The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 103: Tuesday 18 October 2005

One Hundred Days Since 7/7: Terror Laws

ONE HUNDRED DAYS OF INSECURITY

THE COVENANT OF SECURITY

What have we learned about national security policy, and the terror laws proposed by the Government in response to the July bombings?

We learned that until recently, Britain had been protected from al-Qaeda-type terrorism because of a fairly explicit arrangement, whereby al-Qaeda-type militants from around the world found refuge here, and in return for their own personal safety had pledged not to launch attacks in the UK. This 'covenant of security' is apparently a long-standing principle in Islamic law.

On 13 August, we noted an important interview, conducted before the July bombings, with a well-known British militant, Hassan Butt, formerly of Hizb ut-Tahrir and of al-Muhajiroun (he split from them for being insufficiently militant).

Mr Butt explained the strategic thinking behind Britain's immunity from attacks:

'It would be unwise to carry out military operations here. It would harm a lot of people. Britain is a very liberal country in comparison to America where Muslims don't have many rights. This is the type of country where you do have a lot more rights. Now with Afghanistan gone, Muslims don't really have a place where they can come back to and regroup, have time to think and relax without the authorities breathing down your neck.'

'A bomb in Britain would be strategically damaging to Muslims here. Immigration is lax in Britain - you know as well as I that London has more radical Muslims than anywhere in the Muslim world. A bomb would jeopardise everyone's position. There has got to be a place we can come.'

Prospect magazine: 'You mean that different groups have agreed not to attack Britain for strategic reasons?'

Butt: 'Oh yeah, definitely.'

The would-be martyr speculated accurately: 'If someone was to attack Britain, they would be a completely and utterly loose cannon. It would be someone who wasn't involved in the network.... the jihad network.'

MUTUAL SECURITY

Michael Clarke, head of Defence Studies at King's College, London argued for the retention/reworking of the traditional approach to handling foreign-born 'jihadis' on 26 August - the approach derided in France and elsewhere as 'Londonistan'.

Clarke put the intelligence services' point of view:

'The covenant approach generally suits the police, who know that their effectiveness is ultimately dependent on the legitimacy officers have at local level. They can run zero-tolerance campaigns on antisocial behaviour or any number of specific issues, but only with the implicit consent of the majority. A light touch in general allows for a heavy hand on occasion; it does not work in reverse.'

'Not least, the "covenant of security" is favoured by most of the security services - it encourages local communities to join the intelligence effort and allows interesting individuals to be monitored more easily. US authorities were exasperated at the way that Abu Hamza was allowed to preach to a large crowd of radical followers every Friday outside the Finsbury Park mosque. But for a British spook, this kind of weekly photo opportunity is worth its weight in gold, and probably far harder to find with Abu Hamza now in custody, pending extradition to the US.'

The new aggressive approach is undermining British national security, in other words, and those who are on the front line of policing/disrupting this sector are concerned at the consequences of Blair's new policies.

THE LOSS OF THE COVENANT

Dominique Thomas, the author of the book Londonistan, explained why the covenant arrangement broke down in a Channel 4 Dispatches programme:

'The UK has become a target for radical Islamists for two reasons. The first factor is the British government's change of attitude after 11 September: arrests, a change in legislation, a suppression of propaganda. This was considered the first act of aggression.'

'The second factor is British military involvement alongside the US in Iraq. This was considered the second act of aggression. A clear act of war. The fact that Britain is militarily involved against a Muslim country exposes it to becoming a definitive target.'

In other words, Britain was not attacked when it permitted asylum and freedom of expression and association, but it started to become a target when it started to repress asylum seekers. The other critical factor was the move from "passive oppression" in foreign policy to "active oppression" (see the Young Muslims and Extremism report).

On this topic, Dispatches talked to Dr Saad al-Fagih, a Saudi dissident now living in London, and head of the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia:

'The war in Iraq did two things. First, it increased the reasons to sympathise with al Qaeda causes, it increased those reasons to ten folds. And second, to give bin Laden the most effective and secure and powerful base - a replacement for what he lost in Afghanistan.'

Reporter Deborah Davies at one point said of young Muslim extremism:

'The driving force is not social deprivation, it's global politics'.

She noted that earlier Dispatches programmes exposed the wide availability of violent videos in militant circles:

'These kind of videos are emotional and powerful, stirring up a real anger at the suffering of Muslims worldwide.'

Despite expert witness and Dispatches' own analysis/evidence, the programme concludes that, 'there's been a decade of government policy which allowed extremists here to pour out their message of hate. And we've witnessed the result', in other words the 7/7 bombings.

The evidence contained in the programme itself contradicted this conclusion: it was not 'messages of hate' which led to these 'results', but the reality of Muslim suffering. The evidence is that the network of foreign extremists actually restrained attacks in the UK - albeit for strategic and self-interested reasons.

On 17 August, the FT (page 15 or paid-for access) remarked:

'Many in the intelligence community argue, though, that the impact of radical imams can be overstated and other complicated and long-simmering motivations can drive disaffected Muslims into violent extremism.'

In other words, the policy and media focus on 'preachers of hatred' is irrelevant to national security, and the verbal advocacy of 'martyrdom' has little if any effect on the risks of terrorism.

The real risks come from government policy abroad - and at home - feeding and confirming the despair and anger that turns into violent hatred.

NATIONAL SECURITY IS NOT THE PRIORITY

What do we know about the terror laws being brought in? We know that they are eroding the restraint of the organised al-Qaeda networks based in the UK. We know that existing laws are already leading to the arrest and detention of innocent people - see those acquitted in the 'ricin'/'no-ricin' case. We know that the new laws are lowering the bar even further, making new miscarriages of justice even more likely. We know that such injustices are likely to create even more alienation and hatred.

The Home Office/Foreign Office report, Young Muslims and Extremism, noted that one of the causes of 'extremism' among young British Muslims was Islamophobia, which they defined in the following way:

Islamophobia

'Perceived Islamophobia (particularly post-9/11) in society and the media may cause some British Muslims including young Muslims to feel isolated and alienated and in a few cases to reject democratic and multi-cultural values.'

'The Cantle report identified polarisation between Pakistani/Bangladeshi and white communities as a factor in the 2001 disturbances. The young people involved in these disturbances included educated professionals as well as under privileged people.'

'Lack of understanding of Islam - insensitive use of language and perceptions of Islam and an ill-informed assumption that Islam's teachings are inherently extremist. Media coverage of extremist fringe groups increases this.'

'Muslims' perception of bias in the way counter-terrorism powers are used to stop, detain and arrest people, both at ports and in-country.'

What have the new laws done but increase 'media coverage of extremist fringe groups'?

What have the new laws against 'preachers of hatred' and 'extremist mosques' - and the incessant calls on Muslim leaders to confront the extremists in their own communities - done if they have not encouraged 'insensitive use of language' and the 'ill-informed assumption that Islam's teachings are inherently extremist'.

What has the language of targeting Muslims for stop and search done if it has not strengthened Muslim alienation over the biased way that the terror laws are used?

What have the new laws done if they have not deepened existing grievances?

According to the Government's own analysis, these effects all deepen extremism, and undermine national security.

National security is not the priority.

GLORIFICATION

This is even clearer with the most controversial of the new proposals. On Sunday 9 October, Panorama ran a programme about some of the new 'anti-terror' laws ('Blair vs Blair'). The key interview was with David Bickford, legal adviser to MI5 (internal security service) and MI6 (external security service) for the period 1987 - 1995. (22 minutes into the programme.)

Mr Bickford has strong views on the new offence of 'glorifying' terrorism:

Bickford: 'They [the Muslim community] will be less willing to assist the intelligence agencies. Within terrorism, you have the terrorists themselves, you have their immediate supporters, you have their sympathisers, and you have those on the outside who are politically sympathetic but don't want to get involved.'

'When you have an offence of "glorification", in my view, that will extend the rings. So sympathisers become more than sympathisers, political sympathisers become more than political sympathisers, you lose their trust if you like.'

Panorama: 'So, to that extent, is it your view that this aspect of the Government's Terrorism Bill may make us less safe?'

Bickford: 'Yes. Certainly.'

Panorama: 'Well, that's quite a severe charge.'

Bickford: 'Yes, it is, and I think they should have thought about it properly before they introduced it, and they haven't.'

These laws as a whole do not increase national security, they diminish it, for precisely the reasons given by Mr Bickford. This was perfectly foreseeable, and no doubt was foreseen by all those involved.

It doesn't matter. National security is not the prime mover in national security policy.

When Tony Blair invaded Iraq, the intelligence services told him straightforwardly that the greatest threat to Britain came not from Saddam Hussein, but from Osama bin Laden and those who follow him. They told him that he was undermining national security by invading Iraq.

He invaded anyway.

National security was not the priority then, and it is not the priority now.

US RIGHT FEARS BLAIR PROPOSALS

One of the most revealing insights into the new laws came from the US Right. The Times 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.' [This element of the proposals was dropped.]

'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." '

 

JNV welcomes feedback

This page last updated 18 October 2005