PDA

View Full Version : London bomb attacks - Muslim group warns on anti-terror laws


echarcha
November 8th, 2005, 05:21 PM
London bomb attacks - Muslim group warns on anti-terror laws

The government’s anti-terror legislation risks fuelling community tensions similar to those that provoked violence in France, the Islamic Human Rights Commission has warned.
“What may happen here, as in France, is a sense of growing alienation of Muslims that feels excluded from mainstream society and that could be very dangerous,” Massoud Shadjareh, the commission’s chairman, told the FT.

In recent weeks, Muslim organisations, including the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain, have raised concerns about the new terror laws.

But the critique of the government’s anti-terror strategy, published on Monday by the commission, challenged attempts by the prime minister to play down the concerns.

Tony Blair said earlier on Monday it was “patronising” to assume that Muslims would be particularly concerned about the prospect of people being held without charge for 90 days. “The Muslim community knows perfectly well how important it is to tackle terrorism, because terrorist acts cause difficulty for them,” he said.

The commission’s report argues that the proposed terror laws, such as extended detention without charge and the banning of certain Muslim groups, along with increased police anti-terrorist activity within the Muslim community, are contributing to a sense of legal segregation.

“As faith in the British justice system diminishes, Muslim communities may feel themselves under attack and may fade into ghettoes and away from the mainstream British community”, it warns.

“Communities that perceive themselves as under attack withdraw into themselves where they feel safe . . . they will not seek re-dress for social ills in a system which they have lost faith in and this will only lead to further polarisation of the Muslim community.”

In the immediate aftermath of the London bombings, the government and members of the Muslim community joined forces in a public statement to de-nounce political extremism.

But the report suggests that the hardening of the political language used by Mr Blair in August, and the government’s drafting of new terror laws, is setting back hopes of building a political consensus, and weakening the desire of Muslims to integrate into Britain’s multicultural society.

Drawing parallels with the support given to the IRA within the Catholic community in Northern Ireland’s “Troubles”, the commission says the legislation will be counter-productive, driving extremists underground and broadening their support.

“If there are indeed a handful of Muslims who may wish to use violence to resolve grievances, they may be protected by sections of the community unwilling to co-operate with the authorities,” says the report.

Ahmed Versi, Muslim News editor, said the unpopularity of the legislation was threatening to undermine more constructive government efforts to engage with moderate Muslim opinion. “There is a widely-held feeling that the anti-terror legislation as been drafted in a way that will only affect the Muslim community.”

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d507e3d4-4fbc-11da-8b72-0000779e2340.html

King
November 8th, 2005, 06:00 PM
It is sick and nauseating to read about this "alienation" of muslims. Muslims all over act as though they wer cute innocent baby like bystanders while others harrassed them.
So now the muslims in England will riot because of the new law. There was no such law when their youth went to Pakistan and came back as traitors to their own country to blast bombs and kill their own countrymen. What made them do it then? Alienation? Or was it the teachings of intolerance of some islamic priest?

To digress to a not-so-different issue the blasted Kashmiri ***** are much better off being with India, but why do they feel alienated in India? Because they get extra priveleges that a Karnataka or Maharashtra does not get?

echarcha
November 9th, 2005, 08:07 AM
King,

I am sure the Brits have turned homos like their Prince Charles where Islam is concerned. That homo was here in Bay Area as recent as yesterday or day before. He was all about compassion for 'affected and oppressed' Muslims of the world. I think the homo might never wake up even if the terrorists within UK put a bomb up the QUeen's ass!

Cooldude
November 9th, 2005, 10:13 AM
Tony Blair loses out. Anti terror laws vetoed.



Blair defeated over terror laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4422086.stm)

Tony Blair has suffered his first defeat after MPs rejected his plan to allow police to detain terror suspects without charge for up to 90 days.

MPs rejected the plans by a bigger than expected margin of 322 votes to 291, before later backing a 28 day limit. The defeat will be seen as a blow to the authority of Mr Blair, who had said MPs had a "duty" to support the police. Conservative leader Michael Howard said he thought Mr Blair should resign after failing to "carry his party".

The defeat does not mean Mr Blair will have to stand down as prime minister - something he has said he will do before the next election.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Blair would keep fighting and people should not imagine it was the end of this tenure - but there would be questions about his authority.


Liberal Democrat frontbencher Simon Hughes said the defeat marked a "momentous day" which could bring forward Mr Blair's departure from office.

"It was a major error of judgement and it undermines Mr Blair's chances of staying on," said Mr Hughes. The Labour peer Lord Anderson, former chairman of the Commons foreign affairs committee, said the vote was a setback.

"It is a heavy blow not just against the prime minister but more particularly against our ability to deal adequately with terrorism," said Lord Anderson.

'No police state'

The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and some Labour backbenchers said the 90-day plans went too far. Civil liberties groups compared the proposal to internment - a charge rejected by ministers.

In his final plea for MPs to back the plans, Mr Blair urged MPs to take the advice of the police who had foiled two terrorist plots since the 7 July attacks in London. In heated exchanges at prime minister's questions, Mr Blair said: "We are not living in a police state but we are living in a country that faces a real and serious threat of terrorism."

The prime minister admitted he could lose the vote and said it was a test of leadership for all MPs. But he argued: "Sometimes it is better to lose and do the right thing than to win and do the wrong thing."

Shuttle diplomacy?

Ministers tried to reassure waverers by promising that the new laws would expire unless MPs renewed them in a year's time. Other concessions included promising scrutiny of the detention process by a High Court judge.

Mr Howard had warned that the detention plans could alienate ethnic minority communities. Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said the measure would almost certainly be defeated in the House of Lords, where two ex-law lords had called it "intolerable".

In a sign of the importance given to the vote, Chancellor Gordon Brown was called back within minutes of arriving in Israel for a high profile visit. And Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also flew back early from EU-Russia talks in Moscow.

echarcha
November 9th, 2005, 10:31 AM
Tony Blair loses out. Anti terror laws vetoed.
The Brits will one day wake up to home grown terror attacks far worse than the subway train bombings. But by then it will be too late. We had TADA which was abolished and then POTA and I think its also gone. But hey.. In India "kuch bhi ho sakta hain aur Sab Kuch Chalta hain"...

Desa
November 9th, 2005, 11:08 AM
I would have to agree with the MPs in opposition of the bill saying that 90 days without charging is too much. That will really turn the state into police state. Thats what Soviet Union and other police states do.

Think about this scenario. You are sitting in your home enjoying your saambar and idli. Then police comes into your house, arrests you just on suspicion and keep you in jail for 90 day/3 months wihtout any charge which means that they don't have any proof against you. After 90 days they have to leave you. But would happen in these 3 months. You employer may not keep waiting for you for so long and would replace you. So you lose your job. You wouldn't be paying your mortgage, car payments and other bills. Therefore your house is foreclosed, your car repossesed and not to mention you saambar is rotten by now too. You have basically lost everything and that is not your mistake either. So one day you were living in a good house then via jail you came on the streets. Under these circumstances nobody will appreciate the police and due to frustration will turn against the police and state. And these are the circumstances that the terrorist organization would like to exploit. Here they will be the one providing support. You will be brainwashed that see the government doesn't care about you, you have to fight back and blah, blah, blah, blah. So you will join them as either thinking "my enemy's enemy my friend" or because you will see that they are the ones supporting you in your hour of need. So either way a nice person like you guys who have nothing to do with these situations will turn into a terrorist.

So in the long run it is bad for England. Therefore we all believe in "innocent until found guilty" not the other way round. If ther is evidence against anybody then police should arrest them, CHARGE them, get the trial and put them behind bars or give whatever punishment is necessary (even a really harch one) but to the guilty party only. An innocent person should not be made to suffer.

echarcha
November 9th, 2005, 11:44 AM
Okay.. then England has another alternative. Stop visas for all Middle Eastern and Pakistanis. Make it next to impossible for them to get green cards. Basically stem the inflow of immigrants from certain countries. It will pay off in the long run.