The question surrounding whether whether you believe that there is an
international terrorist threat to Britain seemed to take on the status of an
article of faith for the members of the Home Affairs Committee (HMC). It was
a question which was repeatedly asked of the four witnesses who came to give
evidence before the first public session of the HMC inquiry into terrorism
and community relations.
I had been called to give oral evidence after putting forward a submission
focusing on the parallels between how the Irish community had been treated
in the past compared to the way the Muslim community are being treated
today. The second element of my submission focused on how the media had
covered a number of alleged terrorist arrests.
The rationale of the committee seemed to be that if the witness accepted the
mantra that there was a terrorist threat then the anti terror legislation
that followed could be more easily justified.
My own response to the question from John Denham, Labour MP and chairman of
the committee, was that on the basis of what has happened in foreign
countries from 9/11 in 2001 to the Bali, Saudi Arabian and Madrid bomb
attacks it would seem there was a threat. However, I questioned the
magnitude of the threat on the basis of the lack of information available to
the public. The lack of such information also led to questions being raised
over the measures so far taken to allegedly prevent a similar terrorist
atrocity occurring here. Les Levidow of the Campaign Against Criminalising
Communities went further asserting that he did not know if there was a
threat or not. The only evidence he had to go on were cases that had
appeared in the courts. Given there had been no such cases he said he
couldn't assess whether there was a threat or not.
The Labour MP David Winnick came back with the question to both Levidow and
myself as to whether there was a threat or not?
The premise appeared to be that having established the magnitude of the
threat it would then be easier to justify the measures taken. This
contention came into sharp focus in my own evidence regarding the Irish
experience. For many years of the conflict in Northern Ireland the terrorist
threat was continually being hyped in Britain by those seeking to extend
their powers and gain more resources. In my submission and evidence before
the committee I stressed the importance of not repeating the mistakes of the
past. "I think the Irish community felt alienated, particularly through the
practice of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, with the stopping, detaining
and releasing of people without charging them. About 86% were
detained and released without charge," I said.
The fact that the Irish community were in many cases still being intimidated
in such a way was easily illustrated quoting the example of singer Christy
Moore.
"I think it is still going on with the Irish community. We heard recently
that Christy Moore, the singer, was stopped under the Prevention of
Terrorism Act coming into Holyhead," I said. "Since that story was covered a
number of other people, who have suffered in a similar way, have contacted
the Irish Post and other Irish newspapers."
I warned that it would be a big mistake to repeat the experience of the
Irish with the Muslim community now. "The feeling of alienation, the feeling
of separation, the feeling of going back in on itself - which happened with
the Irish community - could all happen again," I said. "There are signs at
the moment, it is not a perfect match by any means, of similar types of
things happening with the Muslim community."
Chairman Denham then put forward an alternative view of the history of the
Irish in Britain. "An alternative view of that history would be to say that
that may all be true, but the use of those powers was one of the factors in
sufficiently restraining Republican terrorism and ultimately forced people
to start looking for political solutions to a continuing problem and that
possibly, if that history is true, then similar measures now, in the light
of what people perceive as Islamic terrorism may be necessary, however
regrettable some of their effects might be," said Chairman Denham.
I completely rejected this view of history which justified the PTA and by
extension the approach being adopted now of promising security in exchange
for citizen's liberties.
"There was obviously a political process going on that brought about the
Good Friday Agreement. but I can recall the early 1990s in this country
when there were bombs going off in London, we had Bishopsgate. Then there
were the hoaxes and all the rest of it. At that time it did not seem like
things were coming to an end due to measures that had been taken to prevent
terrorism."
I rejected any contention that there was a link between the operation of the
PTA and the process that led to the Good Friday Agreement.
The difficulty of the whole Select Committee session was the adversarial
nature of the process. The witnesses came to offer their views on the
subject in question, yet at times they were treated more like the accused in
the dock. Perhaps it is the disproportionate number of lawyers in Parliament
that dictates that all business has to be conducted in such an adversarial
way.
The views of the members of the HAC seemed largely to reflect that of the
political class at Westminster generally, namely that there was no question
that there is a terrorist threat and that for the most part the measures
taken to tackle that threat were/are justified. The witnesses who largely
agreed with that view were treated in a far more amenable manner and given
longer to expand their views. Those who opposed the proposition were treated
in a much more hostile manner. It was difficult not to think that a more
informal setting and relaxed approach to taking evidence would benefit the
process of getting a fuller picture of what the situation really is
regarding the question of how the threat of terrorism is being dealt with
and its effects on community relations in the country.
