Ceasefire Magazine » civil liberties

The battle against Schedule 7 starts now

Rizwaan Sabir — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 08:10:23 +0000

By Rizwaan Sabir

The time to rejoice regarding the repealing of section 44 is here, but let’s not get too carried away because even though the battle may have been won, the war is still raging. In fact, we need to start another battle, in this case, against Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Why? because Schedule 7 is a law that undermines not only an individual’s human rights but also almost every facet of the British legal system. Those of you that have been stopped under it and understand your rights will know exactly what I’m talking about. For those of you that haven’t had that pleasure, please allow me.

According to Schedule 7, an immigration official, a customs officer or a police officer at any point of entry or exit from the United Kingdom has the power to stop, question, search and examine you for a maximum period of 9 hours in order to determine whether you are a terrorist or not. This isn’t the real reason for the power’s existence, however, but a mere pretext. The real reason, in fact, is to gather intelligence on ‘members of the [Muslim] community’ and Muslims who may be ‘moving towards extremism’, and the law has been drafted accordingly.

I say so with such certainty because I’ve been detained and examined on two separate accounts myself, I’ve also read confirming accounts in a restricted police document through Indymedia which states that the purpose of Schedule 7 is to gather intelligence; even the Special Branch officers that were interviewing me told me that the purpose was to collate intelligence.

When you are detained under Schedule 7, the police have the power to ask you anything they like, regardless of how personal or intrusive it is. If you question the police about such use of this power, they seek refuge in that age-old saying: ‘Sir, we are just doing our job’. It is ironic that they peddle this line because, as the cliché goes, even the Nazis said the same thing at Nuremberg when asked to explain their participation in mass genocide. Needless to say, the argument didn’t stand then and it doesn’t stand now – certainly not with me.

Whilst you are being questioned, ‘you do not have a right to remain silent’, which essentially means that you incriminate yourself as soon as you speak. If you fail to answer any questions or you obstruct the examination, you are in violation of the law and (upon conviction) can be fined and imprisoned, or both. The whole point of ‘having a right to remain silent’ is to prevent self-incrimination. Those of you that have been involved with the police or come from a legal background will understand the phrase ‘adverse inference’ and how it is drawn as soon as you speak in the context of a police-suspect encounter. For those of you that haven’t been in such a police situation, it basically means that the police think you are guilty of a crime and thus understand everything you say through the ‘guilty till proven innocent’ paradigm. The right to remain silent in this context is therefore an absolutely essential right. Incidentally, Schedule 7 is the only power that does not allow you the ‘right to remain silent’.

In a normal police-suspect situation, you are entitled to legal assistance. Under Schedule 7, you are not. You are allowed to inform a lawyer that you have been detained, but the police do not and will not delay their questioning to allow your lawyer to attend – again a power only used in the context of Schedule 7. In the meantime, if you do not cooperate with the police, you are obstructing the examination and can be arrested and charged accordingly. The Police also have a right to search you, your possessions and anything that is linked to you at the port of travel, in addition to being authorised to seize any item in your possession for up to a week if they wish to conduct “further examinations”; in other words, to gather more intelligence on you.

From my encounters with the police, when you exercise your rights and question the police, you are faced with a catch-22 situation: the police begin to think “if you have nothing to hide, why are you exercising your rights? Why are you questioning the police? Why are you being difficult?”

Bizarrely, the respect you have for your privacy and your rights is interpreted as you trying to conceal the truth or having sinister motives. This therefore provides a further excuse for the police to wield their power and investigate you further (or harass you more in my case). In the context of a Schedule 7 stop, this means seizing any item in your possession to collate more intelligence and in any other context means being extremely inconvenienced.

If you have doubts, do try the experiment yourself. I have myself recently begun exercising all of my rights when I encounter the police and it has led to: a search of myself and my car under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a stop and questioning under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) and one full mechanical examination of my car at the roadside under the Road Traffic Act. Dare I say, there will be many more instances of such occurrences.

As an individual who has been arrested as a suspected terrorist over 2 years ago, an individual who has been on the receiving end of two separate Schedule 7 stops and subjected to two informal questioning encounters by immigration officers at ports of entry and exit, not to mention the countless encounters in my everyday life involving the police, the nerves and anxiety are incredibly high. It’s only natural. But I’m not alone. I’ve spoken to many people about their encounters with the police and how they deal with them. A common answer is – ‘I get apprehensive and anxious’. The police shouldn’t be causing the public apprehension or anxiety, they should be eliminating our apprehension and anxiety. But the state we live in at present means that the police somehow believe that they are above the law. Ian Tomlinson’s killer, who is as free as if nothing ever happened, is just one example of the police being above the law they are purportedly governed by.

Police powers need to be challenged and re-examined, not only in regards to Schedule 7, but generally and systematically. This includes challenging the very system that awards these powers. The iron is hot and we should strike the hammer accordingly.

Sustained activism is what led to the repeal of Section 44 and I believe that sustained activism can also lead to the repeal of Schedule 7 and other police powers that threaten our civil rights and freedoms. Let’s work together to fight the powers that might not necessarily affect you, but certainly affect others. Another cliché, the oft-quoted passage by Martin Niemöller, is not a bad way of explaining why:

They came for the communists first, and I didn’t speak up

because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up

because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up

because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me and by that time

no one was left to speak up for me.

Rizwaan Sabiris a human rights activist and doctoral researcher at the University of Strathclyde. He is researching the British counter-terrorism and the role of Islam in the UK and Scotland. In May 2008 he was detained for six days as a suspected member of al-Qaida for being in possession of primary research literature. He was released without charge. His column on counter-terrorism and security appears every other Friday.

Review – Road to Guantanamo

Admin — Thu, 29 May 2008 14:52:37 +0000

Review – Road to Guantanamo (dir. Michael Winterbottom)

by Alistair Nixon

In Ian McEwan’s Saturday, Henry Perowne speaks of September 11th 2001 as his eighteen year old son’s induction into international affairs; “his initiation, in front of the TV, before the dissolving towers was intense, but he adapted quickly.” It is a statement that is true certainly for me and also for many of our generation. But the September 11th attacks were only part of the induction.

A counterpoint to the images of the “dissolving towers”, were the equally resonant images of the Guantanamo Bay detainees, removed not just from international law, but also, by insulation, from the environment surrounding them – kneeling, bound, jump-suited blobs of orange, their eyes, nose, ears, hands and mouths rendered obsolete with masks, headphones and gloves. They were the dehumanised victims of a scared and vengeful giant, divested of their most basic human rights – unpeople, as author Mark Curtis put it recently.

Michael Winterbottom’s latest film, The Road to Guantanamo, forcefully asserts the Person within that sensory deprivation kit. It comes at a time when Guantanamo is no longer news. Tony Blair summed up its position well at a recent press conference, referring to it as an “anomaly”. The horrors of Guantanamo have become part of the fabric of every day life. Thankfully, this film puts it back on the agenda. The story is based upon the account of three British detainees at Guantanamo – the so-called Tipton Three, Ruhal Ahmed, Shafiq Rasul, and Iad Asif Iqbal. Travelling to Pakistan for a wedding, they enter in to Afghanistan at the same time American bombing commences. As bombing intensifies, they attempt to get back to Pakistan, but instead become wound up with Taliban fighters, before their arrest by Americans. The Tipton Three spent just over two years at Guantanamo Bay.

The film cuts between the dramatised escapades of the young, clean shaven youths laughing and joking at the quirky otherworldliness of Afghanistan – with occasional flash backs to happier times; flirting with girls at Pizza Hut, riding scooters around a Tipton park – and interviews with their current, thick bearded counterparts. When captured, Ahmed and Iqbal were both 22, Rasul was 24. (Of course, they were by no means the youngest detainees, America having admitted to only recently releasing a 13 and 15 year old.). While our induction to international affairs was watching the horror, theirs was living it. The location filming in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran adds a great deal of believability to the film, as does the mock-up of Guantanamo itself. But as noted earlier, this is not a documentary; it is the dramatised account of the protagonists’ time in Afghanistan and Guantanamo. This is, of course, a partisan account; but it is our best opportunity to hear from those who have been inside Guantanamo Bay. By denying access to Guantanamo to lawyers, aid workers and journalists, the Bush administration has done harm to any defence they may have. Commentators such as David Aaronovitch have noted factual inaccuracies during parts of the film, such as the claim that the teenagers entered Afghanistan before the American bombing started (when in fact it was after).

Beginning the film is a clip of George Bush proclaiming that inside Guantanamo are the ‘bad guys.’ The film maintains the Tipton Three were completely innocent; but if the Tipton Three were not hapless youths, who somehow strayed into Afghanistan, but had gone with the intent of aiding Bin Laden in an assault on the West, would their treatment at Guantanamo have been warranted? The film provides an indirect answer to this question. We are not just witness to the conditions inside the camp, but also the interrogations. They are farcical. So much time and energy is expelled in to dragging a confession from the detainees, that the entire point of the exercise – extracting information on Al Qaeda- is forgotten. At one point, Ahmed is shown a video of a Bin Laden rally in Afghanistan in the year two-thousand. “I see you on the tape,” the interrogator snarls. Ahmed argues it couldn’t have been him, “I was working at Curry’s all of 2000″; but still, the interrogator persists. “How could you have been, if I can see you on the tape?” With interrogators like these, who needs enemies? The scenes at Guantanamo are full of black comedy. They go to show that Guantanamo is indeed an ‘anomaly’. But it is not just a moral or legal anomaly; the practices within Guantanamo fly in the face of rational thought. Regardless, the anomaly that is Guantanamo Bay will blot the consciences of many subsequent generations free from the smoke and haze of the collapsed twin towers. The question, however, is who will feel the most shame? Those who believe Guantanamo is necessary for world security; or those of us whose protests against Guantanamo have amounted to nothing more than mere indignant huffing and puffing. There have been no major protests; Camp Delta has been allowed to slip off the radar. The Road to Guantanamo is of the utmost importance in reminding us what an abomination the prison is, and of the urgency required in doing something to help those who are still trapped within its walls.

Road to Guantanamo is available to buy on DVD, priced £15.99