Amjad Malik writes on Home Secretary’s ban on a UK outfit
Reports that Home Secretary under Terrorism Act 2000 has proscribed yet again ‘islam4UK,’ a web based UK platform associated with Al-Muhajroun headed by Omar Bakri Mohammed who went into self exile to Lebanon a few years ago, and his group was banned too. the proscription which has come into force from Thursday 14 January in UK whereby police will have powers to arrest its members, and freeze its accounts and assets worldwide as ‘Islam4UK’ earlier announced to hold an anti-war march in the market town of Wootten Basset, Wiltshire carrying empty coffins which ultimately led to its ban. Proscription will mean that the membership of that organization will be a criminal offence punishable up to 10 years of imprisonment in UK.
Its long been established that British media forcefully project a few as the leaders of mainstream Muslims though they are required cautiously to note that as Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri were not representative of Islamic faith , similarly Islam4UK, or Al-Muhajroun has not majority backing and they are like BNP of Muslim community. They are not representative of faith or Muslims and as the community have Muslim Ministers of religion, councilors, members of Parliament, and Peers to canvass and convey their lawful legitimate concerns to Govt or to use protest when needed, so their by force projection asMuslim representative is untimely, protested and unacceptable. By using this ban, discussion on other unwanted topics like ban on hiijab will be ensued which ay cause stir and will cause tocommunity relation. Muslims are on number of occasion has emphasized that extremism and radicalization has no place in any society thereforeproscription of those two organizations must remain an individual matter who are advancing a political plus religious ideological argument lacking majority support other than spreading Islamic faith.
The venue of the said anti war march through Wotten Basset was controversial carrying empty coffins which potentially would have caused enormous hurt of feelings to residents of the area . Those grieving families whose siblings have died in reality in the line of duty during war in Afghanistan deserve sympathy not retaliation and our heart goes for those who lost their loved one’s. Those anti war protests could have been counterproductive and may act like a fuel on fire to already grieving families, and could potentially spark community retaliation and reactions and riots which was not a desirable act carrying the public opinion and or support of the Muslim community. Having said that it is also a fact that majority of Muslims & other communities were against Iraq war and mostly are against war in Afghanistan though they all are in support of Govt’s drive to hunt AL-Qaeda leadership for the attacks of 9/11 in United States to bring those to accounts.
Two wrongs cannot make a right and tolerance and commonsense must be used by both sides, as holding procession to the area where soldier’s families are already grieving is not at all a desirable act and lacked Muslim support, and proscription which must be used as a last resort is not a proportionate step forward either where other alternates are available as these groups have reemerged with a different name and necessary deterrence has not been effective in the past. Those individuals firebrands if have breached any of the UK law must be charged and tried to separate the chaff from grain and not to confuse political arguments with religious practice. Exercising freedom rights and protest is a legitimate way of expressingcommunity’s concerns to the Govt. Islam4UK is not a Muslim representative group and remains a tiny outfit which must be dealt with available measures.
Home Secretary had an option to refuse permission through police to such protestors to hold a march in the area under public good reasons which would have been a justified act and would have attracted massivecommunity support. Muslims of UK are law abiding and tolerant citizens and it is highly commendable that the community patiently is bearing with the marches of English defence league the whole last year and Muslims are expressing concerns at the latest English Defence League protest due to take place in stoke on Trent next week, it will be a question forHome Secretary as to how he addresses the anxiety of Muslims on these far right group’s protests which may have a potential to turn into riots as well as discharge his duty to protect public and ensure freedom of protest and assembly. Mere silence on this will mean two different approaches of application. Muslims would have expected him to react similarly like theHome Secretary patiently dealt with the demonstrations of far rights groups throughout the country last year and controlled them through police. It was expected that he could have persuaded a few ‘nutters’ to change the venue and or resort to common sense and hold their marches elsewhere, andproscription should have been used as a last resort.
Muslims as well as Christians and people of other faith(s), nationalities, colour and creed have openly protested against the war in Iraq on the streets of London
And people appreciate that the freedom to hold those protests are valid means to convey public opinion and its welcoming sign for thecommunity that the Iraq enquiry is underway which is an indication that other avenues and venues are possible and available to organizations to express their lawful feelings.
Home Secretary whilst using banning powers must be fair too and must practice
even handedness as it is noted that in 2001 whilst banning LeT, a Pakistan base
outfit, the Home Secretary failed to ban India based militant organization(s) RSS and VHP in UK which were openly involved in Gujrat Riots and were physically
collecting funds in UK to build Ram Mandar in place of Babari mosque, and it
raised legitimate concerns of the Muslim community, but British Govt held to its
meaningful silence on the topic and differentiated terrorism in Pakistan and India differently.
Having said all this those groups which are banned in UK may appeal if they object to their proscription to POAC (Proscribed Organisation Appeals Commission) within limitations, and that’s the lawful course of action rather than reemerging with a different name as that will mean either their political ideology is faulty orHome Secretary’s ban was right.
Barrister Amjad Malik is a Chairman of (APL) an Association of Pakistani Lawyers
No comments:
Post a Comment