The
latest conviction for possession of 'inflammatory' material in the
absence of any intent to violence is further proof that the legal
system has become politicised.
Rizwan Mahmood Ditta was this week sentenced to four years imprisonment
for having data on a computer hard drive that contained information
deemed "likely to be useful to a person preparing an act of terrorism."
Judge James Stewart accepted that there was no evidence that Ditta's
material had been used for terrorism purposes. He was not found guilty
of inciting or engaging in violence, and there was no proof that he was
intending to go on to commit, or assist anyone in the preparation of
acts of violence.
No one suggests that people should go out downloading this type of
material. However, young people look at all kinds of things, especially
in the internet age. Modern culture positively encourages curiosity.
Facebook, Myspace and other websites and blogs are replete with
discussions about war, suicide, glorification of violence in gangster
rap and other issues of interest to young people. For some young
people, understandably affected by ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan
and the global "war on terror," it would hardly be surprising if
surfing the web led them to this type of thing.
However, under the law it is possession alone - regardless of intent,
or whether one agrees with the sentiments in such material that is the
"criminal" act.
Like the cases of Samina Malik and Abdul Patel before him, this case
raises several important questions. Is there now an implied
understanding that that possession of such material means proof that
the suspect agrees wholeheartedly with the ideas expressed? Does
possession alone prove some kind of intent to act on those ideas? Is
the law being applied consistently? While many academics, journalists
and other curious people also come across and download such material,
why are they not prosecuted, if mere possession is indeed the criminal
act?
If the implication is that a Muslim who possesses this material
agrees with it, then this is the same as prosecuting people based on
their political views. The only term for this is thought crime. The
anti-terror laws which do not directly address acts of violence - such
as those that criminalise the "possession of material" that may be of
use to a ˜terrorist" are being utilised to selectively target and
prosecute members of the Muslim community, whose political opposition
to the government's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is well known. The
laws are not used to target academics and journalists.
This means the laws are applied politically, and effectively used to
silence dissent. It is important to view this issue against a backdrop
whereby leading politicians, such as Tony Blair and Phil Woolas, for
example, saw criticism of foreign policy in the light of Britain's
security debate as a manifestation of extremism. Woolas said as much
when challenged about this by a young Muslim on the Iraq war and Blair
made the same point when talking about those who carry false
grievances.
The only alternative to this thesis is that the police and security
services are racist, sectarian and xenophobic and that they are
selectively targeting Muslims based on race and religion. Or else they
would be targeting journalists and academics who doubtless review such
material and keep it on their hard drives.
The way these anti-terror laws have been drafted and applied,
despite grave warnings from legal experts and Muslim leaders that they
would disproportionately target the Muslim community, proves that all
the talk of a western legal system that has an uncompromising and
consistent application of the rule of law and an absence of thought
crime is utterly untrue. If it was true before, the system has broken
down when tested. The resilience of legal systems cannot be measured by
their implementation in times of ease but by their implementation in
difficult times.
Currently, the law is being used to target Muslims who possess
scraps of paper, books or DVDs with anti-terror laws which require
lower levels of evidence to prosecute and convict is in contrast to the
prosecution of non-Muslims like Miles Cooper who actually planned
explosions, sent letter bombs and injured people to make a political
statement, illustrating the evolution of a parallel system of justice
in Britain for Muslims.
Where will all this end? How far will the state go to prosecute
people on this type of material? What about classical Islamic books
about the fiqh (rules) of Jihad? Only time will tell. The fact that
people are now pleading guilty to such crimes, hoping for an early
release, often having served over a year in remand, means that police
find these cases easy wins that boost their conviction statistics. As
public opinion on these ˜crimes" hardens, so the line will be redrawn
citing even more ambiguous material deemed "likely to be useful to a
person preparing an act of terrorism."
|
