29 March - 4 April 2001
Issue No.527
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 29 March - 4 April 2001 Issue No.527 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
To be Arab in Britain
Arabs and Muslims are now invariably branded as terrorists in Britain, writes Ghada Karmi from London
For historical and cultural reasons, many Arabs see Britain as a benign and tolerant place which allows a level of freedom of expression unusual in their own countries. That situation is about to change with the introduction of a little discussed but drastic piece of legislation. The British parliament has begun debating the new Terrorism Act, which came into force on 19 February and legislates against what are termed "proscribed organisations" -- 22 groups believed to be engaged in terrorist activity. The literature coming from Britain's Home Office sounds reassuringly sensible: the UK faces a threat from international terrorism and has taken steps to protect the country against it. No such groups will be allowed to make Britain a base from which to organise their deadly activities. These sentiments may, in fact, evoke some sympathy amongst the British public who have long felt that Britain's traditionally tolerant policies towards foreigners were being abused by extremists and fanatics from abroad.
On closer inspection, however, one discovers that the legislation is neither sensible nor reassuring. It carries a clear threat for many ordinary citizens who had hitherto taken some of their political and humanitarian allegiances for granted. It is particularly worrying for Arabs, Palestinians and Muslims living in the UK and, by extension, any of those who might wish to live there. Of the 22 "terrorist" organisations on the Home Secretary's list, 10 are Arab and four are Islamic. Three of the 10 Arab groups are Palestinian -- Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Abu Nidal -- and the other seven are from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria and Lebanon. Three of the four Islamic groups are Kashmiri.
Though the presumed aim of the anti-terrorist legislation is the protection of Britain, closer examination reveals that none of the Muslim and Arab groups cited has committed any military action in the UK. In a few cases, there is evidence of limited membership and fund-raising activities in Britain, but the majority, according to the Home Office's own description, operate almost exclusively in their respective places of origin. This is especially true of the Arab and Palestinian groups.
The measures taken against these organisations are truly draconian. From now on, it will be illegal to support them politically, financially or in any other way, either in the UK or anywhere else. The definition of support is frighteningly wide-ranging. It can mean anything from attending a meeting which upholds the aims of a proscribed organisation to giving money to its humanitarian programme, if it has one, or even wearing a T-shirt bearing its name. Furthermore, the Act prohibits these activities even when they happen outside the UK. If, for example, a Palestinian living in Britain goes to visit the West Bank and, while there, attends a rally in support of Hamas, he or she will have committed a criminal offence under British law and may be prosecuted. The same will apply to Egyptians, Algerians, Yemenis and Saudi Arabians in Britain.
It is not easy to pinpoint which particular action falls within the definition of "support for a proscribed organisation." In practice, the decision will be left to the police and the judiciary, which will have the effect of creating a climate of fear and uncertainty, with many people hesitating before they engage in any political activity. While this is lamentable in general, in the case of Britain's Arab community it will be disastrous. This community has traditionally been timid in asserting itself in Western societies. Arabs have scarcely featured in British public life, hesitating to engage in political activity. Such reticence was attributed to their unfamiliarity with Western democratic systems and fears left over from the invasive scrutiny by security forces in their home countries. For Palestinians there were the additional problems of Israeli persecution and surveillance by the British secret services.
Encouragingly, though, behaviour was beginning to change recently; Arabs in Britain were starting to express their views and to organise more effectively. Since the Al-Aqsa Intifada began last September, an active campaign of demonstrations, pickets and lobbying had started. Young Palestinians have been energetic in recruiting support on the Internet and collecting mass signatures for petitions. A feeling of communal solidarity with the Palestinian struggle has flowered, engaging the entire Arab community. It could have become a model for future political action by Arabs in Britain. But the restrictions which the new Terrorism Act brings in may well reverse this process and return many Arabs to the old ways of paranoia and insecurity.
What was the rationale behind the Terrorism Act? How were British interests harmed by organisations active far away and with no particular bias against Britain? The truth, of course, is that Britain itself does not stand to gain from the new law -- but other countries do. The Home Office minister, Charles Clark, confessed openly last summer that the government, in drawing up the Terrorism Act, had been sympathetic to "representations" from the US, France, Israel and India. Indeed, this Terrorism Act is clearly modelled on similar American anti-terrorist legislation passed in 1996. The groups were selected to meet the demands of other nations, most clearly those of Israel, which has far more to fear from Hizbullah and Hamas than Britain possibly could. This also explains why the list omits any mention of Jewish organisations. The racist and violent Kach or Kahane Chai groups, for example, more than adequately fulfil the Home Secretary's criteria for inclusion on the list, but do not appear on it.
The idea behind this legislation is mechanical and simplistic. In positing the control of terrorism as an international imperative to which all civilised nations must contribute, it attempts to give a security aspect to globalisation. But it does so in a vacuum of political analysis. "Terrorism" is a blanket term covering anything from a liberation struggle to a civilian bombing, any of which is deemed a senseless evil which must be stamped out, regardless of its causes. The solution offered is merely better policing, with no effort to understand and address the underlying motivations, and is thus bound to fail. People with a cause will continue to fight against oppression and no measures, however punitive, will stop them. British security would be better protected by standing up, in the international arena, for the legal rights of people resisting occupation, rather than contributing to their persecution through this flawed and regressive legislation.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page