The British government is proposing powerful new controls on freedom of expression as part of its current strategy to ward off fresh terror attacks on the country — including charging the worst offenders with treason and rewriting British human rights laws to make it all possible. Index on Censorship’s Rohan Jayasekera reports. (09-AUG-05)
Within 24 hours of announcing plans for a raft of tough new restrictions on free expression as part of the British government’s domestic war on terror, the first of its targets were named.
The country’s Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) met 7 August to discuss their options under law to silence a trio of widely reported ´hate preachers´: Omar Bakri Mohammed, London-based spiritual leader of the al-Muhajiroun faction, Abu Izzadeen, spokesman for al-Ghurabaa (The Strangers) and Abu Uzair of the Saviour Sect, a splinter group born out al-Muhajiroun.
The targeting of the trio — all credited with overt support for Islamist terror attacks from 9/11 to the 7 August attacks on London — followed Prime Minister Tony Blair´s call for tough powers to silence extremist Islamists, to expel, jail or restrain offenders and close their bases in mosques and community centers.
The planned controls are now subject to a month’s review. Nearly all involve unprecedented restrictions on the free speech rights of groups and individuals deemed guilty of supporting terrorism’s objectives and methods.
Foreigners who ran websites, published material or misused public trust while working as teachers or youth leaders could be deported if they incited, justified or glorified terrorism, or advocated violence in support of their beliefs.
“Once the new grounds take effect, there will be a list drawn up of specific extremist websites, bookshops, centers, networks and particular organisations of concern,” Blair said. “Active engagement with any of these will be a trigger for the home secretary to consider the deportation of any foreign national.”
The proposals have already raised concern. Many of Britain’s larger mosques are used by law-abiding people as freely as do the criminals. The closure of bookshops would be controversial and, in the age of the Internet, ineffective.
Some extremist websites, especially those with active discussion pages, are frequented by people with no involvement in terrorism. Supporters of repressive regimes such as Tunisia have tried to tar websites and the exiled political figures behind them as pro-terror.
New anti-terrorism legislation could be drafted to make it illegal to condone or glorify terrorism anywhere, not just in the UK. British-born offenders could be subject to control orders restricting their movements.
The Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun Islamist organisations now active in the UK could be added to the government’s existing list of prohibited terror groups. A censor board made up of government and British Muslim figures could draw up a blacklist of Islamic radicals banned from speaking in Britain. And the government seeks power to close places of worship where extremists are allowed to preach or organize activities.
There have already been protests over plans to ban Hizb-ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun. Groups with overtly hostile views on women’s rights, homosexuals, non-Muslims, Shia or members of Muslim sects may not be overtly violent in intent. Groups worldwide merge, split, disband and rename themselves specifically to avoid this kind of control.
The trio targeted on 7 August, Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abu Izzadeen and Abu Uzair, could face charges including treason and incitement to treason, and solicitation to murder, which carries a possible life sentence. All three have been condemned for their comments in the wake of Islamist terror attacks. Omar Bakri Mohammed reportedly said he would support hostage-taking at British schools if the cause was appropriate; Abu Izzadeen reportedly spoke out in support of the 9/11 hijackers; Izzadeen reportedly said the suicide bombers of 7 August were ´completely praiseworthy´.
The Guardian reported that Blair is also ready to seek to amend the Human Rights Act “in respect of interpretation” of article three of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture or “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
