most people. We must design our arguments to begin with people's concerns and interests, and lead into the value of civil liberties.

ISLAM

PANORAMA PROGRAMME - FIRST NOTE

Last night, BBC television's flagship current affairs programme, Panorama, carried an investigation into the Muslim community in the wake of the London bombings. (The full text of the programme is here.)

The reaction of Muslims on the Panorama comments page is largely one of hurt and anger. Some are bewildered by the programme's focus on the Muslim Council of Britain:

'I am annoyed at the fact that the current view is that the Muslim Council of Britain is the view of all Muslims, and that they represent all Muslims. This is not true and causes distress in the Muslim community. They are a group like any other and only represent a secular amount of Muslims.'

In essence, the programme sought to demonstrate the pervasive nature of 'extremism' in the British Muslim community, and in the Muslim Council of Britain in particular. 'Extremism' is a slippery concept, and here included the notion of religious superiority/supremacy. As Madeleine Bunting points out in the Guardian today, this is not an uncommon trait in believers, whatever the faith.

Rather than trying to explain to non-Muslims how the suicide bombings could have come about, the programme was based on challenging Muslim 'leaders' to disavow or stamp out extremism. In present circumstances, this approach does nothing to increase public security. As the Home Office/Foreign Office report Young Muslims and Extremism concluded,

'The government must make a more concerted effort to persuade the Muslim community that it is trusted and respected. That requires a change of language. Public challenges to Muslims to decide where their loyalties lie are counterproductive.'

As we've noted before, this could equally well be applied to the British meida.

The report also noted that, 'Some young Muslims are disillusioned with mainstream Muslim organisations that are perceived as pedestrian, ineffective and in many cases, as "sell-outs" to HMG.' Prime amongst these is the Muslim Council of Britain.

We hope to come back to a longer analysis of this programme later in the week.

JNV welcomes feedback.