Anti-Islamic measures in Britain threaten democratic rights

[Antid Oto]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Anti-Islamic measures in Britain threaten democratic rights
By Paul Mitchell
19 January 2010

This week five supporters of the Islamic fundamentalist organisation
Islam4UK, who chanted anti-Army slogans at a military parade in Luton
in March 2009, were convicted of using abusive words. The slogans
chanted included “British Soldiers go to Hell”, “British Soldiers
Murderers”, and “British soldiers, baby killers.”

The demonstrators were charged under the Public Order Act for using
threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause
harassment, alarm or distress and given two-year conditional
discharges and each ordered to pay £500 costs. Their conviction
represents an attack on free speech and the democratic right to oppose
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

At the same time, Home Secretary Alan Johnson banned Islam4UK and its
“parent” organization, al-Muhajiroun, under anti-terrorism legislation
and made membership a criminal offence punishable by up to ten years
in jail. Two other offshoots of al-Muhajiroun are already proscribed,
al-Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect. Islam4UK cancelled an anti-war march
last weekend through Wootton Bassett village, the scene of almost
weekly “repatriation ceremonies,” in which hearses carrying the
coffins of soldiers killed in Afghanistan drive from a local airbase
down the main street to a nearby morgue.

During the hearing of the five demonstrators, lawyers acting on their
behalf argued correctly that their action was “a legitimate protest on
a matter of important public debate, conducted with the knowledge of
the police, and that the defendants were entitled to exercise their
fundamental right to freedom of expression.”

They said that the European Convention on Human Rights protected the
right of the demonstrators “to say what they had, and that the
criminal prosecution was not justified as a proportionate interference
with that right.”

During the court proceedings, one of the accused, Shajjadar Choudhury,
said, “To shout the truth in a street is not an insult. We were
highlighting the truth.”

Munim Abdul explained, “We chose our words carefully. We did not
intend to distress or alarm anyone. The banners were saying they are
murderers. We meant the entity of the British Forces are a murdering
entity. We meant they are killing people when there is no
justification. The war was illegal. Anyone that kills was a murderer.”

Abdul told the court that the human rights organization Amnesty
International had recorded many cases of abuse and that the soldiers
were called “baby killers” because of the indiscriminate bombing of
towns and villages.

Luton District Judge Carolyn Mellanby rejected these arguments,
declaring baldly that “I have no doubt it is abusive and insulting to
tell soldiers to ‘Go to hell’—to call soldiers murderers, rapists and
baby killers. It is not just insulting to the soldiers but to the
citizens of Luton who were out on the streets that day to honour and
welcome soldiers home.”

The ruling has grave implications. It means that free comment can be
declared illegal merely because someone finds it upsetting. Following
the verdict, defence lawyer Sonal Dashani quoted Voltaire’s dictum, “I
disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it … If you believe in freedom of speech you have to accept
that some things will be said that you will like and some things will
be said that you will not like.”

Such elementary democratic principles are now under sustained attack.
Socialists do not support reactionary communalist groups such as
Islam4UK. But Mellanby’s ruling is part of a far wider effort to
censor and criminalise opposition to the imperialist aggression being
carried out by the Western powers. Criticism of the role of Britain’s
armed forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere can no longer be
tolerated.

The parades at Wootton Basset have a pro-war agenda that is barely
cloaked behind the grieving of the dead soldiers’ loved ones and
support for “our boys”. They are aimed not only at silencing criticism
of the war in general, but specifically at undermining sympathy for
the poverty-stricken and oppressed masses who are the chief victims of
neo-colonialism. Their significance is all the greater given that the
vast majority of the population is opposed to British involvement in
Iraq and Afghanistan and the rising death toll of British soldiers.

Drawing attention to the violent repression being carried out by the
United States and the UK is thus unacceptable as far as the ruling
class is concerned as it cuts across the attempt to whip up support
for greater military deployment in Afghanistan in order to supposedly
safeguard British troops already stationed there. That is why Islam4UK
has been suppressed and the five Islamists convicted. Those rightly
offended and outraged by the illegal occupations of Middle Eastern and
African countries and the resulting death and destruction are being
warned to remain silent or face prosecution.

That a section of Muslims are attracted to Islamic fundamentalism is a
political problem, not a criminal issue. It expresses a politically
confused response to the actions of the imperialist powers,
exacerbated by the social difficulties and racism faced by young
Asians. In the absence of a socialist political movement of working
people against war, social inequality and racism, and with a nominal
Labour government instrumental in all of these attacks, it has been
possible for Islamist reactionaries to portray themselves as a genuine
anti-imperialist force.

The orchestrated campaign of Islamophobia waged by the government, the
opposition parties and the media can only serve to increase the sense
of isolation felt by Muslims and lead to a growing frustration. This
situation is made worse by the failure of the liberal media and many
civil rights groups to defend the democratic rights of Muslims.
Guardian assistant editor Michael White writes, “My own prejudice is
against bans unless absolutely necessary, but you have to draw the
line sometimes, partly to show there is a line.”

In similar vein, Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group
Liberty, meekly said that she hoped the government had “very strong
evidence” of terrorist links to justify a ban.

It is not, in fact, the “messenger” that these nominal liberals
oppose, but the anti-militarist “message” that conflicts with their
own support for Britain’s imperialist adventure in Afghanistan. That
is why some of those who would once have “abused” president Lyndon B.
Johnson at the height of the war in Vietnam (or supported such
“abuse”) by chanting “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids have you killed
today?,” now feign outrage over comments in no way dissimilar or less
true regarding Afghanistan.

Likewise the liberal press has also hardly commented on the role
played by extreme right-wing forces in fomenting anger against the
demonstrators. The defence lawyers point out that “the incident also
involved other protesters believed to be members of the BNP
[neo-fascist British National Party] who were separately dealt with”
and the BNP website states, “The Muslims then had to be protected by
police as supporters of the soldiers, some carrying Union and St
George’s flags, turned on them shouting ‘Scum’ and ‘No surrender to
the Taleban.’”

The extent of the official xenophobia, interference in cultural and
social life, surveillance and repressive measures that are now
directed against the three percent of the UK population that are
Muslims is unparalleled and outrageous.

It is imperative that working people and all those concerned with the
preservation of democratic rights come forward to politically combat
the attacks now being waged against Muslims in Britain and throughout
Europe. It is a matter of principle that the persecution by the state
and the media of religious and ethnic minorities does not go
unopposed. And without such a counteroffensive, on a socialist basis,
there can be no truly effective struggle against militarism and war
and the ongoing encroachment on fundamental civil liberties.

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/jan2010/isla-j19.shtml

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********