The Reactionary "Security" Programme of New Labour Cannot Be Permitted

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

The Reactionary "Security" Programme of New Labour Cannot Be Permitted

Interview with a Man Held Indefinitely without Trial under the "Anti-Terror" Laws 2001 and 2005

Profile: Gareth Peirce – lawyer representing detainees held under the "anti-terror" laws 2001 and 2005

Return of Algerian Refugees

Brown's Britain: "Mother of Hypocrisies"

When Gordon Brown made a statement to the House of Commons in July on security, he said that the government’s priority is "a Britain strong in security, robust in our resolve, resilient in response".

But who is the enemy for the government, who is Gordon Brown targeting to respond to resiliently?

In this issue of WDIE we are posting an interview with a foreign national, who is a Muslim, whose detention under the "anti-terror" legislation of New Labour is still ongoing. This man’s words speak for themselves. They bring flesh and blood experience to bear on exactly what the government is perpetrating when it speaks of the necessity to "stand firm" in the face of "long-term threats".

What Gordon Brown’s New Labour is projecting in its "resolve" to strengthen security against "Al Qaeda inspired terrorist violence" cannot be permitted.

The government’s plans, as announced by the Prime Minister, include the creation of "a new National Security Committee to oversee the new Office for Security and Counter Terrorism", and the publication in the autumn of "a national security strategy". Brown boasts that the government has "since September 11 doubled our overall investment to more than £2 billion a year. Dedicated anti-terrorist resources have also doubled. Even in advance of the spending review settlement the security service will, by 2008, be twice the size it was in 2001." There is to be a further "Counter Terrorism Bill" to include new powers for the secretary of state in addition to those granted since 1997, particularly since 9/11. This Bill will also "propose additional penalties for terrorists charged with other criminal offences". The most rampant racism and xenophobia is evident in the government’s proposals and thinking. For instance, Brown declares, "from the end of 2008 any foreign nationals coming to the UK for more than six months will be required to have a biometric ID. Such an identity scheme will help prevent people already in the country using multiple identities for terrorist, criminal or other purposes." The "first line of defence" against "terrorism" is said to be in other countries’ ports; immigrants are targeted by association; foreign nationals are almost equated, by sleight of hand, with criminals who need to be deported, controlled, surveyed as a matter of course, as double punishment for any misdemeanour or none. Brown sickeningly boasts, "Overall 4,000 foreign prisoners are likely to be deported this year."

According to Brown, "liberty is the first and founding value of our country and security is the first duty of government". This is the "British way", this is defence of "our way of life". This hypocrisy coupled with the most reactionary chauvinism and attack on the rights of all cannot be permitted. According to Brown there is an enemy within who must be defeated also, tens of millions of pounds must be spent to "resist violent extremism", there must be "citizenship education". This is the road to fascism, undertaken in the name of "liberty". Propaganda is to be directed at Arabic speakers, and "English-speaking imams" are to be sponsored.

The security of a people must be decided on and defined with the participation of all sections of the people. The conception of a host community which is duty-bound to defend its way of life and de-humanise those who allegedly threaten its values is one which is an outrage against all democratic thought. The struggle of those who are the target of such oppression must join with the struggle of all who are opposing the state’s attacks on their rights. No one must be reconciled with being assigned the role of victim of the government’s reactionary "security" programme, and the working class and people must develop the movement to defend the rights of all. They themselves must take a stand that to build a Britain where the rights of all are recognised by virtue of their humanity means to implacably oppose and defeat the government’s reactionary programme on this front.

WDIE: What happened to you and the other people arrested under the "anti-terror" laws 2001 and 2005?

Answer: In the aftermath of 9/11, Britain shoulder to shoulder with the US decided to join the "global war against terror". Under the pretext of a "state of emergency" Britain derogated from article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights and passed the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act, which allowed the secretary of state to detain foreign nationals who were deemed to be a threat to national security without charge or trial. I was among the men who were arrested under this legislation and put in Belmarsh prison for more than three years.

Then came the law lords ruling that found this "anti-terror" law to be discriminatory against foreign nationals and incompatible with Britain’s international obligations. The government was forced to change tactics and bring in new legislation that covers foreigners and British alike, the Anti-terrorism Act 2005 (control orders). Similar to the 2001 Act, the home secretary certifies a person he considers to be a threat to national security and imposes on the person a set of restrictions such as the limitation of movement and communication, and electronic tagging (no mobile phones, phone box, no internet, no visitors unless cleared by the home office, no pre-arranged meeting, and limitation of area you can move into). We had the certificate issued under the first Act revoked and a new certificate was issued against us (the 2005 Act). We stayed under these stringent conditions until after 7/7.

After 7/7 when Tony Blair declared that "the rules of the game have changed" most of us were again re-arrested from our houses or from hospital. This time we were arrested under the Immigration Act 1971, this time to be deported back to our countries because they say our presence in this country is not conducive to the public good. We were put in Long Lartin prison, going through the long legal process with the court, Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). This process is ongoing, so we are still facing deportation to countries where, as the secretary of state just a few months prior acknowledged, it was unsafe to send us back, where we could face torture, and that was the reason in the first place to bring in these anti-terror laws, because we could not be deported.

WDIE: Through your experience, what views did you formulate about the anti-terrorism laws and the way they are used?

Answer: I realised from the early stages of our detention that we were prisoners of war, a war that is waged against the Muslim world in general. I realised that we were really scapegoats. I formed the view that we should not participate in any of the SIAC proceedings, which acts as a rubber stamp. This is a real masquerade and travesty of justice that gives the government judicial cover. This court, the SIAC, that dealt with the detainees held under the 2001 Act is the same one that deals with those under the 2005 Act (control orders) and is the same one that is dealing with the deportation proceedings. SIAC uses secret evidence and the lowering of the burden of proof from beyond reasonable doubt to "balance of probability" to deport people to countries where they may face more inhuman treatment and torture. It is difficult to see how someone could refute something that neither he nor his lawyer has access to. The same file and secret evidence has been used every time we have been detained under different legislation in SIAC. It is against all principles of fairness and justice.

WDIE: Through your contact with other people detained under this legislation, what is the general sense of what to do and what is being done in the face of this wrongful arrest and imprisonment?

Answer: I’d like to say that real people suffered during these last six years. Broken families, children separated from their fathers and of course the psychological damage, the bitterness and the feeling of injustice that is felt by the detainees themselves. The idea is how do we impart this to the people and change the demonised characters and stereotype portrayed by the government and the media. They depict us as "suspect terrorists", a threat to the "national security" and "our way of life". We want to emphasise the long held principles of presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise by proper due process and proper evidence in a normal court of law. We want to inform the people that these detainees have never been questioned by the police or formally charged or tried. In a normal situation these presumptions seem quite straightforward; however in today’s climate it is not so obvious when you have a determined government in league with the tabloids in their concerted efforts to demonise us.

WDIE: From this movement to act upon anti-terror legislation, what is being done to tackle this question of civil liberties?

Answer: It is unfortunate to say that I only know a few organisations who have been campaigning against these laws: CAMPACC, Cage Prisoners, Liberty, Peace and Justice, along with lawyers who challenged this legislation in court. These groups try to organise talks, lectures, public meetings, demonstrations, as well as some literature. However, these efforts and limited resources, compared with the government and opposition parties who set out to out do each other to show who is more "tough on terror" and who have unlimited access to the "mainstream" media, can make it difficult to see how a real impact and change can happen when people only hear the scare-mongering and "policy of fear". This "policy of fear" suggests to people that these laws are there to target only a few to keep the rest safe.

WDIE: What questions must be posed to the society in order to stop the anti-human treatment of the Muslim community, and what must be the calls for the working class and people of this country to take up on the basis of defending the rights of all?

Answer: The question that must be asked is who benefits from this "war on terror"? We live in a post-modern imperialist era where through globalisation the multinational corporations could achieve the control of developing world countries’ wealth without having to invade them. Different tactics have been used in the past. Today the "war on terror" is being used as a smokescreen to impose the values and civilisation of the west, in particular US hegemony, on the rest of the world.

The Muslim world with its natural resources, an obstacle to US ambition, has become the new enemy of the west after the Cold War, whose systematic demonisation has been the duty of the right-wing intelligentsia. "A Clash of Civilisations", a title of a book and a theory of these right-wingers, became the backbone of American policy towards the Muslim world.

After 9/11, a new enemy was created, this time the "enemy within", i.e. the Muslim communities living in the west. The media and many circles among the ruling class were able to imprint the relationship in people’s minds between Muslim, veil, foreigner, and asylum seeker and a threat to "our way of life", "values" and "national security". At the same time, governments like in Britain used divide and rule tactics. They have imposed tremendous pressure on the Muslim community by stating that it is only a small minority who engage in "terrorist activities" and at the same time reserving the right to define terrorism, as it has been introduced in the 2000 Terrorism Act followed successively by others until the 2006 Act, which commissions the "crimes" of glorifying and condoning terrorism. This has made it very difficult for the Muslim community to express views or support just causes around the world. It is constantly demanded of them to prove their allegiance to the state, thus creating a real sense of insecurity in the community, which leads to segregation and racism.

The working class and people need to be aware that these states like the US and Britain who inherently always seek more power and control, and the targeting of the Muslim community by these draconian laws, will soon reach everyone, and the examples are already there for us to see (stop and search laws against animal rights activists, anti-war protesters arrested under SOCPA, ID cards proposals, and a DNA database). All authoritarian states always use "security" as the basis to clamp down on dissent and to curtail people’s civil liberties. It is not difficult to see Britain slipping towards a police state, and who else but the working class would be the most affected by the loss of civil liberties? In this "global war on terror", the question that must be asked is who dies every day in these wars? And who is affected by the taxes and increase in the oil prices? On the other hand, who benefits from the increase in oil prices and the military spending, not to mention the lucrative deals in these war torn countries.

The working class and people should become conscious and experience for themselves by constantly taking pro-active steps to influence the path this country is going to. The anti-terrorism laws that are targeting the Muslim community at present are bringing mistrust and friction between communities, which breeds racism and bigotry. Everyone has the right to live in dignity and according to their principles and conscience. It is in the interest of all that the racism and unjust treatment of the Muslim community be brought to an end! And it is important that the issue of civil liberties is regarded as having as much import as healthcare, pensions and job security. I believe it’s the only way we can make a change.

WDIE: Thank you very much. We would like to add that we ourselves vigorously condemn the "anti-terror" legislation, and those unjustly detained and persecuted under these laws have our unreserved support. We very much hope that what you have to say and making people aware of your experience will assist in broadening and deepening the movement to change the situation, and that the outcome in your personal case is favourable, along with all others who have faced and are facing similar anti-human treatment.

This work of art was not created in a traditional school of ceramic art, nor was its creator a highly acclaimed artist. The originator of this painstakingly fashioned piece of Islamic pottery made it while in top security prison Belmarsh which has been described as Britain’s Guantanamo Bay, detained under the Anti-terrorism Act 2001. The masterpiece is dedicated to the man’s defence lawyer Gareth Peirce.

Gareth Peirce, the defence lawyer well-known for helping free the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, has since their inception been incensed by the anti-terror laws. Her legendry dedication to clients remains seemingly undiminished. She is not only modest but harshly self-critical. She prefers issues and outcomes to personalities, and so talks only about the politics and process of the law: "It’s a legitimate comment that lawyers have been involved in making a spectacular mess of everything. If you look at all of these disasters…that are in place around the world, including internment (without trial of "terrorist" suspects around Britain) and Guantanamo, who constructed them? Who gave the advice to the president? Who is failing to get people out?"

Belmarsh’s claustrophobic cells are at the heart of what she describes as a repressive system designed to inflict "mental distress" on those in indefinite detention. Eleven foreign nationals, all Muslim, were held there without charge or trial on the grounds that they posed a threat to national security before the Law Lords ruled this to be unlawful. One of her translators, an Algerian, was deported.

After receiving a CBE for "services to justice" she later returned it.

Louise Christian, the solicitor who has fought cases alongside Gareth, said: "She is 105% on the side of her client. She has huge empathy with people. She knows the importance of having proper evidence…and she knows the way governments have tried to convict people by association and ideas rather than criminal activity."

Gareth Peirce is not only a defence lawyer, but a fighter for human beings and the inviolable rights of these human beings.

Gareth Peirce, Birnberg Peirce & Partners, (solicitors for a number of Algerian men leaving the United Kingdom)., January 20, 2007

Fewer than a handful of Algerian refugees are consciously choosing to face torture and indefinite detention in the coming days by returning to their country of origin.

Do they have a choice? They could in fact continue to stay in this country and have considerable confidence that they could win their challenge to the government's policy, in the House of Lords or ultimately in the European Court of Human Rights. For most, however of the past decade in which they have lived in this country, five years has been spent in prison. For three and a half years they fought (and won) a challenge to their indefinite detention without trial. The government acknowledged then that they could not be deported to a country that practised torture and was more than likely to do so in the case of each of these men. It adopted the use of initials of the alphabet for each man to protect families in Algeria from official attention.

Now each has the worst of all worlds. Each man wanted to clear his name but secret evidence and secret courts never allowed him a chance to do so. The same unsafe process adopted by the internment legislation condemned by the House of Lords almost immediately reinstated itself, this time under the guise of deportation proceedings with the same small handful of men locked up once again. This time however, each man discovered that far from his promised anonymity in Algeria not only had the stigma of an allegation of links to or involvement in international terrorism been transmitted to the Algerian regime with his name attached to it, but that each family in Algeria had been questioned at the request of the Government here and the findings of the unlawful internment proceedings handed over lock stock and barrel to the same regime whose torture chambers and intelligence services remain intact.

That some individuals have chosen to leave after a decade here is a victory for no one and the circumstances of their departure bring shame to all concerned. The Prime Minister announced a year and a half ago that the "rules of the game have changed" and as his first initiative locked up these men once again, this time to be deported although none had breached any condition of his brief release after his victory in the House of Lords. Mr Blair acknowledged however, that there would first have to be in place a Memorandum of Understanding and an independent monitoring organisation to provide a minimum prospect of protection. Instead, the Algerian regime refused both and the UK settled for a worthless, vague and unenforceable promise. The men find themselves in a terrifying void in which UK government officials are today asking each man for details of his "next of kin", in which Algerian officials are telling them that the UK is "playing politics" with their departure and the UK officials in turn are claiming that whatever plans have been informed to the men concerned are being frustrated by failures on the part of Algeria. Even within the most elementary details of departure there is wholesale chaos.

Why would any individual plunge into such fear and uncertainty if he had any choice? Each believes he faces torture or death, not because he has committed any offence, but because he has been branded (in large part by the UK) and each has concluded that he cannot by staying here ever hope to eradicate that branding. He therefore is choosing, he says "a quick death there rather than an endless slow death here".

Those men who have families are leaving for one reason; to give their families the hope of a normal existence without them here. At the moment the lives and thoughts of each family are entirely dominated either by the imprisonment of the man, or if on bail, the reality of his being allowed out of his house little more than 2 - 4 hours a day at most, all visitors to the house needing Home Office approval, the presence of electronic monitors, police entering the house at all hours and searching the children's possessions and telephone calls throughout the night. Above all is the ever present fear that each may be breaching a prohibition that he knows nothing of and the grim comprehension that he can never know or dislodge the allegation that has placed him and his family in this never ending circumstance.

Each man goes in despair of ever clearing his name. All research into the effects of wrongful convictions speaks of the devastating effect of wrongful accusations upon the individuals and their families. For these men there have been no convictions, no proper accusations, no knowledge of what is alleged against them and, astonishingly, for most, no questioning by police to discover whether untested secret assumptions might be wrong. Despite the poverty of the allegations, and the inability of the men ever effectively to challenge them, nevertheless it is the simplistic branding that attaches to their departure in the coming days. We ask that instead a greater understanding attach to what is happening and why; those who work to eradicate torture do not see these deportations as a victory.

Felicity Arbuthnot, October 2, 2007

So Britain lectures Burma on the right of people to protest, the UN, sends an envoy there and the US – whilst behaving in Iraq and Afghanistan as Burma's Junta, shooting, beating, torturing, imprisoning without trial – go in to broken record mode about the right to peacefully demonstrate and "freedom and democracy". Meanwhile, the British government, under the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown (who as Chancellor of the Exchequer write the cheques for the Iraq and Afghanistan bloodbaths) has instructed the police to ban a peaceful march and Lobby of Parliament – on October 8, the day that Parliament re-convenes after the summer break – demanding that British troops leave Iraq and Afghanistan.

Veteran former MP, and former Minister for Energy, The Right Honourable Tony Benn, whose son Hilary is Minister for the Environment, is joining composer, musician and producer Brian Eno; political comedian, satirist and documentary maker Mark Thomas and Labour Executive member, Walter Wolfgang in defying the ban. Benn has written to the Home Secretary outlining his views on this Burma-style crackdown on the right to protest outside the "Mother of Parliaments". Octogenarian Walter Wolfgang had also been subject of "democracy’s" limitations, having been heavy handedly ejected by Labour Party goons, from the Labour Party Conference for calling out "Shame" regarding Iraq, when Minister Jack Straw was speaking.

Whatever the Burmese government's indisputable failings and lack of regards for human rights, Britain and America have absolutely no moral ground from which to criticise them. People in glass houses, where the world can thus watch them, would show themselves to be bordering on mental deficiency, to throw stones. Ironically, at this year's Party Conference, Gordon Brown invoked the Biblical: "suffer the little children ..." not, apparently, when it comes to calling for British and American soldiers to stop killing, imprisoning and terrifying them. Hypocrisy does not come more towering than this. Shame, yet again.

Tony Benn's letter to the Home Secretary is attached below.

Stop the War Coalition
Press Release
Monday 1 October 2007
immediate

Tony Benn to defy ban and head 8 October Troops Out march.

In response to the attempt to ban the Troops Out march on Monday 8 October Tony Benn has today delivered a letter to the Home Secretary confirming that he will
be marching on 8 October despite the attempt to use the arcane 1839 Sessional
legislation to prohibit this march. The letter appears below. Tony will be joined at the front of the march by Walter Wolfgang, Brian Eno, Mark Thomas and
many more people calling for the withdrawal of British troops and in defence of
civil liberties.

TO:
The Right Hon Jacqui Smith MP
Home Secretary
House of Commons
London
SW1A OAA
Monday October 1st 2007

Dear Home Secretary

LOBBY OF PARLIAMENT ON OCTOBER 8th

I am writing to you as President of the STOP THE WAR COALITION, to give you advance notice that there will be a demonstration in Trafalgar Square the day Parliament meets calling for the immediate withdrawal of all British troops from Iraq and Afghanistan at which I shall -e speaking along with others.

Afterwards many of those present – including myself – will be marching along Whitehall to the House of Commons to meet MPs and urge them to support this call for a withdrawal, as I shall be doing in approaching Malcolm Rifkind my own local MP.

We shall be doing this in an orderly manner and I am making available to those who wish to have one, a postcard over my printed signature as a Privy Councillor, asking the police, and others to assist them.

I enclose a copy of this postcard.

The authority for this march derives from our ancient right to free speech and assembly enshrined in our history, of which we often boast and which we vigorously defended in two world wars.

I am copying this letter, and its enclosure, to Jack Straw, the Commissioner of the Metropolis, and as a courtesy, to the Prime Minister’s office.

I hope that you will be able to re-assure me that those who demonstrate and march down Whitehall will enjoy your full support and the support of the police.

But it is only fair to tell you that the march will go ahead, in any case, and I will be among those marching.

Yours in peace
TONY BENN

"If they are planning an Iranian attack they will have a public even more upset and disgruntled than before. This is what this tightening up is about…..Civil liberties never seem very important until you need them. At times like this we need to be re-enforcing them." Brian Eno

"This is rather a ham-fisted attempt to prevent us from demonstrating. What they (the government and police) do is up to them. We will just ignore them and we have the moral and logical high-ground. I will be marching on Monday 8 October." Mark Thomas

* * * * *

Contact:
David Wilson
Press Office
Stop the War Coalition
07951 579 064
Chris Nineham
07930536519
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
office@stopwar.org.uk