RIGHTS-BRITAIN: Changes In Terrorism Law Welcomed By Arab States

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Dilip Hiro

LONDON, Aug 28 1998 (IPS) - A proposed British law designed to target alleged ‘terrorist’ groups in London has been criticised by some here as unfairly targeting Muslims — but will probably win the support of several Muslim nations if it comes to pass next week.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair says only that some (unnamed) countries had approached his government to toughen the law, but for years a number of Middle East and Gulf states have been urging Britain to also act against opposition groups from their countries that have set up in London.

Now the government is to use a rare emergency session of Parliament on Wednesday, called to strengthen the law against militant Irish republicanism, to target all groups linked to ‘terrorist’ groups operating out of London — with a special eye on militant Arab groups in the capital.

There are several reasons for the large number of Arabs now resident in Britain, some of them undoubtedly militant Islamists, but a far larger number simply here to work, make new homes or peacefully express political views in a manner denied them at home.

Any foreigner prepared to invest a minimum of 200,000 pounds (320,000 dollars) in Britain can get a residence permit. This rule was introduced by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to encourage foreign investment. For the determined, and those backed by family or political group, 320,000 dollars not insurmountable.

Secondly Britain enjoys a traditional reputation as a haven for political dissidents from abroad, including the most famous of all, Karl Marx of Germany, who settled in London in 1843, and died there 40 years later leaving a legacy of work that is well known.

Thirdly, Britain does not require the publisher of a newspaper or magazine to secure a government licence. Anybody can bring out a periodical or daily newspaper. There are no restrictions on publication bar the law of libel and a law that prohibits the incitement of racial hatred. The law extends to a bar on incitement to religious hatred only in the province of Northern Ireland.

Finally, as a signatory to the U.N. Convention on Human Rights, Britain is obliged to provide asylum to those who fear persecution at home. Among those asylum seekers, invariably, there are some radical Islamists.

The best known recent case involved Saudi professor Muhammad Masa’ari, one of the founders of the Committee for the Defence of Legitimate Rights (CDLR) in Saudi Arabia, which demanded a range of basic rights and the removal of U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia.

Jailed but later released on bail, he escaped to Britain, where he was granted asylum. In 1995, the Saudi government demanded Britain eject him. When it tried, Masa’ari successfully appealed and remains in Britain.

He rejects talk of a Islamic conspiracy in London. “No one is conspiring to do anything,’ Masa’ari told British Channel 4 News this week. ‘If there is any military activity, terrorism or jihad, whatever you call it, it is not in the UK.”

There is no doubt that the domestic British intelligence service, MI5, monitor the activities of suspected Arab radicals and exchange it with their counterparts in West Europe and the United States. And the country’s Foreign Office will investigate charges lodged by a foreign embassy against one of its citizens in Britain.

But up to now Britain has applied a light hand. When a group of Arab ambassadors to Britain urged Prime Minister John Major expel Arab ‘troublemakers’ from the country in 1995, he told them that they could stay as long as they did not break British laws.

Now the law is changing and many civil libertarians, including Tory and Labour MPs oppose the proposed law on principle. They say if it had been applied to the case of South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, it would have jailed him.

There are a number of Islamic political opposition groups at work in London that have been connected with violent opposition to their governments, but which also double as conventional political lobbyists for change.

One example is Ali Salman, involved in a six-month protest in 1994-95 in Bahrain — a British protectorate from 1861 to 1971 — calling for the return of a parliament and constitution suspended by the ruler in 1975. Sixteen people died. Another is the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), suppressed in Algeria from 1992 when the government cancelled elections the FIS was poised to win.

In his homeland, Hamid Ghanoushi, leader of a Tunisian Islamist party, the government calls him a terrorist. In Britain, where he has found refuge, he steadfastly describes himself a democrat and stresses the compatibility that exists between democracy and Islam.

Several groups associated with armed opposition have media operations here. Filistin al-Muslimin (Palestinian Muslim) is a publication of the Islamic Resistance movement in Palestine, Hamas and was set up in London by Khalid al-Houb, a Palestinian emigre.

Then there are dissidents whose stays are welcomed for the West’s own reasons. Majid al-Hakim, an eminent Shi’a clergyman linked with a dissident Iraqi opposition group based in Tehran, has been living in London since 1980. Britain tolerates his Islamic radicalism because of his opposition to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

But those who speak out are drawing more criticism. London based Omar Bakri Mohammed of the al-Muhajiroun Islamist group was criticised for his comments on radio that he regretted the civilian casualties during the bombings Kenyan and Tanzanian bombings, but felt that U.S. forces were “legitimate targets”.

He described the punitive U.S. airstrikes on Sudan and Afghanistan as “the action of gangsters attacking two countries and putting the life of citizens at risk”.

His comments have bolstered calls for stronger action. “I wonder what his immigration status is and whether we should harbour such fanatics?” said Donald Anderson, the Labour chairman of Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

A key test will come in the autumn when the Government publishes a consultation paper on a comprehensive anti-terrorism law. This is likely to outlaw conspiracy to commit violence abroad as well as fundraising for armed groups. Islamic opposition groups are expected to be targeted again.