Cameron puts HT ban on back burner

HizbAt Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Labour MP Clive Efford asked David Cameron, in connection with the government’s announcement that the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan would be added to the list of proscribed terrorist groups, why he has “not fulfilled his manifesto commitment” to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Cameron refused to answer the question, demanding instead: “why did the last Government have 13 years, yet the Pakistani Taliban were never banned? It has taken us eight months to do what they failed to do in 12 years.” (To which supporters of the last government might reply that Labour’s failure to proscribe the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan immediately after taking office in May 1997 could possibly be explained by the fact that the TTP wasn’t founded until December 2007.)

But the Tory Party’s 2010 election manifesto did indeed contain an explicit commitment to “ban any organisations which advocate hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir”. And when he was leader of the opposition Cameron repeatedly called for the proscription of HT (see for example here, here, here,here), as did other prominent figures in the Tory Party such as Pauline Neville-Jones, Chris Grayling and Patrick Mercer.

It was explained to Cameron by spokespersons for the Labour government that, while they were keeping HT under review, an organisation cannot be proscribed under the 2000 Terrorism Act unless there is actual evidence that it is “concerned in terrorism”. And in the case of HT, which is a peaceful if highly sectarian organisation that rejects any involvement with or support for terrorist activities, no such evidence exists.

Challenged in the Commons on Wednesday evening over the government’s plans to ban HT, Damian Green stated only that “Hizb ut-Tahrir is an organisation about which we have real concerns, and I can confirm that its activities are kept under review”. And ENGAGE draws our attention to an article in Thursday’s Daily Express which reports that “Downing Street insiders” have “admitted that there was a lack of evidence of law-breaking for such a banning”.

In short, it would appear that Cameron has now adopted exactly the same position on the illegalisation of HT for which he vehemently denounced Labour when they were in office. In a letter to the prime minister, Ed Balls has written: “Isn’t it the case that the issue has turned out to be more complicated in government than the grandstanding and simple soundbites you made in opposition?”

Precisely so. Without any concern for the civil rights of an organisation that operates entirely within the law, Cameron used the demand for the proscription of HT in order to score party political points against the Labour government, he appealed to voters in the 2010 general election on the basis of a manifesto promise he couldn’t keep, and then quietly abandoned it once he was in power.

Catalan court suspends veil ban

Catalunya High Court has suspended the ban on the Burkha in public places imposed by Lleida city council in October. The verdict, passed on Tuesday, January 12, says the ban will be lifted until a decision has been made by a judge on the appeal put forward by the Muslim association Watani.

On October 8, 2010, the city council forbade the wearing of not only Burkhas but also other Muslim headgear such as the niqaband the hiyab – which only cover the wearer’s hair – in any public building. This means indoor markets, public transport, community centres and council-owned buildings. When the prohibition came into full effect on December 9, it made Lleida the first town in Spain to have taken such a radical step.

But members of Watani say this is discrimination on religious grounds, since many women choose to wear niqabs and hiyabs, rather than being forced to by their husbands or male relatives. Watani’s lawyer, Carlos Antolí, believes the association has a strong case on these grounds.

thinkSPAIN, 17 January 2011

‘Just because you pray, you are not a terrorist’ Swedish Muslim tells police

Police in Norrköping came out in force Wednesday afternoon after they had been tipped off about a “mysterious foreign man” behaving strangely at a bus stop, and then getting on the bus with his rucksack.

It turns out the 28-year-old man had carried out the muslim praying ritual at the bus stop, but when police caught up with him, and searched him, all suspicions were dismissed.

The local police told news agency TT that this is not the first time they got reports of people with foreign looks behaving in what is seen as “suspiciously”. They claim the number of reports have increased after the failed suicide attack among Christmas shoppers at Drottninggatan in Stockholm. “the atmosphere is very agitated,” says officer Torbjörn Lindqvist at the police in Östergötland.

Also Moustafa Kharraki, deputy head of the Swedish Muslim Council, has noticed more suspicion of muslims lately. “This is very serious and it concerns pure discrimination. People have become fearful and suspicious, a lot has changed since Drottninggatan,” Kharraki told the news agency TT.

Kharraki finds the actions of the Norrköping police “unacceptable”. “The police needs more knowledge. Any muslim can pray in a public space. It is completely normal and just because you pray, you are not a terrorist.”

Radio Sweden, 12 January 2011

Via Islam in Europe

Amsterdam police chief will not order his officers to arrest women wearing veil

Amsterdam police chief Bernard Welten will not order his officers to arrest women wearing a burqa when the government introduces a ban, he told a tv show.

Police officers should always be sensible, Welten said. “I do not always consider myself an instrument of the government who should immediately do what I am told”, he is quoted as saying. It is “a very complicated dilemma”, he said, adding that the role of the police is to protect freedom, equality and justice.

Hero Brinkman, a former policeman and MP for the anti-Islam PVV told the Telegraaf Welten’s comments are unacceptable. The police should be subject to the government’s will, he said, “otherwise we live in a banana republic”.

Dutch News, 5 January 2011

Update:  See “Coalition furious at police chief’s burqa comments”, Dutch News, 5 January 2011

Muslim Safety Forum responds to reports that police seek replacement for Section 44

Concern over reports on replacement to Section 44

MSF is concerned over reports that senior police officers are seeking a replacement power to Section 44.

According to a report in the Guardian Newspaper, senior police officers are seeking a stop and search power to enhance counter terrorism street policing similar to Section 44. This power seems to be seeking what Section 44 was originally meant to entail: a time constrained, geographically limited and exceptional police power to stop and search people.

However, the MSF feels in light of the huge damage Section 44 has done to community-police relations without any apparent successes and the inability of UK police forces to, on their own accord, address this disproportionate use of it, we remain sceptical and concerned about this alleged recall of the power in a different guise by the police.

Shamiul Joarder, MSF’s lead on Counter Terrorism said:

“If true then we would find this development a major concern to us. We have contacted the police requesting an urgent meeting to explain this media report.”

He further added:

“The MSF has deep concerns over the reduction of police accountability through the proposed changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) which will, either directly or indirectly, increase police powers of all terrorism and general stop and searches/accounts whilst simultaneously reducing police accountability.

In this new context to allow for the draconian power such as s.44 in whatever guise will simply alienate vast swathes of communities who we have only just managed to build a working relationship with.”

Muslim Safety Forum press release, 30 December 2010

See also ENGAGE, 30 December 2010

Update:  And see Salma Yaqoob‘s comments.

German government’s crackdown on non-violent Salafism

Germany’s stepped-up efforts to ban some Islamic groups for promoting radical views have sparked a national debate over whether the government is violating the free-speech protections of the constitution it says it is aiming to protect.

The German government’s latest move to crack down on groups that promote extremist Muslim teaching came earlier this month, as dozens of police raided homes, offices and religious schools in the western German cities of Bremen, Braunschweig and Mönchengladbach. The security forces were seeking evidence that could lead to the banning of two organizations that officials say are calling for imposing Islamic law in place of German law.

Interior ministry officials allege that the groups, called Invitation to Paradise and the Islamic Culture Center Bremen, seek to undermine Germany’s parliamentary democracy by supporting the establishment of an Islamic theocracy within the country. A security official said the groups also allegedly support a strict form of Islamic justice, such as the execution of Muslims who convert to other religions or the amputation of a hand as a punishment for theft.

Sven Lau, deputy chairman of Invitation to Paradise, rejected the allegations, saying that his group hadn’t done anything illegal and that it calls on its members living in Germany to abide by German law. He described the group as a peaceful fundamentalist organization that believes in a strict interpretation of Islamic law, but said it advises members who want to live by its more extreme forms to live in Muslim-governed countries.

The latest investigation marks a departure from previous crackdowns by German security and justice officials. German security officials are pursuing a ban of these two Islamic groups primarily because of the principles they espouse, rather than a suspicion of a link to terrorism.

Germany’s constitution, written after World War II and the fall of the Third Reich, makes allowances for restricting some forms of speech considered hostile to the country’s democratic order. German statutes, for instance, ban symbols such as Nazi swastikas as a violation of the constitution, and make Holocaust denial illegal. Until now, such laws have mainly been used to curtail neo-Nazi activism.

In announcing the raids, Germany’s Interior Ministry said “a democracy shouldn’t wait until faced with a violent form of holy war before it takes action against organizations that oppose the German constitution.”

Dieter Wiefelspütz, a member of Germany’s opposition Social Democratic Party and a parliament representative, said the Interior Ministry had the duty to investigate allegations that a group was teaching intolerance or hatred. “In Germany, the tendency is to close too few rather than too many organizations,” he said.

Wall Street Journal, 28 December 2010

Zakir Naik takes exclusion battle to Court of Appeal

Court documents show an Islamic scholar and orator barred from the UK by the government is taking his battle to London’s Court of Appeal. Dr Zakir Naik lodged papers at London’s Court of Appeal in Appeal Court Reference no 2010/2913, against a High Court ruling and promised to take his fight for freedom of expression to Europe.

The appeal, due to be heard next year, could put the Home Secretary under severe pressure as one of the key aspects of his appeal is the fact that her ban was against the advice and wishes of Britain’s counter terrorism chief Charles Farr, claim Dr Naik’s lawyers.

Last month at London’s High Court, Justice Cranston granted Dr Naik a judicial review and declared three exclusion letters on June 16, 17 and 25 were “unlawful”.

However he decided a fourth attempt was legal despite accepting Dr Naik, who has hired a leading specialist solicitor Tayab Ali and two QCs from Cherie Booth’s Matrix Chambers, didn’t have a chance to respond to all of the issues raised in the final letter.

Dr Naik has now launched an appeal against the verdict saying the system should have been operated “properly and competently”.

Official Court papers filed by lawyers acting on behalf of Dr Naik, claim May failed to “properly consider, or state what she made of, or explain why she ultimately rejected the advice provided by skilled advisers relating to counter-terrorism.”

His lawyer Tayab Ali said: “Dr Naik will not stop until justice is done and he is allowed to exercise his right of freedom of expression.”

PRWeb, 23 December 2010

Dutch may introduce veil ban as early as 2011, says Wilders

The Netherlands could ban the burqa, the full-body covering worn by some Muslim women, as soon as next year, Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders told Reuters in an interview Thursday.

Wilders’ populist Freedom Party is the third largest in parliament and provides crucial support to the minority ruling coalition in exchange for the government taking a tougher line on Islam and immigration from non-Western countries.

His party has grown in popularity largely because of his outspoken criticism of Islam, which he describes as “a violent ideology.”

“There are not too many people who are willing to fight for this cause. It’s a big responsibility. It’s not only a Dutch problem, it’s a problem of the West,” said Wilders.

He has been charged with inciting hatred against Muslims for comparing Islam to Nazism. The case is due to start over again following a request for new judges.

“We are not a single issue party but the fight against a fascist ideology Islam is for us of the utmost importance,” said Wilders, who argues his comments about Islam are protected by freedom of speech.

Wilders said immigration from Muslim countries “is very dangerous to the Netherlands. We believe our country is based on Christianity, on Judaism, on humanism, and we believe the more Islam we get, the more it will not only threaten our culture and our own identity but also our values and our freedom.”

The burqa ban, which his party agreed as part of a pact with the minority coalition, is due to come into force within four years and possibly as soon as next year or 2012, he said.

With no clear winner in the elections in June, Wilders emerged as a kingmaker and won considerable influence for his Freedom Party over government policy. He promised support for the minority Liberal-Christian Democrat coalition in return for a tougher line on Islam and immigration, especially from non-Western, or predominantly Muslim countries.

Reuters, 16 December 2010

Germany applies anti-Nazi laws in crackdown on peaceful Salafi groups

German authorities hardened a crackdown on Islamic groups yesterday, raiding homes and schools that reportedly belong to adherents of fundamentalist Salafi Islam. German officials said the preemptive raids, conducted under German anti-Nazi laws of association, were aimed at uncovering unconstitutional or separatist acts and not part of an international terror hunt.

The raids targeted the Islamic Cultural Center of Bremen, on the North Sea, along with a group calling itself Invitation to Paradise in two small northwest German cities. Invitation to Paradise’s leader has called for sharia, or Islamic law, to prevail one day but has specifically opposed using violence to impose it.

While some experts say police overreacted in conducting the raids, German officials have come under great pressure from local media and citizen groups to respond to some Muslim organizations that appear to resist joining mainstream German society.

“These groups are a problem for integration, even maybe for radicalization, though not necessarily for violent jihad. They are very orthodox and like to be separate but are not preaching but usually condemning violence,” says Alexander Ritzmann, a former Berlin member of parliament now with the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels. “The problem is that some jihadis in Germany from before identified themselves as Salafi.”

Christian Science Monitor, 15 December 2010

See also New York Times, 14 December 2011

Woman arrested for wearing hijab sues Georgia city

Lisa_ValentineDOUGLASVILLE, Ga. — A Muslim woman who was arrested after she refused to remove her headscarf in a west Georgia courthouse filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against the city of Douglasville and the officers who arrested her, contending they violated her constitutional rights.

Lisa Valentine said authorities trampled on her First Amendment rights in December 2008 when she was ordered to serve 10 days in jail for contempt of court after she refused to remove her hijab at a courtroom. She was released in less than a day, but her arrest infuriated Muslim rights activists and prompted changes in Georgia’s courtroom policy.

“I hope that no person of faith will ever have to experience the type of egregious treatment I suffered at any Georgia courthouse because of the expression of my beliefs,” said Valentine, whose lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and its Georgia chapter.

Continue reading