42 day detention, is it "˜justified' or merely a case of "˜islamophobia'
By: Amjad Malik
Clause 29 of the Magna Carta ensures that "˜no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or have his liberties removed but by lawful judgement of his peers'. This 800 years old tradition is mirrored in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 where it was pledged that "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" and due process of law and fair trial were considered as the basic ingredient of a citizen's freedom.
Britain is also trying to revive the old attempts where post 7th of July bombings, 90 days limit of detention without trial was sought and an agreement was reached to extend it to 28 days from 14 on suspicion of terrorism. Now UK parliament is at a crossroad to either sacrifice some of the basics of freedom or to digest Gordon Brown's attempt to seek 42 days detention without charge. House of Commons narrowly escaped from a defeat on a bill which faces a serious opposition and dissent from treasury's own back benchers who voted against. We expect a strong opposition in the House Lords. Human Rights organisations expressed reservations and Muslim MP's though voted for the bill but overall general public in particular minority communities have an anxiety over it and Lord Ahmed of Rotherham has assured to fight their case in Lords.
Looking at the history being a minority community, the Irish would have felt the same pre settlement what Muslims feel now that it will be used as a ploy to increase "˜stop and search' Muslims and detain possible suspects even if there is no evidence and in desperation, evidence may be orchestrated to avoid public outrage. People may loose liberty, livelihood and reputation for unlawful arrest and few thousand pounds ex gratia may never compensate and revive the lives back of innocent victims to a place where they were before the arrest. Feelings of Muslims are the same as would be the case of Christians and other minorities in Muslim countries over blasphemy law as lack of due process and fair trial invite manipulation of such laws and we risk serious judgemental errors. Political priorities are different too as Salman Rushdie goes scot free after being provocative hurting billions of Muslims and is knighted as a literary master in the same society where as young Samina is branded "˜lyrical terrorist' for possessing a literary material which had a potential of incitement. I wonder what would be the case if renowned for his revolutionary verses, Pakistani poet Habib Jalab's poetry is found in some one's house who always waited and encouraged mobs to struggle in order to see the time "˜ when empires will fall.' I think governments are reaping advantages by creating fear which is counter productive. 28 days detention in last one year has been used once and it does not call for need to revise the detention limit, just for insurance purposes, in case one is needed in future. Having said that in order to protect the cosmopolitan nature of the British multicultural community intelligence sharing and widening the intelligence net increasing the resources of units that combat pre crime detection of terrorism is a genuine need of the hour. Young British minds especially from religious back grounds are a fit case for delineation as they are invited participation on international political and foreign policy discussions and universities are breeding grounds for achieving disillusionment and recruitment of potential die hard anti war segments. Govt needs to root out such elements and increase surveillance of those elements who target young minds, creating safer environment for students to interact on healthy forums too. Foreign Policy and international politics discussion is the hobby of an angry, young, and voiceless community who remain targeted and in constant fear from both sides.
If the 42 day detention bill is approved it may be advantageous to allow time for evidence gathering and securing more convictions, thus create a fear in organised crimes community. It will also act as a deterrence to keep people away from such activities which may have a potential to be branded as "˜terrorist'. However, the potential unreasonable or excessive use of it can flare community relations. The disadvantages overpower advantages as post 9/11 and 7/7 Muslims have been on back foot feeling threatened by the political onslaught on their civil liberties and making them victim of crimes which they as a general community did not commit. I think more underground work without creating fear using existing legislation is the key to ensure all communities that they are safe and free.
I think British courts have played genuinely a praiseworthy role by separating the chaff from grain. They ensured that due process of law, fair trial and citizens liberties remain intact whilst govt ensures to protect the public and look after the interest of the state. In 1999 Muslim Imam Shafiq Ur Rehamn won his appeal on facts by the first tribunal set up to adjudicate national security deportations, same tribunal hears appeals of all foreigners who faces eviction. Law Lords in 2004 refused to allow 17 Saudis to be detained forever without a charge creating a sense of justice in the victim communities. In the same tone "˜control orders' were scrapped if they were unreasonably restrictive in free movement jeopardising liberty of foreign individuals facing curfew of more than 20 hours. In 2008, one of the friends of Osama, Abu Qatada was released on bail when continuous detention was sought without charge . Abu Hamza Al Masri was offered a fair trial and free legal access to his lawyers whilst he was facing strip off his nationality and extradition to United Sates on terrorism charges and Samina Malik's conviction was quashed on the premises that it was too excessive. Looking at this I am assured that British Courts have not only gained respect but allowed the government to function as well as keeping the civil liberties intact. It was a fine balance between the interest of individuals and that of the state which was kept under check by British Courts as opposed to its counterparty US courts. Life would be miserable if on the basis of fear, further fear is created and these liberties which were achieved by continuous sacrifices of our ancestors are lost on the basis of some threats of a few fanatic sand thugs, who are, and will remain in a small minority.
Looking at the treatment of missing persons where hundreds were handed over to CIA by Pakistani regime & military authorities in exchange of dollars without due process of law in the absence of any extradition treaty without a judicial oversight and USA's military trials in Guantanamo bay its very reassuring that whatever the case may be British subjects are safe in securing their basic human rights such as right to have an attorney, free trial, innocent until proven guilty and right to liberty through its free, independent, robust and pro justice Civil and Constitutional Courts. I think Labour government must also start concentrating on the issue of food crises, looming recession and dying economy as post George Bush the world priorities and politics emphasis is likely to change at 180 degrees towards economic survival rather than chasing Osama Bin laden in the hilly areas of Afghanistan with millions of soldiers whilst at home people cry for food and over priced oil.
Amjad Malik is a Solicitor-Advocate of the Supreme Court (England) and has done LLM on national security law
June 2008