The Muslim News - Debating terrorism with politicians is challenging ...

Issue 223, Friday 30 November 2007 - 19 Dhu al-Qa'dah 1428

Debating terrorism with politicians is challenging ...

By Shazia Khan

A discussion about terrorism – the invitation didn’t exactly thrill me when it first landed on my desk. To be honest, there are only so many times a person can read, write and talk about terrorism before an element of fatigue sets in. But there was something that made me curious. It wasn’t your bog standard invitation to listen to experts talk at you about a subject. Instead, it was the first of a series of monthly discussions between ordinary Muslims and politicians. It’s not often you have the opportunity to engage in face to face discussions with Government officials and policy makers. So off I went to the House of Commons, along with 100 or so other ‘youngish’ Muslims eager to hold our political leaders to account
Organised jointly by Editor of The Muslim News, Ahmed J Versi, and Sadiq Khan MP, Minister in HM Government Whips Department, the audience was made up of a mix of people from varied professional, geographical and cultural backgrounds.
We were ushered into a Committee Room, an impressive but intimate space for the discussions, and introduced to our panel of MPs. It comprised of Home Office Minister of State for Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing, Tony McNulty; Conservative Shadow Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, who also has a frontbench role in criminal justice matters, constitutional affairs, and ethnic diversity and Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Nick Clegg, who is tipped to be a leading contender to replace Sir Menzies Campbell as the Party’s Leader.
Chaired by the excellent Fatim Kurji Jumabhoy, a barrister at No 5 Chambers, she began by asking whether there was a need for specific anti-terrorism legislation when comprehensive criminal legislation already exists. “I would prefer to deal with these cases under the criminal law but terrorism is a specific issue with international dimensions,” said Dominic Grieve. Tony McNulty admitted the Government had rushed through terrorism legislation and was now playing “catch up”. Since 2000, the Government has introduced four key pieces of anti-terrorism legislation, (The Terrorism Act 2000, The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and The Terrorism Act 2006) and has now announced a new Counter Terrorism Bill to review existing measures. McNulty said there were three main issues up for review within the Bill; firstly and most controversially, whether the period for pre-charge detention should be increased from 28 days, secondly, whether terror suspects should be questioned by police after charge, and finally, whether intercept evidence (such as phone taps) should be used in terrorism cases. Nick Clegg warned “legislation sends out messages and it is important that terrorism legislation is seen to be evidence based and proportionate...If the period of pre-charge detention is increased from 28 days, that will inflame public opinion…and would be counterproductive.” Dominic Grieve agreed and added there was no evidence at the moment for extending the period of pre-charge detention. He said, “The Government rushed control orders through Parliament and that prevented debate from taking place. If we get this wrong, it’s not just damaging to the Muslim community but to all of us. It induces a climate of fear...and has the potential to undermine cohesion in our society.”
But the issue which caused most controversy was the impact of foreign policy. Members of the audience repeatedly asked whether the Government would address foreign policy relating to Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. Tony McNulty said, “I cannot accept that the international dimension is the reason why we have terrorism here. I don’t accept that there is a causal link between Iraq or Afghanistan and what happens here...I absolutely challenge that.” Meanwhile, Dominic Grieve accepted that the “disturbed state of the Middle East and the anger it generates (and I’m not saying it justifies anything) is a contributory cause of people being violent, it plainly is.”
In a heated exchange, audience member, Rabia Malik, said McNulty’s reasoning was illogical. “Don’t you think that what happens abroad affects what happens here?...It’s illogical to not make a link between injustices globally and what’s happening here,” Malik said. But Tony McNulty accused her of legitimising the events of 7/7. “To bring injustice back from Iraq to here, is giving it a degree of legitimacy,” said McNulty. “I do see contributory motivational links…but don’t say its justified or that there is a causal link to blowing people up. I don’t understand the link - what turns someone from having a radical discourse, rooted in a legitimate Islamic school, to deciding to murder people?” Malik retorted back by saying that she was not justifying the terrorists attacks.
Although many audience members I spoke to felt frustrated by Tony McNulty’s comments, he certainly added excitement to what was otherwise a very civilised affair. I’m not at all surprised there is high demand for the next House of Commons Dialogue - at least we can ask questions and challenge answers…even if we don’t like what we hear.
Shazia Khan is a journalist and broadcaster.

Back to the front page

Editorial

Messages for
The Muslim News