Why do some feel Britain has become a police state?

Why do some feel Britain has become a police state?

By Taji Mustafa

A climate of fear

A telling, yet unremarkable exchange occurred on the BBC’s 10 o'clock news after the arrests of 9 men in Birmingham in early February. The BBC reporter, Rajesh Mirchandani said that some Muslim students had told him they would no longer discuss politics in case they are branded as terrorist suspects and arrested. Their dilemma highlights the differing perceptions of “the state”; in modern day Britain.

In the 70s, 80s and 90s, long before 9/11, 7/7 or any other such event, Muslims in Britain identified with and supported the struggles of fellow Muslims in the Muslim world; in a manner not dissimilar to how many in Britain have supported struggles in South Africa and South and Central America over decades. India’s occupation of Kashmir, the Palestinian and Chechen suffering and resistance, were subject of heartfelt prayers in mosques, dinner table conversations and charitable collections for innocent victims. To many other Britons, Kashmir and Chechnya were distant issues which got the occasional mention on the news. However with Bush and Blair’s declaration of their “war on terror”;, support for the legitimate resistance movements has been criminalised and some have been arrested under new anti-terror laws, not for targeting civilians, but for supporting those fighting occupation in their lands, just as Britain did in the Falklands; resistance which the vast majority of Muslims; and many non Muslims - continue to see as legitimate. Without question, these legal changes not only fail Ken Livingstone’s famous “Mandela test”, but they do so in a way that disproportionately affects the Muslim community.

Many in this community have either been stopped and searched in the street, stopped and questioned at airports or have been arrested - or else personally know someone who has experienced something similar. Ask a black person if they have been stopped and searched and they are far more likely to say yes than a white person. Ask someone if they have been questioned about their personal beliefs on social, political and religious issues at an airport, and most people will wonder what you are talking about, except people from the Muslim community for whom it is an increasingly regular occurrence.

The shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes led many Muslims to not unreasonably conclude that a shoot to kill policy has been applied to people who look Muslim. Muslims are also acutely aware of the detention of people who are designated as “foreign suspects” and detained without charge for up to 3 years, based on secret evidence which was not disclosed to them and which they were unable to challenge, forcing some to decide to take the risk of going back to countries like Algeria which practice torture, rather than face indeterminate house arrests (control orders) in the UK.

Since the introduction of stop and search profiling, which Hazel Blears famously told the Muslim community to be prepared to accept, and the adoption of 28 day detention without charge, peoples’ lives have been ruined by these arrests. Some detained for a mere two days have lost their jobs and reputations. It appears people are no longer innocent until proven guilty - rather we now have trial by a presumption of guilt and trial by media. The term “terrorist suspect”; has all the emphasis on “terrorist”; and none of the cautions of “suspect” Against the backdrop of creeping state authoritarianism for all of society and anti-terror policies that disproportionately target one community, is there any wonder that some feel that Britain is becoming a police state for Muslims”; Adding to the sense of alienation, many Muslims feel that some in society are relentlessly demanding that they solve “the problem”;; as if the whole Muslim community is responsible for the July 7 bombings. Rarely a day goes by without someone telling the British public that some Islamic value or practice threatens the very life of the nation.

For many, the proposed introduction of ID cards, 28 day detention without charge and the proliferation of CCTV cameras has led to talk of growing authoritarianism in Britain. The arrest of John Catt, an 80-year-old peace campaigner, for wearing a t-shirt with anti-Blair and Bush slogans and the arrest of 84-year-old Walter Wolfgang at the Labour party conference under anti-terror laws, led a national newspaper to craft the headline: Blair’s Britain 2005, where peaceful protest can be costly. Keith Shilson, a Student Union leader at Middlesex University, was frog marched off campus for daring to organise a public meeting for people to question Hizb ut-Tahrir, after Tony Blair had only proposed banning the group. Such was the effect of Blair’s statement, that the “policing” of thoughts did not even require a change of law in this McCarthyite atmosphere.

New laws against “glorification” were criticised not just by the usual “liberals”; but by many eminent personalities in the House of Lords who accused the government of using them to create an atmosphere that silences legitimate voices of dissent and which would have led to Nelson Mandela being branded a “terrorist”. The war on terror has led to the erosion of basic principles which were believed to prevent society descending a slippery slope. These were the basic principles that Western nations used to preach, and more recently tried to enforce by military means, to the world. At one time, these were presumed to be principles worth fighting for, but now these principles have become casualties of war.

With some calling for 90 day detention without charge and America’s use of torture “lite”, many wonder where this will end, and no one should feel surprised that both the Archbishop of York, who escaped Idi Amin’s Uganda, and an innocent man whose life and reputation have been shaken by a wrongful arrest in Birmingham, use the words “police state”.

A benign state

When the Birmingham man Abu Bakr said Britain is a 'police state for Muslims', some strongly disagreed with his characterisation. They argued that there is due process. After all, the courts freed Abu Bakr against police wishes and he was able to speak to the media about his experience afterwards. They argued that the threat society faces is from Muslims, hence inevitably some innocent Muslims will be arrested.

It is worth repeating that they are not from a community where many (young and old) now expect to be taken aside at airports and questioned by Special Branch, at the end of which they ask you to work for them. They are not from a community where we all know someone who has been arrested under anti-terror laws, stopped and searched on the streets or repeatedly detained at airports. They are not from a community which is disproportionately targeted primarily because of its opposition to the policies of the government against their co-religionists abroad. They are not in a community where people are now afraid to voice their support for legitimate resistance struggles of their fellow Muslims because the government has branded that “terrorism”.

A police state?

In short, different sections of British society now have quite different experiences of security in Britain. In Egypt, some sections of society do not ever experience the oppressive nature of the state. Similarly, many in Idi Amin’s Uganda, or South Africa under apartheid never tasted the true nature of the state. In Britain, the fact that this increasingly affects a minority and not the majority should be of concern because what starts small inevitably grows.

In Egypt, some, including British tourists - do not feel it is a police state because they are uncritical of the government and hence don’t get touched by the state’s repressive measures. However, bloggers, guests who criticise the regime on satellite TV stations and the masses who bear the brunt of arrests and torture - are clear that Egypt is a police state.

At the height of the lurid reporting after the Birmingham arrest, with mounting public anxiety, John Reid suddenly resurrected plans for 90 day detention having said two months earlier that he did not see a case for it. What we are seeing is the deliberate politicisation of 'terror' - so that politicians can talk tough for political gain and new draconian measures can be forced through. Some of the speeches by police chiefs, the head of MI5, the questions asked about beliefs by the police and the briefings from the security services all betray the politicisation of these services.

Conclusion

Some will see the rehearsal of these arguments as more whinging. Some will see the criticisms of the security services as irresponsible and ignoring a real threat. Some see the case as an exaggeration. Whatever people think, it would be prudent to listen to this “whinging” objectively if anybody really cared about security. Ignoring the arguments because they do not match your experience does not in any way remove the validity of the sentiments of many that, in this current climate, Britain does feel more like a police state for many of its citizens.

Taji Mustafa

Media Representative, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain