The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 73: 18 September 2005

Contents

Panorama Again

Orthodox? Liberal? Ideology And Evidence, Ideology And Realism, Letting The Government Off The Hook

Snippets

Detention Without Charge, Iraq Redeployments, Uzbek Torture/British Complicity

PANORAMA AGAIN

ORTHODOX? LIBERAL?

Panorama reporter John Ware returns to the attack in today's Independent on Sunday: 'With imams in denial, we won't stop the bombers'. (page 22) There is much to say about the original Panorama hatchet job on the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) (we discussed it to a certain extent in a Media Review on 23 August).

There is quite a bit one could say about Mr Ware's latest contribution, which opens with the claim that there is a battle for the soul of Islam between 'Muslims who follow orthodox, liberal Islam and those who pursue Islam more as a political ideology fueled by the rages of the Islamic world.'

We are not quite sure who would class themselves as 'orthodox' and 'liberal', or whether there are many Muslims - whether orthodox or unorthodox - who feel their ideas are immune from 'the rages of the Islamic world'.

It is generally thought that mainstream Islam, in the West and worldwide, is 'literalist' in its attitude towards the Qur'an. While it is possible to ground a 'liberal Islam' in a certain reading of the Qur'an and a certain evaluation of the hadith (recorded sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad), this is generally considered the opposite of 'orthodox'. (See the introduction to Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook, by the editor Charles Kurzman, pages 14-18.)

IDEOLOGY AND EVIDENCE

Coming back to Mr Ware, he writes:

'We hope our programme has stimulated debate within the Muslim community about the roots of extremism. The Prime Minister is convinced these lie in "evil ideology". The MCB says this "lacks evidentiary foundation".'

Nothing Mr Ware has said or written has provided the evidence to substantiate the Prime Minister's (smokescreen) accusation.

Of course bin Laden's ideology and certain strands of Islamic theology are part of the background to the 7/7 and 21/7 attacks, but neither Panorama nor anyone else has established that terrorism derives from this ideology/theology.

The available evidence suggests that there are young Muslims who feel driven towards an acceptance of this view of the world, by the evidence of Western appeasement of anti-Muslim oppression, and direct Western assaults on Muslims, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. The al-Qaeda ideology seems to assist young people who feel driven towards political violence by what they see and hear. It does not seem to be itself an initiatory cause or 'root' of terrorism.

IDEOLOGY AND REALISM

Mr Ware continues, writing of the MCB:

'It seems to blame British intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. But can the MCB really say that Islamic extremism is simply a product of foreign policy, and exculpate aspects of Islamic theology, practice and history?'

This is interesting language. Mr Ware seems to be accepting (perhaps only for the sake of argument) that foreign policy is a 'root' of terrorism - and asking whether there is not also a 'root' in certain 'aspects' of Islam.

If Panorama were truly interested in 'the roots of terror', and what needs to be done about them in order to 'stop the bombers' - the subtitle of his article today, it would have at the very least considered the evidence regarding the 'foreign policy thesis'. It didn't, and it hasn't, and it almost certainly won't.

In fact, the fundamental weakness of the programme was the unquestioned assumption that the spread of 'extremist ideas' is the single most decisive factor in the onset of political violence from sections of the British Muslim community. The programme never asked the question: what are the factors behind the bombings? It presumed a certain answer and built on that presumption.

LETTING THE GOVERNMENT OFF THE HOOK

Mr Ware continues:

'Another Muslim advising the Home Office told me: "Both the MCB and Mr Blair are in denial about the influence of their policies on extremism." '

If Mr Blair is in denial about the effect of his policies on breeding terrorism - and he is demonstrably in denial - why is Panorama not holding him to account? Why is it only Iqbal Sacranie whose denial must be excoriated?

One of the missing questions in the original Panorama programme is this: the Muslim Council of Britain came to the forefront of attention for the non-Muslim population largely because of the recognition it was given, and continues to be given, by the British government.

If the MCB is such a breeding ground for "extremism", as Mr Ware puts it, why didn't Panorama also turn its guns on the Cabinet, asking why the MCB was selected as the Government's favoured partner with the Muslims of Britain?

The original Panorama programme has no mention of the Government, or any criticism of the Government for its strong support for the MCB. (See the transcript.) Nothing Mr Ware has said or written since the programme was broadcast, to our knowledge, has questioned the Government for its decision to support the MCB. Muslim leaders are fair game, Cabinet ministers are not.

SNIPPETS

DETENTION WITHOUT CHARGE

The Sunday Telegraph editorial 'Drastic but necessary':

'Permitting terrorist suspects to be held without charge for three months is certainly drastic. Yet the extreme danger posed by the threat we face necessitates drastic measures. The sheer volume of evidence involved in terrorist cases - a recent one included 7,000 phone records, and more than 250 encrypted computers - means that police need months to go through it all if they are to discover, let alone prevent, the enormities the terrorists are planning. Only in terrorist cases will the police be granted the extra time. In ordinary criminal cases, four days will remain the maximum anyone can be detained without charge. Any terrorist detention order will be reviewed by a judge every seven days.'

'There is of course a danger that an innocent person will be detained - but that danger has to be balanced against the hundreds of innocent people who may be killed if the police cannot detain terrorist suspects for 90 days. The Government has decided that it is better to risk imprisoning innocents than risk preventable terrorist murders. That is the right order of priorities.'

The argument here is that when the police believe that someone is involved in a terrorist crime, but do not have the evidence to back up their suspicions, the suspect should be detained without charge for months while the police discover whether or not there is a case to answer.

While the Sunday Telegraph attempts to build a firebreak between terrorism and other forms of crime, it is hard to see how such a distinction can hold. Terrorism is a serious crime. There are other forms of serious crime. If it is justifiable to detain someone while you are discovering whether or not there is a case to answer in the case of one serious crime, why should it not also be permitted in the case of other serious crimes which require long and detailed investigations?

Let us be clear that what we are talking about here is waiting in a cell for months while the police try to discover enough evidence to charge you with. We are not talking about being detained while the police put together evidence strong enough to convict you, but something much weaker.

Is it acceptable to imprison people on the basis of suspicion?

IRAQ REDEPLOYMENTS SHELVED

More on the Iraq troop numbers issue:

'Secret plans by the Government to reduce troop numbers in Iraq have been shelved - and there is now no official date for the withdrawal of British soldiers, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.'

'The decision comes as ministers prepare to announce an unexpected redeployment of up to 6,000 members of the 7th Armoured Brigade - the renowned Desert Rats - in the conflict zone next month. This follows growing concerns that Iraq is heading into full-scale civil war...'

'Last night, senior officers accused the Government of having a "head-in-the-sand mentality" over Britain's defence requirements and its involvement in Iraq, where more than 200 civilians were killed in terrorists attack last week alone. They said the Army - which is also sending 3,000 extra troops to Afghanistan next April - was under-manned, "strapped for cash" and being "dangerously overstretched".'

'So far, operations in Iraq are estimated to have cost Britain £5 billion and, since the American-led invasion in 2003, 95 British troops have been killed there.'

'The redeployment of the Desert Rats, who fought in the 2003 battle for Basra, in southern Iraq, contradicts a plan drawn up two months ago by Mr Reid, Options for UK Force Posture in Iraq, which proposed the start of a troop pull-out next month.'

'The government document added that the planned reductions would save £500 million a year.'

'... One serving brigadier, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the danger of Britain becoming bogged down in its own "Vietnam war" was getting stronger every day. "The return of the 7th Armoured Brigade to Iraq is a significant benchmark," he said.'

' "There is a real head-in-the-sand mentality as to how we're going to extricate ourselves from this mess. There is no endgame to the problems in Iraq." '

And there are still plans to send additional British troops to Afghanistan next year.

UZBEK TORTURE, BRITISH COMPLICITY

Reporter John Sweeney has made a programme about Britain's former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, and his stand against the brutal dictatorship and its methods. The documentary, to be screened on BBC2 on Wednesday 21 September, is the opportunity for an article in the Sunday Times: 'I've seen the blood on Labour's hands'. The documentary finished editing in London on 7 July:

'We were in a sound dub in central London, a few streets away from the Tavistock Square bus bomb. The sound engineer quipped: "It’s a great film, John, but torturing Muslims is about to be Britain’s number one Olympic sport." '

'It was a cruel joke, all the funnier because of the germ of truth in it. If torturing some fanatic with a beard in Uzbekistan could prevent another 50 people being blown to smithereens on the Piccadilly line, why not?'

'Murray replies: "No. Torturing innocents is wrong. But torturing the guilty is wrong, too. If we in Britain change our mind about that, then at least we should have the honesty to say so. Torture is wrong, full stop." '

JNV welcomes feedback.