Choose Your Region

UK-Region IRELAND-region
MPACUK LEEDS

Adverts/Promotions

Powered by: MuslimPages
 
Kent Muslim Welfare Association Halal Hamper CHL Properties When Slaves Become the Masters Journalism Diversity Fund Stop War On Iran

Disclaimer: MPACUK does not select these automated ads.


Subscribe to our newsletter:


Are We Becoming an Apartheid State? Print E-mail
Tuesday, 06 November 2007

430349_union_jack.jpgBritain’s MPs are being urged by one of the world’s leading civil-rights lawyers to resist pressure to extend the 28-day time limit for holding terror suspects.

Sir Sydney Kentridge, QC, who once defended Nelson Mandela and the family of Steve Biko during South Africa’s apartheid era, told the Bar Conference in London on Saturday that MPs should be sceptical about moves to go beyond the current 28-day maximum.

There was no discernible evidence to support an extension, he said in a keynote address to more than 500 barristers.

Sir Sydney, who has worked at the South African Bar and the English Bar, said: “While the police here would like 90 days, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said last week that he intended to propose 56 days.

“One hopes that Parliament will consider that proposal, not merely critically, but sceptically. I have not seen any evidence to justify any extension beyond 28 days.

“In apartheid South Africa, the police were given powers to detain suspects without trial for 90 days. Then they asked for, and were given, 180 days.

“Then presumably, because all power is delightful and absolute power is absolutely delightful, they asked for, and were given, the power to detain indefinitely.”

He added: “If any extension at all should be granted, one hopes that Parliament should insist on the closest judicial supervision.”

However, Sir Sydney rejected claims that human rights in Britain had come under attack since the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington DC.

Sir Sydney, who was remembered fondly in Nelson Mandela’s autobiography, entitled Long Walk to Freedom, also said that he regretted that the law lords had said on Wednesday that it might be reasonable for terror suspects to be given curfews for up to 16 hours a day under the Government’s controversial control orders.

“I consider that the drawing of the line at 16 hours is most disappointing,” he told delegates at the conference in West London.

“And so, I learnt from the newspapers, does the Home Secretary but for diametrically opposed reasons,” he added.

After describing his own experiences of working in the apartheid state, and how South Africa’s black population was denied such basic liberties during that era, Sir Sydney said that current commentators were mistaken in describing the situation as a “sustained attack on hard-fought freedoms”.

“While libertarians, among whom I include myself, must have some cause for concern, on the whole our basic liberties have been defended and preserved notwithstanding the need to meet real and unprecedented terrorist threats,” he said.

“Disappointing to some as this conclusion may be, I discern no concerted assault on our liberty either by those who govern us or aspire to govern us.”

Sir Sydney said that he welcomed proposals from Labour and the Conservatives to draw up a Bill of Rights which would build upon the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

Sourcewww.timesonline.co.uk




Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Live!Facebook!Technorati!Spurl!Furl!Blogmarks!Yahoo!

Readers have left 25 comments.
Tahira: Quote

Why is it that MPACUK seems to be the only major Muslim organisation activitely campaigning against this attack on our freedom? The government plans to pass laws to lock people (Muslims!) up for 56 days, without needing to be able to even charge us with any crime, and we have other priorities? We seem happy to leave the work of protecting us against these new laws to non-Muslims... Have you written to your MP about this yet?
(1) 2007-11-07 00:28:47
Zesto: Quote

Why is it that MPACUK seems to be the only major Muslim organisation activitely campaigning against this attack on our freedom? The government plans to pass laws to lock people (Muslims!) up for 56 days, without needing to be able to even charge us with any crime, and we have other priorities? We seem happy to leave the work of protecting us against these new laws to non-Muslims... Have you written to your MP about this yet?
— Tahira


Under a law to protect all people against any terrorists why do you say that it is targetted against Muslims?

Why should you be concerned that "non-Muslims" are protecting you against these laws"? Why are YOU needing protection?

This is NOT a law to 'lock people up'. Its a law to hold people under arrest. Its no different from arresting someone on a charge of murder. You will note that they tend to be detained while charges are formally written.


Note that many people arrested under anti-terrorism legislation are also released within days.

On BBC 5Live yesterday a professor stated that since 9/11 there have been 200 convictions for terrorism related offences.

We seem to be doing a good job in protecting us all.
(2) 2007-11-07 08:01:48
Syed: Quote

Note that many people arrested under anti-terrorism legislation are also released within days.
— Zesto
Not true. Have a read of: http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4045/
(3) 2007-11-07 10:04:31
Zesto: Quote

Note that many people arrested under anti-terrorism legislation are also released within days.
— Syed
Not true. Have a read of: http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4045/
— Zesto


What a remarkable way to prove that we could have UP TO 56 days and in reality most people could be charged within 7-14 days.

Therefore, we could have up to 1,000 days detention and yet most people will be charged within 7-14 days.

What the table shows is that out of 24 suspects, eleven were charged within 7-14 days.

Only three of 24 people actually stayed as long as 21-28 days.

Given that the police had to co-ordinate taking evidence from 24 people, given that a single head of investigation needs to follow the evidence and cross-references, then the police did a remarkable job.

Had it been four arrests you could see the lowered complexity might result in faster charging.

(4) 2007-11-07 13:46:14
wendymann: Quote

of course were not turning into an apratheid state -

"Lawrence Davies, a partner at the law firm Equal Justice and an expert on race discrimination cases, said yesterday: "We are getting to the stage where anyone called Mohammed is treated as a terror suspect. The ever-growing number of mistaken identity cases are based on pure prejudice, not flawed intelligence. Racism underpins all Islamophobia and nationality discrimination.""

-the independent - article3135377

as to the question of detention without trial as the government appears to be very keen on - isnt that supposed to be in the domain of third world dictatorships and muslim despots?

why and how is it ok for us to have 'control orders and detention without trial but not them,and if we are going down this road why are we invading countries for their alleged poor human rights records when we can claim so many for ourselves, extraordinary rendition, guantanomo, baghram, abu ghraib and illegal wars.
(5) 2007-11-07 14:40:07
Syed: Quote

What a remarkable way to prove that we could have UP TO 56 days and in reality most people could be charged within 7-14 days.
— Zesto
Then why extend the detention period to 56 days in the first place?

If you read the entire article, you'll see that "questioning of the suspects slowed down to snail's pace. In the first 14 days, a single interview per day was the norm and in the period between 14 and 28 days, many days passed with no interviewing at all."

Of those that were kept for the full 28 days, over half were then released, and there is evidence to suggest that extending the dention period will mostly be used for those people against whom there is the least evidence.

Look, don't get me wrong, I know that something needs to be done to combat extremism and terrorism, but introducing legislation that will cause further radicalisation is not the answer. In my opinion the alternative measures suggested by Liberty is a far better way to go:
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/2-terrorism/ extension-of-pre-charge-detention/
(6) 2007-11-07 15:04:46
Zesto: Quote

What a remarkable way to prove that we could have UP TO 56 days and in reality most people could be charged within 7-14 days.
— Syed
Then why extend the detention period to 56 days in the first place?

If you read the entire article, you'll see that "questioning of the suspects slowed down to snail's pace. In the first 14 days, a single interview per day was the norm and in the period between 14 and 28 days, many days passed with no interviewing at all."

Of those that were kept for the full 28 days, over half were then released, and there is evidence to suggest that extending the dention period will mostly be used for those people against whom there is the least evidence.

Look, don't get me wrong, I know that something needs to be done to combat extremism and terrorism, but introducing legislation that will cause further radicalisation is not the answer. In my opinion the alternative measures suggested by Liberty is a far better way to go:
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/2-terrorism/ extension-of-pre-charge-detention/
— Zesto


The reason why there were so few interviews per day was because the police didn't have the manpower to interview any faster and you need time to cross-reference the stories of 24 people. It wasn't recorded whether they co-operated or not.

You can say that half were released after 28 Days because that suggests that half those arrested were released.

In fact its 12.5% were released between 21 and 28 days. Meaning that 87.5% were dealt with within 21 days. So why an outcry over 56 days.

You might as well have 1,000 days contingency because you probably won't need it. So having 56 days is no hardship when most charges are put before then.
(7) 2007-11-07 15:28:59
Syed: Quote

The reason why there were so few interviews per day was because the police didn't have the manpower to interview any faster
— Zesto
And you know that for a fact, do you?
You can say that half were released after 28 Days because that suggests that half those arrested were released.

In fact its 12.5% were released between 21 and 28 days. Meaning that 87.5% were dealt with within 21 days. So why an outcry over 56 days.
— Zesto
I said, "*Of those* that were kept..."

In any case, when the detention period was 14 days, 100% of the cases were handled within that time.

If the police weren't able to charge someone within 14 days due to lack of resources, then the government should give them those resources (instead of wasting money renewing Trident). Increasing the detention period is not the solution. Think of the consequences of being held for 56 days - for example, possible loss of job or unable to keep up with the rent/mortgage. If they were then innocent, do you not think that this would create resentment of "the system"? Maybe even were none existed before?

I just don't understand why people like yourself don't seem to understand that the very anti-terror laws that are designed (poorly) to protect us are the most effective tool for recruitment for the extremists.
(8) 2007-11-07 17:04:39
Zesto: Quote

The reason why there were so few interviews per day was because the police didn't have the manpower to interview any faster
— Syed
And you know that for a fact, do you?
You can say that half were released after 28 Days because that suggests that half those arrested were released.

In fact its 12.5% were released between 21 and 28 days. Meaning that 87.5% were dealt with within 21 days. So why an outcry over 56 days.
— Zesto
I said, "*Of those* that were kept..."

In any case, when the detention period was 14 days, 100% of the cases were handled within that time.

If the police weren't able to charge someone within 14 days due to lack of resources, then the government should give them those resources (instead of wasting money renewing Trident). Increasing the detention period is not the solution. Think of the consequences of being held for 56 days - for example, possible loss of job or unable to keep up with the rent/mortgage. If they were then innocent, do you not think that this would create resentment of "the system"? Maybe even were none existed before?

I just don't understand why people like yourself don't seem to understand that the very anti-terror laws that are designed (poorly) to protect us are the most effective tool for recruitment for the extremists.
— Zesto


Well that sounds like blackmail to me. First its Foreign Policy. When terrorists don't like it - so they bombed us and killed 52 bon 7/7 (maiming another 700).

When we pass laws to help us catch them and their ilk - so we get told that the laws will only recruit more of them.

Since ANY excuse will do then you might as well do what the MAJORITY want, and that is protection and NOT capitulation to terrorists.
(9) 2007-11-07 18:54:40
Zesto: Quote

of course were not turning into an apratheid state -

"Lawrence Davies, a partner at the law firm Equal Justice and an expert on race discrimination cases, said yesterday: "We are getting to the stage where anyone called Mohammed is treated as a terror suspect. The ever-growing number of mistaken identity cases are based on pure prejudice, not flawed intelligence. Racism underpins all Islamophobia and nationality discrimination.""

-the independent - article3135377

as to the question of detention without trial as the government appears to be very keen on - isnt that supposed to be in the domain of third world dictatorships and muslim despots?

why and how is it ok for us to have 'control orders and detention without trial but not them,and if we are going down this road why are we invading countries for their alleged poor human rights records when we can claim so many for ourselves, extraordinary rendition, guantanomo, baghram, abu ghraib and illegal wars.
— wendymann


A poster called "israhel" made that point on BBC 5Live messageboards - and then never returned to debate it.

Hmmmm!!
(10) 2007-11-07 18:55:46
Syed: Quote

Well that sounds like blackmail to me. First its Foreign Policy. When terrorists don't like it - so they bombed us and killed 52 bon 7/7 (maiming another 700).
— Zesto
WHAT?!? If I pointed out a boy-racer to you on the street and said "If he doesn't slow down, somebody will end up getting hurt," would that be blackmail, or just an assessment of the risks?

My opinion is based on observation of the IRA campaign, where emergency laws brought in then led to further radicalisation of republicans - let's learn from our mistakes for God's sake!

*sigh* I can't be bothered to debate your tunnel-vision views any further, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
(11) 2007-11-07 20:04:34
Zesto: Quote

Well that sounds like blackmail to me. First its Foreign Policy. When terrorists don't like it - so they bombed us and killed 52 bon 7/7 (maiming another 700).
— Syed
WHAT?!? If I pointed out a boy-racer to you on the street and said "If he doesn't slow down, somebody will end up getting hurt," would that be blackmail, or just an assessment of the risks?

My opinion is based on observation of the IRA campaign, where emergency laws brought in then led to further radicalisation of republicans - let's learn from our mistakes for God's sake!

*sigh* I can't be bothered to debate your tunnel-vision views any further, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
— Zesto


But he's not a democratically elected 'boy-racer' and the person doing the hurting isn't the 'boy-racer' but someone watching the 'boy-racer'.

No, don't bother arguing with me if you are going to use non-sequitor, non-analogies.
(12) 2007-11-07 22:07:32
Pir: Quote

We may not be an aparthied state yet, but we are certainly heading down that road.

The so called terrorism laws are creating a parallell legal system. If you're a muslim for example reading certain kinds of books, then you will be convicted of and labelled as a terrorist; and if the new govt proposals go through, you'll have to register your address and movements even after you finish your prison sentence (n.b Pass Laws in S.Africa). However, if you're white or non-muslim and have sent explosive devices to say congestion related companies or even worse possess a very large quantity of explosive material ( & you're a member/symphtiser of BNP)then that is not terrorism.
Moreover, if you look closely at laws relating to paintballing (training for jihad if muslim, but cool social life if say a non-muslim) making emotive dua'as for the oppressed (glorification if muslim, but o.k if a neo-con celebrates the carnage in Afghanistan/Palestine/Iraq)
Meanwhile, a majority white Parliament allowed 2003 Extradition to go through with a nudge and a wink because it was thought to amount only to a legalised rendition of dissident muslims to US gulags. Sadly, for them the USA started going after the otherwise untouchable City Bankers, hence the belated outcry from the city gents.

And last, but no means least, the ever expanding internment policy(politely called pre-detention charge)should be contrasted with a famous case decided in 1941when even at the height of the nazi attack on UK a legendary judge was critical of locking up people without due process.
The anti-muslims, these days, of course still do not face any real opposition, because no one expects white people to be subject to these laws/decree.
(13) 2007-11-09 20:31:32
Zesto: Quote

We may not be an aparthied state yet, but we are certainly heading down that road.

The so called terrorism laws are creating a parallell legal system. If you're a muslim for example reading certain kinds of books, then you will be convicted of and labelled as a terrorist; and if the new govt proposals go through, you'll have to register your address and movements even after you finish your prison sentence (n.b Pass Laws in S.Africa). However, if you're white or non-muslim and have sent explosive devices to say congestion related companies or even worse possess a very large quantity of explosive material ( & you're a member/symphtiser of BNP)then that is not terrorism.
Moreover, if you look closely at laws relating to paintballing (training for jihad if muslim, but cool social life if say a non-muslim) making emotive dua'as for the oppressed (glorification if muslim, but o.k if a neo-con celebrates the carnage in Afghanistan/Palestine/Iraq)
Meanwhile, a majority white Parliament allowed 2003 Extradition to go through with a nudge and a wink because it was thought to amount only to a legalised rendition of dissident muslims to US gulags. Sadly, for them the USA started going after the otherwise untouchable City Bankers, hence the belated outcry from the city gents.

And last, but no means least, the ever expanding internment policy(politely called pre-detention charge)should be contrasted with a famous case decided in 1941when even at the height of the nazi attack on UK a legendary judge was critical of locking up people without due process.
The anti-muslims, these days, of course still do not face any real opposition, because no one expects white people to be subject to these laws/decree.
— Pir


I'm sure its a better life for you in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria or Iran (to suggest a few).

Why not review life in some of those places and let us know which one you prefer. Saudi Apartheid might suit you because non-Muslims aren't allowed to drive on some motorways.

I think Dr Bari recently articulated your case well with his 1930's Nazi article.

I have NEVER seen such violent written responses to an article recently.

He's helping, isn't he?
(14) 2007-11-11 20:29:20
Pir: Quote

Zesto
Your famous debating skills seem to have deserted you.It's rather lame and racist to tell a muslim to compare UK laws with those of the Saudis/Syrians etc.
You may find it unpalatable, but muslims pay taxes, vote in elections, participate in all walks of life and like many non-muslims, object to oppressive laws.

Do you want British muslims to be treated differently to non-muslim Brits?

FYI, the question was "are we becoming an aparthied state?"
(15) 2007-11-11 21:35:47
Zesto: Quote

Zesto
Your famous debating skills seem to have deserted you.It's rather lame and racist to tell a muslim to compare UK laws with those of the Saudis/Syrians etc.
You may find it unpalatable, but muslims pay taxes, vote in elections, participate in all walks of life and like many non-muslims, object to oppressive laws.

Do you want British muslims to be treated differently to non-muslim Brits?

FYI, the question was "are we becoming an aparthied state?"
— Pir


The comparison is valid because if some Muslims hate Britain then where else would they go to avoid a society that doesn't suit them? It points-out that Islamic rule countries are far worse than Britain and some practice genuine Apartheid.

I am not sure what "Race" Muslim is but I am certainly NOT being racist.

Dr Bari's comments deserve a response because he is driving a wedge between Muslim Britons and non-Muslim Britons with his stupid article.

It is obvious that MUslims want themselves to be treated differently from non-Muslims in this single respect:- they seem to be the one group voiciferously objecting to anti-Terror lasw which are designed to be applied to ALL Britons. And yet you claim victim status that no other group claims.

You are entitled to any and all political lobbying but I suspect that this voiciferous lobbying isn't supported by 80% of UK Muslims who just want to get on with their lives just like anyone else in the UK.

People like Inayat, Asghar and Dr Bari with their appearances and comments are driving the wedge.
(16) 2007-11-12 07:50:39
Pir: Quote

Zesto
"muslims....seem to be the one group voiciferously objecting to the terror laws which are designed to be applied to ALL Britons..."

Do you really not know the statistics regarding the impact of these terror laws? Or is "logic" irrelevant to you?
(17) 2007-11-12 11:10:28
shan: Quote

ZESTO is a zesty zionist as he gets to decide who has the right of freedomn of speech.
if a muslims disgaree with the governments policy then he hates britain,a racist never say he is racist but you are a zionist bigot.
muslims live like other communities and like other communities there are criminals in them,yet the whole community is not lambasted for the crime of the few,so muslims are fed up with the constant demonisation against them.
as citizens muslims have the right to speak against laws and rules they disagree with.
muslims do not seek victim status they want equality before the law, zionists are the ones seeking eternal victim hood,as soon as you say something about israel you are labelled anti-semite.
(18) 2007-11-12 13:00:29
pir: Quote

Shan
I don't think Zesto is a Zionist. His/her line seems similar to those who work for the security services and spend most of their days on forums where muslims debate. Their aim is to confuse the issue rather than add anything to the debate.
Note the particular venom directed at people who speak from the muslim communities perspective.

" People like Inayat, Asghar and Dr Bari with their appearances and comments are driving the wedge"

Most zionists wouldn't expect muslims to do what many Jewish elders did in Hitlers Germany. If they had confronted AH early enough,rather than trying to protect what some misperceived to be their unique priveleged position, then maybe the Holocaust could have been avoided.

Having followed Anglo-saxon history whereby some "inferior" race always end up being massacared, Muslims like Banglawalah, Asghar and Bari have learnt from the mistakes made in the 1930's, hence will try to draw a line in the sand now, before the internment camps start filling up.
(19) 2007-11-12 19:45:34
RSD: Quote

Pir
Could you explain what you mean by "their unique priveleged position" in relation to German Jewry prior to 1933? Also in what way could have German Jewry confronted AH early enough to prevent the Holocaust? Do you believe that German Jews were in part culpable for the Holocaust?
(20) 2007-11-13 13:41:10
Pir: Quote

RSD
I said "misperceived...unique priveleged position".

No I don't think Germans Jews were part culpable for the Holocaust.

I do think that previously powerful German (inc some jews) could have confronted the Nazi monster before he became too big. That there is a lesson here for the likes of the MCB leadership. That they should have woken up to the development of apartheid laws long time ago.

PS; what is your view on whether we are becoming an apartheid state.
(21) 2007-11-13 21:56:02
Zesto: Quote

Zesto
"muslims....seem to be the one group voiciferously objecting to the terror laws which are designed to be applied to ALL Britons..."

Do you really not know the statistics regarding the impact of these terror laws? Or is "logic" irrelevant to you?
— Pir


In order for YOU to say that anti-Terror laws applied to ALL Britons will target Muslims then you have to ALSO make the statement "Most Terrorist Acts in the UK are carried-out by Muslims (currently)".

Are you saying that or is logic now your enemy?
(22) 2007-11-14 22:07:38
Zesto: Quote

Shan
I don't think Zesto is a Zionist. His/her line seems similar to those who work for the security services and spend most of their days on forums where muslims debate. Their aim is to confuse the issue rather than add anything to the debate.
Note the particular venom directed at people who speak from the muslim communities perspective.

" People like Inayat, Asghar and Dr Bari with their appearances and comments are driving the wedge"

Most zionists wouldn't expect muslims to do what many Jewish elders did in Hitlers Germany. If they had confronted AH early enough,rather than trying to protect what some misperceived to be their unique priveleged position, then maybe the Holocaust could have been avoided.

Having followed Anglo-saxon history whereby some "inferior" race always end up being massacared, Muslims like Banglawalah, Asghar and Bari have learnt from the mistakes made in the 1930's, hence will try to draw a line in the sand now, before the internment camps start filling up.
— pir


Pir, you are correct about one thing. I am NOT a Zionist.

It is impossible for there to be one-sided massacre of Britons based on a perceived 'inferiority'. We are a Western, Judaeo-Christian, Liberal ethics society.

What I do hope we can avoid is another terrorist atrocity because I fear some hot-heads will start a riot.

I hope with all my might that we never approach that situation.
(23) 2007-11-14 22:11:54
RSD: Quote

Pir,
I frankly don't think that UK is becoming an apartheid state. There are two sides busily engaged in hyping up terror and the Muslim community on one hand and the governments attempts on the other.
Last week I sat in a pan-London emergency response exercise next to my colleague Mohammed working in a team that has access to sensitive material and ready to respond to any terrorism. His name, ethnicity and faith were irrelevant, no one thought about them because he is just one of our colleagues. I am sure that if it had been in Apartheid South Africa he wouldn't have even been asked to join the team.
I believe sincerely that racism informs much of this dialogue for both sides. The anti-Muslims and the so-called friends of Muslims of the left and right hold Muslims in disdain. The classic right wing regards them as social incompetents , while the left regards them as in the vein of the Orientalist noble savage gloriously and beautifully almost animal but incapable of intellectual activity. Although the right wing racism is hurtful, the left wing racism is insidious and very dangerous because it fails to challenge any anti-social and self-destructive behaviour.
Of course there are challenges to Islam and these are totally natural because it is only in the last 50 years that Islam has really fully come into contact with the ideas of the West. Of course traditions that were right for feudal and sectarian societies in thrid world countries are challenged in multi ethnic / faith societies. And of course Islam is challenged from within as people desire progress and change. Of course there are elements in Islam that want to resist change and stay in the past. Of course a host society like UK requires that all people adhere to common values and reacts angrily when it appears that one group wish not to.
I think that the Muslim community's leadership has been woefully inadequate and fromt he interviews I have seen and read it seems that many simply do not understand the UK and why it is as it is. There is certainly a failure to teach meaningful history in UK schools so that everyone can understand why the UK has the society it has and why that has created such wealth and stability.
BTW It was the wealthy Germans who funded the Nazis and used them to get rid of their Jewish competitors. It is was the wealthy that profitted by the use of slave labour and the mass robbery. German Jews and liberals did attempt to challenge the Nazis but they were very weak.
But most of all the the Nazis used frustrated German nationalism after WW1, traditional antisemitism and the repressive militaristic German system to take over. These elements are absent in UK.
(24) 2007-11-15 20:15:36
Pir: Quote

RSD
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis.

I disagree with your point about Mohammed etc. Also, disagree with your comments about Muslim leadership and understanding the UK.....Neverthless, your tone and content is constructive, hence appreciated.
(25) 2007-11-15 23:07:37
The author or administrator has closed this item for comments.
 
Ireland Branch
Media Workshops

Search MPACUK.org

Recommended Books