Extremist Islamist groups to be banned under new UK terror laws

[Al-khiyal]

Extremist Islamist groups to be banned under new terror laws

January 11, 2010 -- The Islamist group Islam4UK, which planned a march through Wootton Bassett, and its "parent" organisation, al-Muhajiroun, are to be banned under new legislation outlawing the "glorification" of terrorism. The home secretary, Alan Johnson, is expected to sign off a parliamentary order later this week proposing the ban, based on months of monitoring the output of websites and comments by senior figures. The decision to proscribe the two organisations, which will have to be endorsed by parliament, will make it a criminal offence punishable by a prison term of up to 10 years to be a member of either organisation, or to attend or address their meetings.

Al-Muhajiroun was founded by Omar Bakri Muhammad and Anjem Choudary, and has been operating in Britain since the mid-1980s. The group became notorious for praising the September 11 attacks in 2001. Bakri was banned from Britain by the former home secretary Charles Clarke in August 2005, on the grounds that his presence in the country was "not conducive to the public good". At the same time, the Home Office announced its intention to ban the group but it disappeared from view before relaunching itself in June last year. Two offshoots – the Saviour sect and al-Ghurabaa – are already proscribed under the 2000 Terrorism Act. Islam4UK has called off its planned march through Wootton Bassett, the Wiltshire market town that has come to symbolise the fatalities sustained by British forces in Afghanistan. It said it had "successfully highlighted the plight of Muslims in Afghanistan globally". The group said that if their organisation and al-Muhajiroun were banned by the government, "another platform with a new name will arise to continue to fulfil these divine objections until the sharia has been implemented". Counter-terrorism legislation passed in 2006 is designed to automatically ban any "successor" organisations set up by proscribed groups.

Home Office lawyers were believed to be drawing up the necessary parliamentary order implementing the ban so that it can be debated by MPs within days. The move was being finalised today, as MPs heard evidence of tensions within government over the direction of the official programme aimed at preventing violent extremism. Written evidence from the Local Government Association for a special Commons select committee held in a Birmingham mosque today, confirmed that tension between the Home Office's office of security and counter-terrorism and the Department of Communities and Local Government has been a problem at times. The LGA said that at the heart of the disagreements has been the focus of the Prevent programme, with the communities secretary, John Denham, arguing that it should be part of the broader work on community cohesion and equalities. "Police and the security services will necessarily see things in a different perspective," said the LGA memo. Its evidence said that the security services have moved away from developing a profile of a "typical extremist", to a more rounded analysis of potential risks and interventions. Evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers to the MPs' inquiry said that so far 228 young adults aged under 25 "who have been inspired by the al-Qaida ideology" have been referred to the Channel Project, which provides support to those believed to be vulnerable to radicalisation.

[Al-khiyal]

Britain bans Islamist group after protest threat

London, January 12, 2010 -- The British government Tuesday proscribed a radical Islamist group which provoked outrage with plans to demonstrate in a country town used for repatriation ceremonies for British soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Home Secretary Alan Johnson said the order to ban the group Islam UK on the grounds that it was linked to terrorism would come into effect from Thursday. The controversial group withdrew plans to march through the town of Wootton Bassett, in the south-western county of Wiltshire, after a storm of protest last week. It said the demonstration would have been "to honour Muslims killed in the Afghanistan conflict," but denied that members had planned to carry 500 empty coffins through the town. It has become customary for hearses carrying the coffins of soldiers flown back from Afghanistan through the market town, with relatives and local people lining its streets in silence. Johnson said the group had tried to escape proscription by simply changing its name. Thus the order would apply to the group's other names, including Al Muhajiroun, a description under which it was banned in 2006. The ban would also apply to other names adopted by the group, which included Islam4UK, Al Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect. The order will come into effect on Thursday and make it a criminal offence to be a member, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Islam4UK spokesman Anjem Choudary described the ban as a "failure of the concept of democracy and freedom" and warned that prohibiting the group would drive young Muslims "underground."

The ban is directed at organizations which are suspected of preparing for, promoting and encouraging terrorism. Groups can be declared illegal if they "unlawfully glorify the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism." "Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism and is not a course we take lightly," said Johnson. The ban, and the controversy preceding it, highlights the increasingly sensitive public debate about British involvement in Afghanistan in view of a rising death toll, and its impact on community relations in Britain. Choudary stressed that the group was a non-violent ideological and political organization. While the organizations would no longer operate under the proscribed names, their activities could not be stopped. "I can't stop being a Muslim, I can't stop propagating Islam, I can't stop calling for the Sharia," Choudary said. "What the people will see is if you don't agree with the government and you want to expose their foreign policy, then freedom quickly dissipates and turns into dictatorship," he said in a BBC interview.

[Al-khiyal]

Islam4UK: bad, but not worth banning

January 12, 2010 -- Alan Johnson's decision to ban al-Muhajiroun and its various incarnations (including Islam4UK) will no doubt be publicly welcomed by many of our tabloids – ironically the very same ones that have done so much in recent years to hype the activities of this minuscule group – but is banning the group really how a confident liberal democracy should be responding? To be sure, the overwhelming majority of British Muslims have been left greatly embarrassed and frustrated by al-Muhajiroun's continual publicity-seeking and frankly repulsive antics which have included holding a 9/11 commemoration meeting entitled "A Towering Day in History", shouting abuse at British soldiers returning from duty in Iraq, and declaring a "March for Sharia" through Trafalgar Square to expound on their vision of what Britain would look like under their interpretation of Islamic law.

Just last week, I was contacted by a number of journalists about Islam4UK's latest publicity wheeze: their declared intention to march through the town of Wootton Bassett holding coffins to symbolise the civilian dead in Afghanistan. The statement did not mention the date of the proposed march and indeed the local Wiltshire police confirmed that they had not received any notification from any organisation asking permission to hold any such march. Furthermore, no one seemed to have stopped to ask how a tiny group of unemployed layabouts from the London area would be able to afford the train fare to Wootten Bassett, let alone have enough supporters on hand to carry coffins through the town. Still, the very idea of such a demonstration was enough to send much of our media, including the so-called quality press, into a tailspin and play right into the hands of Islam4UK who must have marvelled at the amount of publicity they had managed to generate. For the patently evident goal of al-Muhajiroun and its off-shoots has been to seek to divide and polarise communities by inciting public opinion against Muslims. And for all their mock outrage at the activities of al-Muhajiroun, much of our media has been complicit in this mischief-making.

It is true that a ban on al-Muhajiroun may temporarily deprive our newspapers of their favourite bogeymen, but for how long? In 2006, the government banned two previous outfits containing al-Muhajiroun elements, al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect, but it was not long before the very same faces emerged behind new organisational names and carried on as usual from where they had left off. So, there is a very real question about how effective this ban will prove to be in practice. This in turn lends credence to the view that the move to ban al-Muhajiroun is perhaps more to do with domestic electoral considerations than intelligent and effective policy-making.

The ban should also raise concerns about the state of our freedoms in what we are often proud to call an open society. Anjem Choudary – the leader of al-Muhajiroun – has not been slow in exploiting this. He told the Today programme this morning: "What the people will see is if you don't agree with the government and you want to expose their foreign policy, then freedom quickly dissipates and turns into dictatorship." Al-Muhajiroun members openly denounce the "evils" of democracy and freedom. "Freedom go to hell" says one of their placards. The controversy over Wootton Bassett was a good opportunity to demonstrate to al-Muhajiroun and their sympathisers the benefits of these values in action.

The appropriate way to deal with the actions of al-Muhajiroun members is surely transparently and through our legal system. If individuals are known to have incited violence then they should be prosecuted. But we should be very wary of giving our government the arbitrary power to ban entire organisations. It also sets a bad precedent. The Conservative party has already made clear that if they attain power they will ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, a party that is fiercely critical of the UK's foreign policies in the Middle East but is also an avowedly non-violent group. It increasingly appears that, given sustained media scaremongering, many of us may be prepared to see the criminalising of dissent.

[Al-khiyal]

Islam4UK ban: a sensible step or a defeat for pluralism?

January 12, 2010 -- So Alan Johnson is banning Islam4UK, the Islamist group which has been making a squalid public nuisance of itself lately. Is the home secretary being sensible in protecting society from malevolent mischief-makers – or should we regard it as a defeat for the pluralism we cherish and Islamist fundies don't? No easy answer there. Given the hysterical media response to Islam4UK's proposal to hold an anti-army march through Wootton Bassett – as cynical a publicity stunt as any hard-hearted PR man could devise – there might be a theoretical case for banning the Daily Beast as well. Don't tabloids routinely stir up all sorts of hatreds? They do and we don't ban them. Nor should we. Gina Ford's bossy prescriptions for disciplining babies – the ones Nick Clegg rebelled against – are not appropriate for adults. Not for babies either, I suspect, but that's another story.

What Johnson said is this: "I have today laid an order which will proscribe al-Muhajiroun, Islam4UK, and a number of the other names the organisation goes by. It is already proscribed under two other names – Al Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect. Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism and is not a course we take lightly." The implication appears to be that Islam4UK, led by Anjem Choudary, the ex-lawyer from east London, who founded al-Muhajiroun in the 1980s with radical cleric Omar Bakri Mohammad, has been trading under a different name – much as bankrupt businessmen sometimes do.

It will increase pressure to ban other groups which sail close to the political wind – in "glorifying" terrorism, as the controversial legislation put it when Tony Blair pushed it through parliament with some difficulty in 2006. Hizb ut-Tahrir will again come into the frame. My own prejudice is against bans unless absolutely necessary. Society is stronger for taking on the nasties in open debate and proving the merits of mutual tolerance. That goes for the BNP and their ilk just as it does for tabloid demagogues. Repression only feeds extremism and other unpleasant side-effects as the current woes of both Sinn Féin's Gerry Adams and the DUP's "Swish Family Robinson" underline.

But you have to draw the line sometimes, partly to show there is a line. We're with Gina Ford there; the issue is where to draw it. There is also a matter of demonstrating to rival nasties that "these people" can't get away with being as offensive as Choudary was in suggesting that march through Wootton Bassett, where coffins of the Afghan war fallen come home. I'd like to be confident that Alan Johnson, a sensible man (so sensible that he doesn't really want to be PM), has called this one correctly. Alas, the intelligence that lands on ministers' desks is not always accurate, nor the conclusions wise. So fingers crossed that Johnners is right on this one.

Only yesterday five of Islam4UK's footsoldiers – the ones who shouted "Rapists", "Baby killers", and "Murderers" at returning soldiers – were given conditional discharges by district judge Carolyn Mellanby at Luton magistrates court. They were abusive and unrepentant outside the court, giving an impression of being Kevin the Teenager in beards. But I was impressed by the judge's response to their adolescent refusal to stand when she entered the court. However, Mellanby refrained from charging them with contempt of court – not a precedent she wanted to create. Quite right; these chaps are itching for a spot of martyrdom, not the blown-to-bits kind, but a more comfy version in the Daily Beast. The less they get the better.

Choudary has just popped up on Radio 4's Today ("Hello Anjem," said Evan Davis) to protest that the ban is "a failure of the concept of democracy and freedom" because as soon as chaps like him criticise government foreign policy "democracy quickly turns into dictatorship". Don't get cross. Remember, he's a trained lawyer (why do we take lawyers so seriously?) with the gift of the gab and he's trying to provoke you. But the rascal did say something more significant, I think. Gently pressed by the herbivorous Davis (where is Torquemada Humphrys when we need him?) about his views on violence, Choudary said "we live in Britain under a covenant of security" – and respect it. As I understand it, this reflects traditional Muslim views on hospitality – both the giving and the taking of it – which says that you do not attack people who have taken you in. It was that doctrine that the 7/7 bombers broke. A fine point, perhaps, but it does not extend to British forces risking death on the rocky roads on Helmand province.

[Ruks]

this is all rather silly - besides they have some of their facts wrong about the history of the organisations.

how can they ban organisations they don't like, but allow the BNP to exist even though there was legislation to ban them? the government justs wants to add fuel to the fire. the judge's comments about the people of luton was silly, everyday those outside of luton cause many offenses to the people of luton with their comments. how come they aren't banned or criminalised?

how come the government never bothered to ban hizb ut tahrir before?

Anjem's comments are right, if you ban these organisations then those young men (and women) will always find another way to air their opinions.

[Al-khiyal]

La Grande-Bretagne interdit une organisation islamiste :
Peur tardive

Jeudi 14 Janvier 2010 -- Le gouvernement britannique a annoncé l’interdiction, à compter d’aujourd’hui, de l’organisation islamiste extrémiste Islam4UK, considérée comme étant liée à des complots terroristes, mais son chef spirituel, basé au Liban, a juré de la reformer sous un autre nom. Islam4UK (phonétiquement : Islam pour le Royaume-Uni) est interdite en raison de la menace de son dirigeant pour la Grande-Bretagne, Anjem Choudary, d’organiser une manifestation contre la guerre en Afghanistan pendant une cérémonie d’hommage aux soldats britanniques tombés dans ce conflit. Tout membre d’Islam 4UK peut désormais être arrêté, l’organisation étant placée dans la même catégorie que les mouvements terroristes comme El-Qaïda ou les Tigres tamouls. Le groupe était auparavant connu sous le nom d’Al-Muhajiroun (les émigrants en arabe) et avait déjà été interdit. Il avait organisé, peu après les attentats du 11 septembre 2001, une manifestation à la gloire des pirates de l’air ayant jeté les avions sur le World Trade Center, Washington et la Pennsylvanie. Le groupe et son fondateur Omar Bakri étaient devenus l’une des voix les plus agressives de l’islam radical en Grande-Bretagne. Al-Muhajiroun a été lié à des membres d’El-Qaïda, à l’auteur d’une tentative d’attentat suicide en Israël en 2003 ou encore à la cellule terroriste qui est derrière les attentats dans les transports en commun londoniens de juillet 2005. Al-Muhajiroun fut interdit après ces attentats, mais le groupe s’était déjà démantelé de lui-même. Bakri quitta la Grande-Bretagne pour le Liban à la fin de 2005. Depuis, le groupe s’est reformé à plusieurs reprises sous d’autres noms, mais était interdit à chaque fois.