The Muslim News - Discriminatory anti terror laws?

Issue 222, Friday 26 October 2007 - 15 Shawwal 1428

Discriminatory anti terror laws?

By Elham Asaad Buaras

In the wake of the conviction of the ‘Cambridge letter bomber’ last month, The Muslim News set out to find why, unlike numerous cases involving Muslims, Miles Cooper who had - searched the internet, amassed explosives and successfully activated bombs to make a political point - was not arrested nor charged under the new terror legislation.
A primary school caretaker was convicted under the Explosive Substances Act and the Offences against the Person Act. All but two of his seven letter bombs went off, injuring eight people in his two week terror campaign in January and February. His last device was addressed to the DVLA. In court he revealed he wanted to change the State’s “overbearing and over-intrusive surveillance society.”
Despite the planning and execution of his plot Cooper was not arrested for the commission, preparation or implementation of any terrorist activity. As a result, the 27-year-old was told on September 29 that he would not be eligible for parole for five years, a lenient sentence as compared to charges under terror legislation.
In a seven-day search of his house in Cherry Hinton, described by the police as “a bomb factory” - a bucket of sulphuric and hydrochloric acid, drain cleaner, fireworks, HMTD and TATP firebombs, chemicals, three air rifles, hydrogen peroxide, machete, matches, moth balls, party poppers, sparklers, weed killer and ammonia were uncovered.
His computer revealed he had extensively researched letter bomb-making websites, and his book collection included titles such as The Shooter’s Handbook, Homemade Guns and Homemade Ammo. Cooper also used blogging sites to exchange bomb-making information but was not charged under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2006 “of possessing a document useful for terrorists.”
Explaining why Cooper was not arrested under anti-terror legislation, National Co-ordinator for Domestic Extremism, ACC Anton Setchell, told The Muslim News, “It appeared to us that he was not trying to undermine the state or change a way of life for citizens in the UK. These are very indiscriminate attacks. The letters weren’t addressed to any individuals, they were just made up titles of post holders within companies so anyone could have opened the letters.”
Yet Cooper said his aim was to highlight his cause by shutting down “certain departments in certain buildings and ultimately to highlight my cause.” He was angry with the State.
Presiding Judge Julian Hall described Cooper’s act as one of a terrorist: “You are a terrorist. Anyone who tries through violence to change the public will is a terrorist, and that is precisely what you did…first and foremost you are a terrorist.”
The investigating officer, Det Supt George Turner, also made the link to terrorism, claiming Cooper had “utilised his interests in anarchy, terrorism and explosive devices in support of his political views.”
Setchell, who oversaw the national police response to the operation, insists, “We didn’t view it as a terrorist act” even though Cooper “had an interest in terrorism. The fact that he read about it doesn’t mean he was a terrorist. Plenty of people read about terrorism without it making them a terrorist.”
However, only two days before Cooper was sentenced, a Muslim teenager was tried and convicted of possessing a bomb-making manual under the Terrorism Act. On September 26, 18 year-old Abdul Patel, was found guilty of possessing what the prosecution described as “a step-by-step guide to the manufacture and production of viable improvised explosive devices - homemade bombs.” He will be sentenced on October 26.
Patel, who was arrested last year was found with similar manuals to the one Cooper possessed, including information on the manufacture of letter bombs and simple fuses.
In another case, Mohammed Atif Siddiqui became the first person to be convicted under the Terrorism Act 2006 which introduced new crimes of “encouragement to terrorism” and “dissemination of terrorist publications”.
Siddiqui, who was convicted in September, could face up to 15 years in prison for possessing and distributing a range of terrorist material through websites and like Cooper, exchanging information about explosives via the internet.
Elaborating on why the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) discarded terror legislation in Cooper’s case but applied it to Patel’s, Satchell said, “He (Cooper) was feeling aggrieved that his dad’s finger prints were kept on a police file and not destroyed and his grief was against the surveillance culture within the country. He’s not looking to overthrow a government or change our way of life or anything like that across the UK. So usually terrorist legislation would be reserved for those kinds of intentions.”
He added that terrorism and various terrorist acts are “quite potent legislations and where the gravity of offending is so severe that it would be used a bit more appropriately for those kinds of offences.”
“Cooper went on to commit substantive offences where he sent devices and where he injured people so we wouldn’t be relying on legislation that is around preparatory acts,” said Satchell. “It was only yesterday (September 27) when he gave evidence - that’s the first real disclosure of any substance that Cooper has made. That gave us, the court and the media an insight into why he did it.”
Siddqui’s lawyer, Aamer Anwar, dismissed the argument that Cooper’s intentions were not those of a terrorist. He told The Muslim News , “The DVLA is a public body. Let’s say that tomorrow a young Muslim decides to target the Ministry of Defence rather than the DVLA, I would suspect he would say that is terrorism. Why is it that when a white male targets the DVLA or any other body that’s not considered to be a terrorist attack?”
“The Terrorism Act is the most draconian piece of legislation that’s been brought into this country. It’s more draconian that the Patriot Act in the United States. But it’s the one that is being used exclusively on Muslims,” he said.
Anwar insisted the CPS must address the discrepancies that arise in using terrorism legislations: “Why is it that when white males are involved in what is quite obvious terrorist atrocities and terrorist attacks, commission and preparation of terrorist acts, they (the CPS) are not prepared to use the laws, but are ready to use it when Muslims are involved?”
His argument is supported by incidents in which Muslims were arrested under the anti-terror legislation with no police knowledge of intent. In July, two Blackburn Muslim men, who had bought propane gas cylinders, were arrested under the Terrorism Act. The pair was re-arrested under drugs legislation when it later emerged the cylinders might be used for cannabis production and not for terrorist reasons.
Human rights lawyer, Khalid Sofi, told The Muslim News he was not convinced by Setchell’s argument. “The cases he put forward against British Muslims, a number of them are under the bases that they possess material which will be helpful to terrorists which confirms a bigger thing which is Muslims are being targeted disproportionately with the anti-terror legislation while others are not. By arresting and not necessarily charging someone under the anti-terror legislation the whole ball game changes immediately. They are treated differently, the community is treated differently and the media and the legal justice system deal with them differently.”
The inconsistent procedure in cases with similar offences has led Sofi, like Anwar, to question the CPS’s process: “Is there independent guidance on the application of anti-terror laws? What is the basis by which they decide what a terrorist act is and what is not?”
He added that the manner in which Cooper’s case was tried illustrates the accessibility of “exceptional provisions” under “ordinary criminal law to deal with these criminal activities and that there is no need to have separate anti-terror laws.”
The CPS, defending police actions, told The Muslim News, “Not everyone who is accused of causing explosions and injuring people will be charged under the terrorism acts. It will depend on the circumstances of each individual case and the evidence.”
“For example, Doctor Bilal Abdullah, who was arrested at Glasgow Airport on June 30, has been charged under the 1883 Explosives and Substances Act, the same act as the one used against Miles Cooper.” However, what the CPS failed to mention is that Abdulah was arrested under the Terrorism Act.
“Where there is evidence that someone has been making bombs, the seriousness of the offence will almost always require a prosecution but it is the evidence which the lawyer considers which makes them decide whether the appropriate charge is an offence under the Terrorism Act or not.”

For other cases involving white extremists found with explosives and involved in other bomb plots see Issue Number 210, 27 October 2006 of The Muslim News.

Back to the front page

Editorial

Messages for
The Muslim News

AddFreeStats.com Free Web Stats in real-time !