After having seen Parliament emasculate the Anti-Terrorism Bill by reducing the maximum period terror suspects can be detained without trial from 90 to 28 days, its remaining provisions are now under assault from the Muslim groups created by the government after 7/7 to give advice on how it should go about improving relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Today’s Guardian reports these groups are claiming such provisions of the bill as that proscribing the glorification of terrorism will only serve still further to alienate young British Muslims, thereby increasing their likelihood of ending up recruited in the ranks of Al Qaeda's suicide-bombers.
They claim these clauses will antagonise these young Muslims if enacted because they will then no longer feel able to engage lawfully in what they consider to be perfectly legitimate support of ‘self-determination struggles around the world’. For example, these groups are reported to have claimed, “the extremely fine line” between empathising with the Palestinian cause and justifying the actions of suicide bombers could no longer be drawn with any legal certainty.
Similarly, they claim, any list compiled by the Home Office of extremist websites, bookshops and organisations judged of concern will be seen as ‘censorship of all those who might criticise British foreign policy or call for political unity among Muslims.’
Instead of anti-terror legislation, what should begin, the Muslim advisory groups claim, is a ‘dialogue’ between British Muslims and others.
There are several puzzling things about these expressed concerns and proposals.
First, the Muslim groups opposed to the anti-terror bill for the reasons rehearsed above also tend to favour a Religious Hatred Law proscribing incitement of hatred towards those of their faith. They are apparently unconcerned about the repeatedly expressed concerns critics of this bill have voiced that it is bound to inhibit legitimate of criticism of religions, Islamic or otherwise.
How can there be open dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims, something for which the Muslims advisory groups are calling, if non-Muslims are to be inhibited from openly voicing critical opinion about aspects of their reigion through fear of thereby exposing themselves to prosecution for incitement to religious hatred?
Muslim critics of the anti-terror bill must abandon either support for the Religious Hatred Bill or opposition to the proposed anti-glorification of terror clause of the Anti-Terrorism Bill. They cannot expect to be able to have it both ways.
Secondly, and far more importantly, ...
those seeking to introduce anti-terror legislation need to recognise that, if they intend that law to make it an offence for anyone publicly to extol the bravery and heroism of such acts as the London underground suicide bombings, many here will become just as alienated as the Muslim advisory groups claim their young coreligionists will become through suffering any real or imagined restriction of freedom to voice support for the Palestinian cause or criticism of British foreign policy, should it remain lawful for anyone publicly to extol Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.
Some might think this matter of only marginal concern. Or else they might suppose that, since, as some Muslim and non-Muslim apologists for Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq claim, a legitimate distinction can be drawn between these, since allegedly directed at combatants, and such bombings as might occur here against civilians, it should remain lawful to be able to praise suicide bombings in Israel and in Iraq, when the latter are confined to British and American military personnel and installations.
That British Muslims should remain at liberty to voice support for such suicide bombing is strongly hinted to be the view of the Muslims advisory groups by their suggesting their co-religionists will not take kindly to any restrictions imposed on their freedom to voice their support for 'self-determination struggles around the world'.
Before passing any such legislation, parliament ought to decide and spell out very clearly whether or not it intends to proscribe public praise of all suicide bombings, or only those carried out on British soil. Either way they will unquestionably alienate some British citizens and risk comprising their loyalty.
My sincere hope is that, should Parliament decide to proscribe the glorification of any suicide bombings, it will choose to proscribe the glorification of all of them. Apart from any other reason why it should is that it is quite spurious to suppose security in Britian will be likely to be much increased were Parliament to exempt from proscription glorification of suicide bombings in Israel or against military targets in Iraq.
Unless Britain ceases to recognise the state of Israel and decides forthwith to withdraw from Iraq, it will unavoidably expose its citizens to becoming targets of Islamist terrorists who consider any support by a state for Israel or any military intervention against any Muslims qualifies its citizens for being legitimate targets of sucidie bombings, irrespective of how they personally stand on these matters.
A chilling reminder of this fact was given by what the 19 year old Amsterdam-born Samir Azzouz is reported by a Dutch television station to have said in a video he allegedly made last month immediately before his unsuccessful attempt to shoot down an El Al airliner as it took off from a Dutch airport, an act which led to his arrest.
In the a transcript of the video which was placed on the website of the Dutch television station, Assousz is quoted as having condemned the Dutch government for supporting George Bush, before claiming all Dutch citizens legitimate targets for having participated in its election. ‘You saw the images from the prisons of Guantanamo and abu Ghraib’, he is reported to have said. ‘You will be held responsible for this. We will, by Allah, take revenge…. You are considered soldiers because you elected this government…. We will spill your blood here as you helped steal the riches of the Muslims in Israel.’
It is, indeed, as our British Muslim friends say, ‘an extremely fine line’ between empathising with the Palestinian cause and justifying the actions of suicide bombers, unless such empathy stops well short of exonerating, let alone praising, Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.
All the British pundits and parliamentarians who gloated at Mr Blair’s discomfiture last Wednesday when the 90 day clause was struck down had better get used to the idea that their having so voted or even voting down the clause that proscribes the glorification of terror will not so easily get them or their compatriots off the hook of Islamist terror.
Nothing short of dhimmitude or conversion to an extreme form of Islam is going to. For many that price will be far too high.
The battle for Britain’s continued freedom against radical Islamism then is only just beginning. All who gloated at Mr Blair’s discomfiture should remember that they too are fair game in the eyes of the Islamists, no matter what stand they took on that issue.