London, January 21: Muslim police in Britain have attacked the government’s anti-terrorism strategy for triggering an upsurge in Islamophobia and deepening divisions in communities.
The National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) warned that the Prevent programme, which aims to combat violent extremism, was “stigmatising” Muslims by focusing on “so-called Islamist extremism.”
The group said the real threat came from the growing far-right movement.
“The hatred towards Muslims has grown to a level that defies all logic and is an affront to British values,” said the association in a written submission to a parliamentary commission examining the anti-terror initiative.
“The climate is such that Muslims are subject to daily abuse in a manner that would be ridiculed by Britain, were this to occur anywhere else.”
There may be a “connection in the rise of Islamophobia and our Prevent programme as it feeds on the stereotypes that the media and some rightwing parties promote,” the group said.
These stereotypes were that “all Muslims are evil and non-trustworthy”, added the officers.
Community cohesion may have suffered as a result of the strategy, said the association, which has more than 2,000 members and was founded in July 2007.
They also highlighted the growth of rightwing movements as a threat that needed greater attention.
“The impact and growth of the far-right and its ability to carry out terror acts cannot and should not be underestimated,” said the association.
EU court condemns British police anti-terror searches
Last week the European Court of Human Rights condemned British anti-terror legislation allowing people to be searched by police without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.
A case brought by Kevin Gillan, 32, and Pennie Quinton, 38, challenged the searches under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
In a unanimous ruling, seven judges said the searches could cause “humiliation and embarrassment” and breached the complainants’ right to respect for their private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the statement said.
The police powers that required “an individual to submit to a detailed search of their person, clothing and personal belongings amounted to a clear interference with the right to respect for private life,” it said.
“The public nature of the search, with the discomfort of having personal information exposed to public view, might even in certain cases compound the seriousness of the interference because of an element of humiliation and embarrassment,” it added.
The judges dismissed the argument that the searches were the same as those of travellers at airports.
“An air traveller… knows that he and his bags are liable to be searched before boarding the aeroplane and has a freedom of choice, since he can leave personal items behind and walk away without being subjected to a search.
“The search powers under Section 44 are qualitatively different. The individual can be stopped anywhere and at any time, without notice and without any choice as to whether or not to submit to a search,” the statement added.
Between 2004 and 2008 the number of searches recorded by the Ministry of Justice went from around 33,000 to over 117,000, it said.
The ruling followed a hearing held on May 12, 2009.
Reacting to the ruling, London’s Metropolitan Police said that, as the British government is seeking to appeal the ruling, Section 44 “remains in force in specified locations across London”.
Those locations include “iconic sites and crowded places,” it said, without giving specifics, adding that Section 44 “remains an important tactic in our counter terrorism strategy”.
EU: Britain wrong to stop aid to terror suspects’ wives
Britain is wrong to restrict social security payments to the wives of terror suspects, the top European court advisor said in an opinion last week.
EU Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi, whose opinion is influential but not binding on the European courts, argued that while those on the UN Security Council sanctions list were not eligible for aid, benefits paid to their spouses should be seen as direct aid to those on the terror list.
The opinion could have repercussions for Britain’s anti-terror laws.
The wives argue that while their husbands are subject to an asset freeze, they themselves are not and should continue to receive social security aid such as child benefit and housing support.
Under British anti-terrorism laws the spouses of terror suspects may also see their social payments restricted.
“It is clear to me,” the advocate general said in a written opinion, “that by enduring payment of the rent charged for the residential occupation of real property, or the sums payable for the consumption of domestic utilities, the appellants do not provide their spouses (the suspects) with economic resources.”
He said he couldn’t see how anyone on the terror list “could obtain any such assets” given that his funds and/or economic resources have been frozen”.
The advocate general concluded that restrictions on social assistance payments to the terror spouses should only be applied when the couple live together and the money may be used “to pay for goods or services which the person included on that (terror) list will use or from which he will benefit.”
—Agencies