The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 87: 2 October 2005

Contents

Bali - More Bombs

Repression - Terrorist T-Shirts

BALI - MORE BOMBS

BURKE ON MOTIVES

The destruction in Bali comes ahead of the anniversary of the first Bali bombings. 'The fresh onslaught appeared to be timed to coincide with the opening of a rugby championship, exactly as it was three years ago.' (Observer, page 2)

Jason Burke points out in the Observer that 'Islamic militancy in Indonesia, and in the Far East generally... certanly far pre-dates Osama bin Laden'. The online version of his article is generally superior to the printed version (italics):

'The first Bali bombs offer clues. Then the plotters were recruited locally, a self-forming autonomous cell. They received some assistance from overseas, mainly cash, but did almost everything else themselves.'

'Now it is almost inconceivable that yesterday's bombers could have been acting as part of some grand, co-ordinated strategy by a South East Asian group, let alone on the orders of someone up a mountain in Afghanistan. But the most important lesson of the previous Bali bombing comes from the target, chosen by the militants themselves. The tourist nightclubs they hit were obvious and vulnerable.'

'Others were more emotional. As local people, the bombers were denied entry to the clubs, which they apparently resented. The clubs and the tourists were seen as alien intruders - 'dirty people', one bomber said, and brazen about their 'adulterous practices'. In the bombers' minds the attacks were a blow against moral pollution and a step to creating a Dar ul Islam.'

'He described them using a local word for "whites" once used to describe the Dutch. In the minds of the bombers, they were just fighting another brand of colonial oppressor.'

'The latest attacks will be born of the same feelings, probably fused with anti-Western, anti-Semitic nihilism. They show again that killing militants or jailing them can only be a short-term solution.'

It's all very well talking about 'preachers of hatred', but the hatred only has a chance to twist people's minds if there is a bitter grievance already there.

WHY?

One of the men convicted of the first Bali bombings made clear the kind of thinking behind this kind of destruction:

'Shortly after his arrest in January, Ali Imron took part in a police news conference in which he demonstrated how he and others assembled the bombs.'

'He said he felt sorry for the families of the victims, but that the US and its allies were legitimate targets.' (BBC News Online)

One can imagine a similar statement by Mohammed Sidique Khan if he were alive to make it. It is obvious that there is no connection between tourists in a nightclub and the course of US foreign policy, or between passengers on the tube and Britain's involvement in Iraq.

There is no justification in the world for killing and maiming random Westerners in retribution for state terrorism in the Middle East. Nevertheless, this kind of thinking will continue so long as Western state terrorism continues.

Are we prepared to take the action necessary to make this terrorism stop? Or will we merely watch and wait as the bombs go off and our freedoms are taken away?

BALI - DENIAL

The Sunday Telegraph editorial on the latest bombings says:

'We have heard much in recent weeks about the need to withdraw from Iraq, not least to appease the Islamists. Yesterday's attacks show that the terrorists are unappeasable. They seek not concessions, but the annihilation of everything that they consider incompatible with their grotesque perversion of Islamic doctrine.'

And where is the evidence for this?

After the Bali bombings, al-Qaeda claimed responsibility, and Osama bin Laden released a tape in which he said:

'Australia is the one that we have warned before not to participate in Afghanistan. Not to mention its continued awful chapter in East Timor. They ignored our warning, and they woke up to the sound of explosions in Bali but the government pretended that they were not the target.' (CNN Online)

One may support or oppose the Australian role in Afghanistan and/or East Timor, but these are clearly distinct foreign policies, not 'everything al-Qaeda considers incompatible with its grotesque perversion of Islam'.

What do we know about Jemaah Islamiyah, the al-Qaeda affiliate believed to be responsible for the first Bali bombings, and very likely involved in this latest attack?

'Following the arrests of 31 members of the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) terror network in Singapore, the government released a paper detailing just how such groups cultivated these mindsets.'

'Research showed the recruits became so committed to the cause they become perfect jihad machines, looking for an opportunity to sacrifice their lives and avenge the suffering of Muslims in the ultimate devotion in a "defensive" holy war.' (CNN Online)

CNN reported in December 2003:

'Anti-American sentiment has increased drastically since the September 11, 2001.'

'A survey in 2000 showed 75 percent of Indonesians had a favorable opinion of the United States. By 2003, however, 83 percent said they have an unfavorable opinion of America, particularly after the war in Iraq.'

'Islamic scholar Azyumardi Azra said certain U.S. policies have alienated the moderate Muslims in the nation.'

'That growing distrust towards the United States has become radical Islam's most powerful recruitment tool.'

'Though authorities began clamping down on radical groups after the Bali bombing last year that killed more than 200 people, the appeal of radical Islam's anti-American message remains strong.'

Nothing here about 'annihilating everything that al-Qaeda considers incompatible with Islam'.

REPRESSION

REPRESSION - TERRORIST T-SHIRTS

Finally a newspaper has covered the story behind the story. Walter Wolfgang's eviction from the Labour Party conference - and his detention under 'anti-terror' laws when he tried to re-enter the conference - was only the tip of the iceberg, as anyone who was at the Labour Against the War fringe meeting last Sunday knows.

It falls to the Mail on Sunday (a super-right wing tabloid) to uncover the fact that Sussex Police detained more than 600 people during the conference under anti-terror laws:

'John Catt, an 80-year-old peace activist, described how he was stopped searched and questioned for wearing an anti-Blair T-shirt.'

'Locals have reported that another pensioner was bundled into a police van while walking his dog before breakfast and driven home after being told by officers that his shirt was "offensive".'

'And a woman activist claims she was stopped from entering a shopping centre because she was wearing a shirt bearing slogans attacking Tony Blair and George Bush.'

Why are T-shirts being oppressed in this way? Don't the police know that the socks were found innocent?

Hold onto your hats, here is the official explanation, given to the Mail on Sunday (page 12, not online):

'The Home Office last night justified such police action by saying it could help "deter terrorist activity by creating a hostile environment for would-be terrorists" and that the use of its powers was based on intelligence material.'

British intelligence has 'material' indicating that would-be terrorists walk around with T-shirts saying 'Bush Blair Sharon To Be Tried For War Crimes Torture Human Rights Abuse / The Leaders Of Rogue States' (as worn by John Catt). We'd love to see that 'material'.

More of the official explanation:

'Asked last night why Sussex Police had used Section 44 to stop and search people, Assistant Chief Constable Geoff Williams, who was in charge of Operation Otter, said: "It's a fundamental role of policing to provde a safe and secure environment that actually allows democracy to operate." '

So that's alright then. Curtail democracy in order to allow it to operate.

More from the Assistance Chief Constable:

'Section 44 is a necessary power for the police to have, because with a counter-terrorism operation you need to create an environment where a would-be attacker thinks there is a high likelihood of them being stopped and checked.'

'This is not all black and white. There is a large area of grey and the police have to operate within it. Provided we do that politely and treat people with respect and dignity, then we are carrying out our role.'

600 people detained during a conference lasting less than a week, detained without being arrested or charged, and required to give their name, address, age and ethnicity. Politely, but detained all the same.

'And despite initially insisting that none of the data would be kept, Sussex Police yesterday admitted that much of it would be stored for "monitoring" the use of stop and search powers.'

Well, hey, welcome to the Grey Area.

THE DEATH OF FREEDOM - KLUG

Francesca Klug OBE, of the Human Rights Centre at the London School of Economics, helped Labour draft the Human Rights Act, which has its fifth birthday today.

Ms Klug is rather worried:

'Today it is the fifth birthday of the Human Rights Act, but there is little to celebrate. As one of those who once worked with Labour to craft a rights charter that went with the grain of our parliamentary democracy, I now see it being undermined, in word and deed, by the government that introduced it. Tory leaders, present and pending, line up to pen its obituary.'

'Early allegations against the act - that it would swamp the courts and spring open the prison doors - failed to materialise. But now the charge is more serious. The act has, in some quarters, effectively been held liable for the London bombings.'

'Yet, in the face of terrorist atrocities, Britain is the only country proposing to amend its human rights legislation. Whatever other divisions, America remains united in defending its Bill of Rights. No other government in Europe has proposed amending or derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights.' (Observer, page 27)

She points out that when Mr Blair talks of defending 'our way of life', the principles that underpin the Human Rights Act are part of that way of life.

THE DESTRUCTION OF FREEDOM - MORTIMER

John Mortimer, novelist and former practicing barrister, is also rather worried about the state of freedom in Britain today. In the Mail on Sunday, he picks up on some remarks of the Prime Minister:

'We knew that the present Government had very little respect for civil rights and our age-old liberties. What we didn't know was that Tony Blair was in favour of a complete reversal of a basic building block of our criminal law [the presumption of innocence].'

'Lord Goddard, a hanging judge and no Left-wing softie, used to say that the worst possible result of any trial was that an innocent person should be convicted.'

'It's a basic belief that every lawyer, including Tony Blair, has instilled in him [or her] at the outset of his [or her] studies. It has been called the golden thread that runs through British justice, a source of considerable pride.'

'And now we have a Prime Minister who says "the whole of our legal system started fromt he principle that its duty is to protect the innocent from being wrongly convicted. Surely our present duty is to protect law-abiding citizens to live in safety." '

'So what he is saying is that safety can't be achieved if you are having fair trials.'

Next to his piece is a Mail on Sunday editorial (page 25), which remarks that 'draconian measures allowe our enemies to claim our freedoms are illusory':

'How will we then persuade the Middle East to choose a freedom we ourselves are dismantling?'

A pertinent question - if we were really interested in persuading the Middle East to choose freedom.

JNV welcomes feedback.