The Muslim News - Better for Muslims to have a Tory government, says Howard

Issue 191, Friday 25 March 2005 - 14 Safar 1426

Better for Muslims to have a Tory government, says Howard

Ahmed J Versi: The bill on outlawing of incitement to religious hatred (part of the Serious & Organised Crime Bill) is going through the Parliament now. Your party voted against it. For the Muslim community this was an important legislation for them.
Michael Howard: I know (that the legislation was important for the Muslim community). If it were possible to found a form a words which would give the protection which the Muslim community want, without giving rise to real concerns about free speech and the ability of people to debate religious differences vigorously, I would have been in favour of that proposal. And I don’t believe that the present formula achieves that. The previous formula didn’t achieve that and I am not certain that it is possible to found the formula that achieves that. I don’t know that. There is a raw issue that is to do with the freedom of speech and the freedom of people to argue about religious matters in a vigorous and uninhibited way. And that’s the problem. And until we can find a formula which deals with that problem, we can’t support the Bill.
AJV: The previous Home Secretary (David Blunkett), the current one, Charles Clarke and Fiona Mactaggart (Home Office Minister) who I had interviewed on this issue told me that the Bill was not going to affect the freedom of expression, especially the right to criticise other religions…
MH: I know that’s what they say. We don’t agree with them on that. If you look at the words, we don’t agree it has that effect. That’s the difference between us. That’s the disagreement.
AJV: There was a debate recently on the same issue, it was made clear by (Trevor Phillips of the) Commission for Racial Equality, and other groups that this (the Bill) was specifically for those who are inciting people to (physically) attack others because of their religious belief. The arguments that came up were that the perception was that this Bill would prevent people from criticising people because of their belief.
MH: You have got to look at the words. It’s not what people who say about the words that matter. You have to come to conclusion about the words in the Bill.
AJV: So why is it that others who have looked at the Bill disagree…
MH: Because you can have genuine differences of opinion on these things. That’s what the debate is about. That’s what democracy is about. I know what they say these words mean. I don’t agree that that’s what these words mean. And that’s why, I’m afraid, we disagree with them about this Bill. The Liberal Democrats agree with us as well.
AJV: Would you ever support a bill to outlaw incitement of religious hatred that conforms with what you want, that is, if did not affect freedom of expression?
MH: I am not convinced that that is achievable. I will be perfectly honest with you. It’s a very hard thing to do. But if someone came forward with a form of words, which in my opinion did not give rise to any real difficulty of free speech, yes, I will be in favour of it. I’m not against the principle of making incitement to religious hatred an offence. But I haven’t yet seen a form of words which would achieve that result and unless and until I do, I will tend to oppose the clause.
AJV: Did your Party give an alternative (to the Bill)…
MH: No we haven’t. I’m not sure that it can be done. If it can be done, fine. But I’m not sure it can be done. We haven’t been able think of any alternative form of words.
AJV: There is another Bill which may come before or after the elections to the Parliament (for debate) to outlaw religious discrimination in services and goods. What would your position be? Will you support such a Bill?
MH: We would look at the wordings again, but I have no objection in principle to that. And I would think in all probability we will probably support that.
AJV: There is a perception in the Muslim community that various amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Act – in 1999, 2000 and 2001 – are aimed specifically at the Muslims. Hundreds of Muslims have been detained and thousands have been stopped and searched under Terrorism Act. Only two have been convicted and they are appealing against their conviction. They have not been involved in carrying out any terrorist activity in this country. So the Muslims believe that they are being arrested because they are Muslims, because it is believed that British Muslims could be potentially terrorists.
MH: I don’t agree that the legislation was designed to harass Muslims. I think the legislation was designed to protect the whole country, including Muslims, from acts of terrorism. But Part 4 of the 2001 Act has now been struck down by the courts and we are involved in an argument with the Government because we think that any decision which would deprive British subjects of their liberty should be taken by a judge and not by a home secretary. We think there is a need for a law to protect the country against terrorism but we do not agree with the state of affairs which the Government wants to introduce whereby these decisions are taken by a politician and not by a court.
AJV: How can you reassure the Muslim community they would not be stopped and searched and arrested just because they are Muslims (as this is the perception)?
MH: Two people have been convicted.
AJV: They have not been convicted of terrorist activity. They have been convicted of supporting and being a member of a terrorist organisation which was proscribed under Anti-Terrorism Act 1999.
MH: Well, that’s a serious offence.
AJV: But they were not involved in terrorist activity against this country.
MH: They may not have been yet involved in terrorist offences, but if someone is involved in membership of a terrorist organisation…
AJV: But they were asylum seekers who had come to this country and were then members of the proscribed organisation…
MH: There is a duty on part of every government to protect the people of this country, including Muslim citizens against terrorist acts. I don’t agree with you when you say it really doesn’t matter if someone was a member of a terrorist organisation. I think that is a very serious matter.
AJV: What I am saying is that they were not involved in terrorist activity in this country.
MH: There may not have been evidence that is admissible in court that they were involved in terrorist activity. But the fact that they were convicted of being members of a terrorist organisation is a very serious matter.
AJV: Under the Anti-Terrorism Amended Act 2001 (Part 4), all the foreign nationals detained are Muslim and there is no due process of law. Now the Government want to extend this to include British citizens and instead of detaining them in Belmarsh prison, they would be held under house arrest. Do you support the decision of the Law Lords who said that the detention of the foreign nationals was illegal.
MH: Everybody has to accept what the Law Lords decided as they decide what the Law is.
AJV: What is your response to their ruling?
MH: In any legislation that is to replace the Part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism 2001 Act, it should made be clear that any decision which is going to take away someone’s liberty should be made by a judge and not by the Home Secretary.
AJV: How about placing them under house arrest?
MH: That has to be made by a judge too. I’m very doubtful about the effectiveness of house arrest. I think terrorists should be imprisoned. Any restriction of people’s liberty has to be done by a judge and not by a minister, particularly if you are talking about the liberty of a British subject.
AJV: You had a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss this issue. How did he respond to your concerns? Do you think that he would change his mind about altering this?
MH: I had no indication at the meeting at all that he would do that.
AJV: On the so called ‘war on terror’ – against Afghanistan and Iraq, were supported by your party. On Iraq, do you not think it was wrong to support the Government. And should you not have opposed the war?
MH: No.
AJV: Why?
MH: Because I think it was right to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
AJV: But that was not the reason for going to war.
MH: That wasn’t Mr Blair’s reason for the war. I don’t think Mr Blair told the truth in the run up to the war, which he should have done. I criticised him for that. And I think Mr Blair should have had a plan for what happened after Saddam Hussein was deposed. And he didn’t have such a plan. If he had such a plan, and, for example, the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police hadn’t been disbanded, I think we could have avoided many of the difficulties we have seen since then. So I am critical of the way in which Mr Blair conducted all this, but on the question which you put to me – do I think it was wrong to support the war – No, I don’t.
AJV: During the debate on whether to go to war or not, the main issue was about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
MH: That was the basis on which Mr Blair put his case.
AJV: And you supported him on that.
MH: We supported it rather more widely. But that was certainly the basis on which he put his case.
AJV: What do you think is now the future for Iraq? Do you think both the US and UK troops should withdraw and shouldn’t they withdraw if the Government of Iraq asks them to do so?
MH: It’s up to the elected Government in Iraq to decide. I strongly take the view that if the elected Government of Iraq, doesn’t want the troops to stay there, the troops should leave.
AJV: The Americans have said they want to keep their bases even after they leave Iraq. Would you support the American policy on this?
MH: It is up to the elected Government in Iraq, if the elected Government in Iraq are content for the American bases to be in Iraq. But if the elected Government in Iraq don’t want such bases, it’s a sovereign country.
AJV: In its so-called ‘war on terror’ President Bush has indicated that the next target may be Iran because he is claiming that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons and that they support terrorism. Would you support an attack on Iran, either in the form of how it happened in Iraq or bombing nuclear facilities, not only by the US but maybe, by Israel as Israel has also threatened to bomb nuclear facilities?
MH: The best way forward in relation to Iran is through negotiation and diplomacy. There is some advantage in taking the question to the UN Security Council.
AJV: The issue is on nuclear weapons. Iran feels threatened by the Israelis as the have proven nuclear weapons, some say more than what Britain has. Surely, should we also not insist on Israel to dismantle their nuclear weapons, then the issue of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would not arise.
MH: Israel has never threatened any other country.
AJV: Israel occupied Lebanon for 20 years.
MH: Israel has never threatened Iran.
AJV: Israel has threatened to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.
MH: Israel has never threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran.
AJV: Israel did threaten to use nuclear weapons if it was attacked by chemical weapons by Iraq.
MH: But not against Iran.
AJV: Yes but they did say they would use nuclear weapons.
MH: But that was in defence. We’ve got to be realistic about this. There are groups supported by Iran, like the Hizbullah, who are committed to the destruction of Israel. There is no one in the State of Israel who is committed to the destruction of Iran. So the two things are not entirely comparable.
AJV: Are you then saying that it is legitimate for Israel to bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran because it feels threatened by Iran.
MH: No, I did not say that. On the contrary, I said that the question of Iranian possession of weapons should be dealt with by negotiation and diplomacy. And there is a case to take it to the Security Council.
AJV: So why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons if it wants to have them?
MH: Because there is an agreement, a Non Proliferation Agreement. And if you spread nuclear weapons all over the world, it’s going to make the world a very much more dangerous place to live in.
AJV: So are you asking the Iranians to withdraw from the Non Proliferation Treaty. Because Israel has not signed it, therefore, it is not breaking the Treaty.
MH: I hope that they would not do that. As a responsible country, Iran should remain in the Agreement and should not have nuclear weapons.
AJV: What do you think should be the solution of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Israelis have said they would withdraw from the Gaza Strip, but will not withdraw from all areas of the West Bank and it wants to keep many of the settlements in the West Bank.
MH: I think the tragedy in the Middle East is a unique tragedy in the world. There are many problems the world faces to which we do not know the answer. In relation to the Middle East we do know the answer. One day, I very much hope it will be soon, there will be an agreement reached that will be very similar to the agreement that was nearly reached at Taba, not so very long ago. That agreement would provide for a viable Palestinian State, it would provide for security for the State of Israel, it would involve an accommodation over Jerusalem. I believe that sooner or later such an agreement would be reached. The outlines of it are clear. The only question is how many more people on both sides have to die before such an agreement is concluded.
AJV: The Taba and other agreements do not talk about the return of over 3 million refugees to their own homeland.
MH: That is one of the issues that has to be dealt with. There are various ways that can be dealt with, and as part of an overall settlement I hope it will be dealt with.
AJV: Do you think that Israel should abide by the International Law and withdraw from all the territories that he has occupied.
MH: That is part of the question but the other part of the question is the security of the State of Israel.
AJV: Israel has said it would not withdraw from all parts of the lands it occupied in 1967 in defiance of the UN resolutions.
MH: I know, but there are many UN resolutions, in many cases the same UN resolutions, which calls for the cessation of attacks on Israel. So you’ve got to have a settlement which combines both things.
AJV: Palestinians are not occupying Israeli land. They are being occupied and so they have a right to fight against Israel.
MH: I want the agreement that is ultimately reached to involve withdrawal of Israel from those lands. That’s what Taba would have provided. That’s the agreement I want to see.
AJV: Conservative Party has a large number of Muslim candidates for the forthcoming General Elections. There is an outside chance of at least two, or maybe three, Muslims may be elected for the House of Commons. We have only two Muslim MPs and Muslim constitute 3 per cent of the population in this country. There should be at least 17 Muslim MPs. Why is it that we have so few MPs. There are no Conservative Muslims in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords, nor in the Scottish Parliament, nor in the Welsh Assembly, nor in the London Assembly and nor in the European Parliament?
MH: I think it’s because these things take time. The Muslim community in this country on the whole is a community which has arrived in this country relatively recently. And it takes time for a community which is newly arrived in the country to integrate and to become part of the mainstream. And it is a traditional in politics that you start off by fighting a seat that is more difficult to win and then you progress to a seat that is easier to win. And that is what is happening in the Conservative Party now and I very much hope that we will get at least two Muslim Conservatives in the House of Commons at the election and I hope in the next election after that there will be many more.
AJV: When you were in power, no Muslim schools got funding. If you are elected would your Party support funding of Muslim schools, if they abide by the National Curriculum as most Muslim schools do.
MH: Yes. They have to abide by the National Curriculum, they have to be inspected by the Ofsted and they have to agree to admit a certain proportion of pupils from other faiths and no faiths.
AJV: One of the reasons why there is an increase of independent Muslim schools is because there is not enough funding in state schools in inner cities where a large number of Muslims live. What would you do – would you pump in more money in these areas?
MH: We are going to be spending as much as Labour on schools, but we are going to spend it much more effectively and we’re going to give people a real choice. So parents will have a real choice of schools and popular schools will be allowed to expand. So it will be more easier for all children, including Muslim children, to have access to high quality schooling. We would take actions to enhance school discipline. So that where you have a school where there are few disruptive pupils wrecking education of the majority, we would take action to deal with that. We also want to have much more vocational education so that 14 to 19 year-olds can spend a day or two a week with an employer out of school learning how to become a plumber or a brick layer or something like that. All these things, I would think Muslim children would benefit from disproportionately.
AJV: There is a high unemployment in the Muslim community, especially among the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis because of many reasons, including, discrimination, because of the underachievement (as discussed earlier) and lack of opportunities. Other communities living in inner cities also have high unemployment. What would you do to change this?
MH: We have a much better way of getting people back into work. And the Government’s way is an expensive failure. It hasn’t succeeded. The number of younger people, for example, which would include many Muslims - who are not in work, not in education, not in training – has gone up since Labour came to power. We’ve looked at the way in which voluntary organisations and charities can help people back into work. We find that they do it much more effectively and much more economically than the Government does. So we will have a different way of helping people into work. And I think that will help people very effectively.
AJV: If a charity is faith based, it is very difficult to get funding.
MH: It would not be with a Conservative Government. We will support them.
AJV: Why should Muslims vote for the Conservative Party?
MH: Because Muslims, like every other citizen of the country, want a government that would give them value for money and cut taxes and not waste their money and charge more taxes; a government that will take seriously the issue of discipline in school and give head teachers a final say, which would enable more Muslim children to be educated properly; a government that wants cleaner hospitals that Muslims, like every other British citizen, need no longer fear that they will come out of hospital more ill than they were when they went in because they have acquired an infection while they were in hospital; because Conservative government will control immigration, which will make it easier to have good community relations which is very important for the Muslim community as they are for the other minority communities; and Conservative government which will have many more police officers, who will maintain law and order and make sure crimes are not committed against innocent people, including Muslims – who, in many areas, suffer disproportionately from crime.
So for all these reasons, which are common to everyone in this country, it would be better for Muslims to have a Conservative government than a Labour or a Liberal Democrat government.
Interview was held at Opposition Leader’s offices in the House of Commons on February, 21