The Fantasy World Of Newham’s Counter-Terror Experts

After two decades of activism in Newham, I’ve almost become immune to the council making claims it can rarely substantiate, especially about how wonderful its work is. It is exactly this tendency towards concentric circles of fantasy and bullshit that made a meeting on Tuesday, about the controversial ‘Preventing Violent Extremism’ (PVE) programme, all the more fascinating.

PVE (also known as ‘Prevent’) is one part of the government’s counter terrorism strategy and targets mainly young people who are at risk of radicalisation by extremist groups. Around £53m has been spent on PVE since it started in 2007 and in 2010-11, 94 local authorities were given £24m. Those involved in delivering Prevent activities like to describe them as a nothing more than a crime prevention programme aimed at making it less likely that young people will be drawn in terrorism, but its critics say it is "the biggest spying programme in Britain in modern times", one that has helped fuel the perception of local Muslim populations as a 'suspect community'.

The Institute of Race Relations (IRR) in its report “Spooked: how not to prevent violent extremism”, alleges that youth workers have become “increasingly wary of the expectations on them to provide the police with information on young Muslims and their religious and political opinions”, whilst the emphasis on “depoliticising young people and restricting radical dissent is actually counter-productive because it strengthens the hands of those who say democracy is pointless”.

The government has repeatedly denied that Prevent involves spying but acknowledges that one part of it, known as the Channel programme, does identify people thought to be at risk of radicalisation, who may then receive some form of intervention. However, it is almost impossible to identify people who are not terrorists but might become so at some point in the future. Instead, young Muslims with 'extreme' opinions as marked out as what the IRR calls a 'pre-terrorist', their details held on counter-terrorism databases as a potential violent extremist in the eyes of the police and the intelligence services, with no way of having this data removed.

Many of the criticisms come not only from civil liberties campaigners but from within parliament. In March 2010, the Communities and Local Government Select Committee attacked Prevent, saying it was “stigmatising, potentially alienating, and fails to address the fact that that no section of a population exists in isolation from others”. Its chair, Dr Phyllis Starkey said:

"The misuse of terms such as 'intelligence gathering' amongst Prevent partners has clearly discredited the programme and fed distrust.

"Information required to manage Prevent has been confused with intelligence gathering undertaken by the police to combat crime and surveillance used by the security services to actively pursue terrorism suspects.

"These allegations of spying under Prevent will retain widespread credibility within some communities until the government commissions an independent investigation into the allegations."

In November 2010, Home Secretary Teresa May acknowledged that Prevent was not working well and announced a review, which is due to report next month. She refused, however, to allow an examination into allegations that Prevent is a fundamentally a spying operation.

On top of the controversy over motives and delivery, there is also concern about the lack of transparency and accountability in local decision-making on Prevent activities. In May 2010, I recounted my efforts to find out how Newham council has spend more than £1.3million in funding for its local Prevent programme. Eventually I received some scant details (PDF) but these say very little about what this money has actually been used for. I know that others have had similar difficulties with Freedom of Information requests on local PVE spending.

Clearly Prevent has has deeply alienated Muslim communities and raised such serious concerns about the way it operates that it faces an complete overhaul. All of which brings me to the meeting in Newham on Tuesday, where I had been asked at the last minute to present a personal overview of the Prevent strategy and its consequences for community cohesion.

This is where I heard the fantastic claims of the officers responsible for delivering Prevent in a borough with one of the largest Channel caseloads in the country. And what a story they had to tell – one where there is nothing whatsoever to concern anyone about the way the programme is delivered locally. In fact, everything is uniquely excellent in Newham, apparently, with none of the unfortunate problems that have all occurred in other parts of the country. However, in reality it is impossible to know what impact the programme makes - an October 2010 report by the Office for Public Management on Prevent in Newham has never been released publicly. And having briefly worked for Newham council, I can tell you: nothing is ever perfect.

Council officers claimed that the local decision not to fund single faith groups and instead keep the funding in-house is a positive advantage, but were just as opaque in providing more information on how their funding is spent as they have been in the past. Questions were hastily skipped over. They also insisted that there is absolutely no discrimination against Muslims and that Prevent is concerned about all forms of terrorism, including dissident Irish Republicanism, Sikh fundamentalism and support for the Tamil Tigers – but refused to confirm the proportion of Muslims within Newham’s Channel programme. That in itself speaks volumes.

When asked how decisions about individuals are made and the factors used to determine risk of radicalisation, they skipped over this too, saying that they often spend time rejecting vindictive allegations of extremism. How nice and fluffy is that? But what this reveals is the extraordinary level of power that a small group of obscure officers have to investigate and potentially brand someone as calls a 'pre-terrorist' with almost no scrutiny or oversight, but with potentially huge consequences. Indeed, I had the feeling that the meeting on Tuesday was the first time that their upbeat and rosy view of Prevent had been challenged at a local level.

No wonder so many officers turned up en masse to a small community event. But attending to say little or nothing isn't likely to reassure anyone, whilst pretending everything is perfect is itself deeply suspicious. What, one wonders, would real transparency and accountability uncover?

Thinking Allowed - Effective Protesting

Although I'm an atheist, I was invited to take part in this interesting debate on effective protesting organised by Thinking Allowed, the monthly faith-based discussion group in Newham.

I would have loved to have attended but unfortunately I'll have just been discharged from hospital and can't make it. However, if anyone is interested, it takes place on Sunday 20 February at 7.30pm at Woodgrange Baptist Church, 345 Romford Road, Forest Gate and includes contributions from London Citizens and my neighbour Chris Gwyntopher from East London Against Arms Fairs (ELAAF).

Wanstead Flats - Register Your Objection!

Now we know about plans to ignore Newham and Waltham Forest residents when publicised the Met police's planning application for Wanstead Flats, it has been left to the Save Wanstead Flats campaign, which has no money, to make sure that local people are aware they can submit objections. There's a lot of work to do: we need to distribute leaflets to hundreds of properties. If you can help, please get in contact at savewansteadflats@gmail.com

A copy of the flyer that has been produced by the campaign is available temporarily here - it will be up on the campaign website over the weekend.

Atheists Don't Have No Songs

Steve Martin & the Steep Canyon Rangers perform Martin's original a capella 'gospel' tune at this year's Austin City Limits for the non-believers among us.

Churches Accuse Osborne Over Benefit Fraud

Three of Britain's churches have accused Chancellor George Osborne of exaggerating the scale of benefit fraud during his speech to the Commons on the Spending Review a fortnight ago.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, the Methodist Church, the Baptist Union of Great Britain and the United Reformed Church argue that the government's own statistics show the Chancellor's claim that welfare fraud amounts to £5 billion every year is untrue. A Department for Work and Pensions report [PDF] says that benefit fraud is estimated at £1 billion and tax credit fraud is estimated at £0.6 billion, making a total of £1.6 billion. However, the report also makes clear that the remaining £2.2 billion is due to genuine error on the part of officials or benefit recipients.

The churches say that deliberately conflating these figures has the effect of depicting the poorest and most vulnerable in society as thieves. They also challenge the the Chancellor's claim that he is targeting £7 billion of uncollected tax revenues when, according to HM Revenue and Customs, there are actually around £42 billion in uncollected taxes. This suggests that Osborne is deliberately downplaying business tax fraud - the biggest shortfall was in VAT, with £15.2 billion or 16% of all potential tax was uncollected, followed by an estimated £6.9 billion in unpaid corporation tax - whilst exaggerating the level of illegal payments to welfare claimants.

I'm am not, as you may gather from other posts on this blog, at all religious but this intervention by the nonconformist churches is very welcome. Simply and clearly, it shows how the ConDems' talk about fairness is meaningless when the most senior members of the government are prepared to mislead with statistics. It's just a shame that their efforts haven't attracted more media coverage.

Census 2011 - Who Reads Your Responses?

Next year, we’ll all have another opportunity to list our religion as ‘Jedi’, as envelopes marked with a big purple C start dropping through people’s letterboxes in time for Census Day on Sunday 27 March 2011. This is the date when the personal details of all usual residents and any visitors staying the night must be included in a 32 page questionnaire.

Last year, the borough of Newham was one of three places chosen for dress rehearsals for the 2011 Census and results were far from impressive. According to an evaluation by the Office of National Statistics [PDF], only 28% of the households selected in Newham returned forms, compared to 48% in Lancaster and 49% in Anglesey. The ONS concluded, however, that “the majority of non-responders did not return their questionnaire because the rehearsal was voluntary”. Next year, those who fail to return their questionnaire face a possible £1000 fine (although in 2001, only 38 people were actually fined).

The evaluation goes on to say that “despite breaches of government security publicised widely in the media, it appears that worries about the confidentiality of information given are relatively low” at 12% of a survey of 994 non-responders. However, according to a fairly obscure article by Nigel Hawkes of the pressure group Straight Statistics that was buried in yesterday’s Independent, more people are likely to start worrying about what happens to their personal information as we get nearer to next year’s Census - and with good cause.

Privacy is supposedly guaranteed under the Census Acts of 1920 and 1990 but according to Hawkes, the Statistics and Registration Act introduced in 2007 can force the ONS to hand over individual data for non-statistical purposes to the European Union, the police or MI5. Circumstances where confidentiality can be breached include “a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings” – including those taking place outside the UK – and that inevitable catch-all, “the interests of national security”. Hawkes suggests, quite rightly, that “even non-criminals may hesitate to provide data which, as the law stands, could be demanded by any police force in the world”.

As I mentioned back in 2007, allaying our suspicions is hardly helped by the knowledge that the Census' main contractor is a US arms company, Lockheed Martin, which provides intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance services for the Department of Defense and other US government agencies. Nor is there a lack of precedent for the security services having access to census data. Cambridge historian Christopher Andrew's authorised history of MI5, The Defence of the Realm, says (on page 48) that the 1911 Census returns were:

“used to record the particulars of all male aliens aged eighteen and above of eight nationalities (in particular Germans and Austrians) living in areas which would be closed to aliens in wartime. Information on aliens taken from the Census was then circulated for checking to chief constables, who were also asked to take note of those on the Register [of Aliens] in their areas."

When filling in next year’s Census form, what you include may therefore not be quite as private as the Office for National Statistics claims. Potentially, for every adult in a household, the police and security services can read answers to detailed questions such the name of your employer, your qualifications, how well you can speak English, how many passports you hold and, if you are a migrant, your date of arrival and how long you intend to stay in the UK.

For people in comfortable, white, middle-class areas, this may not present much of a concern. But in places like Newham, where people feel they are targeted because they are Muslim, or Arab (a new ethnic category in 2011), or Pakistani or a migrant, there is rather more to carefully consider than whether to jokingly add ‘Jedi’ to the question about your religious beliefs. Many who have escaped from oppressive states around the world to this part of London have found British state agencies are far from models of tolerance, objectivity and anti-discrimination. Is it any wonder, then, that the response here to the Census is therefore so poor?

Enough About The Papal Visit Already!

I not exactly sure why - perhaps because I have a subscription to the New Humanist magazine and donated to the Atheist Bus Campaign - but I seem to have received a fair number of messages urging me to attend tomorrow's Protest the Pope protest, organised by the National Secular Society (NSS).

The trouble is, though, I just don't care about the Pope's visit. Try as I might, I just can't muster up the indignation shown by the nation's 'prominent' atheists.

The arguments against the papal visit have ranged from dissecting the peculiar nature of the Vatican state to to Pope Benedict's views on women' ordinations, gay rights and contraception. One of the main objections appears to be that whilst the Pope is perfectly entitled to visit Britain, it shouldn't be an official 'state visit' funded partly by taxpayer, even though the Pope is the head of a state (a strange one admittedly, but no less so than Monaco and Liechtenstein). At least objections on the grounds of cost have some merit - the Catholic Church is extremely wealthy and at a time when the government is planning to slash public spending, £12 million does sound like excess.

Campaigners against the papal visit have been at pains to stress that their objections are to this Pope in particular, not against Catholics in general. However, that's far from convincing. It's not as though the last Pontiff was any less willing to condemn the use of condoms, demands for gay rights or the equal participation of women in its rituals, nor is it a startlingly new revelation that the Catholic Church's clerical hierarchy is deeply conservative. Pope Benedict was, after all, once Cardinal Ratzinger, an ordained priest for nearly 60 years and Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 1981. He didn't suddenly appear from nowhere and he certainly wasn't alone in covering up the sexual abuse of minors by priests. Most other senior Curia officials bear just as much responsibility and Catholicism's culpability is an institutional one, not the Pope's alone.

Nor are deeply conservative moral strictures, backed by the threat of damnation, unique to one branch of Christianity - the same is also true of most of the world's major religions. Complaining, meanwhile, that the Holy See is not a proper state but a compromise agreed with Mussolini and Italian fascism may be factually accurate, but British arguments about constitutionality are rather undermined by the fact that our own head of state owes her position to nothing more than accident of birth and the political intrigues of her privileged ancestors. Most states have questionable legitimacy - and some of us believe this is the case of all states.

I may not personally share a belief in the existence of a divine imaginary friend but I can understand why, in a world where the vast majority face misery and exploitation because power is concentrated in the hands of the few, that 1.1 billion Catholics (and 1.5 billion Muslims and 900 million Hindus, for that matter), seek some meagre comfort in fairy stories. Amongst them are millions of good people who also struggle daily for fundamental rights, for greater equality and for radical change, who are horrified by the abuse of children and who often rebel against attempts to impose rigid controls over their lives. Atheism isn't a political belief, it's a lack of belief, and frankly there is more that believers and non-believers agree upon than our disagreement over the non-existence of an after-life.

I haven't seem much understanding, however, for the Protest the Pope campaigners. Instead, their anti-clericalism in advance of the Pope's arrival has more often shared a similar attitude to Peter Tatchell's fellow Euston Manifesto friends at Harry's Place when it comes to Muslims - berating for failures to condemn the actions of a few with sufficient vigour that then drifts into the territory of outright bigotry (in this case, Free Presbyterian style bigotry with comments about "a fifth column of Catholics whose primary, indeed seemingly only, loyalty is to their Church").

It just doesn't seem as though there's a clear political objective to the protests - and anyway, the victory of multicultural secularism and rejection of our 'Christian foundations', which obviously worries a powerful body like the Catholic Church enough to call Britain"a third-world country", has come about in spite of, rather than because of, the muscular 'New Atheists' and organisations like the National Secular Society.

So I think I'll pass on tomorrow's protest. A plague on both their houses, as far as I'm concerned.

Leap of Faith

The Independent's Christine Patterson has responded angrily today to the criticisms made against her article 'The Limits of Multiculturalism', which a week ago took Stamford Hill's Hasidic Jewish community to task for its lack of manners.

The original piece has been ably dissected over at The Third Estate, which has questioned the way Patterson has leapt from her own feelings about the insularity and suspicion of one conservative minority community and generalised this into an attack on another, the Muslims inevitably, with the biggest leap being a causal link between religious obscurantism, the wearing of the niqāb and the vile practice of female circumcision. Patterson's own liberal cultural isolation is apparent from her belief that there is widespread support within Muslim communities for such amoral and criminal conduct. There isn't, but let's not let the facts get in the way of sweeping generalisations.

I've discussed before how those who are most irate about, say, a woman wearing a veil, angry enough to demand a rethinking of multiculturalism, have a great deal in common with those religious conservative men who seek to police the customs and behaviour of 'their' communities. By way of an example is this letter in support of Patterson's first piece, which reaffirms her basic argument and includes the following gem:

For some reason, it is acceptable to condemn genital mutilation yet not the wearing of the burka, despite the clear links between the two. Obviously, not all wearers of the burka support female circumcision; some do actually choose to wear it.

But the ideas that underpin female circumcision – female sexual pleasure is taboo; women are the sum total of their sexuality – and the burka are very similar. These practices are tolerated in the name of religious acceptance.

Try substituting genital mutilation and female circumcision for sexual violence, burka for mini-skirt and religious for secular and you get the following:

For some reason, it is acceptable to condemn sexual violence yet not the wearing of the mini-skirt, despite the clear links between the two. Obviously, not all wearers of the mini-skirt support sexual violence; some do actually choose to wear it.

But the ideas that underpin sexual violence – female sexual pleasure is taboo; women are the sum total of their sexuality – and the mini-skirt are very similar. These practices are tolerated in the name of secular acceptance.

The niqāb may well be a a symbol of patriarchal oppression and, when it is strictly enforced , an instrument of oppression as well. But unless you can prove there is a direct link between a heinous criminal act and any item of clothing, you'll inevitably end up sounding like the granddaughter of Mary Whitehouse - just as conservative and narrow-minded as the people you point your finger at and accuse.

What Not To Wear?

I've always suspected that most people who get so upset about a woman wearing a veil, so angry that they demand it is banned, also happen to live in areas where seeing a Muslim woman, never mind one whose face is covered, is incredibly unusual.

Even living and working around Forest Gate and Upton Park in east London as I do, a full Afghan burqa is still a rarity, although the niqāb (face veil) is fairly common, so much so that now it barely registers (see here for the differences in terminology). The only time it always does, or at least it did until March when I was knocked off my bike and forced through injury to walk everywhere, is when I'm cycling around the borough. I'm sure that other cyclists are, from experience, wary of niqāb-wearing pedestrians stepping out in front of them due to the restrictions the garment places on peripheral vision.

The controversy about the niqāb really took off with Jack Straw's remarks in 2006 and has rumbled on ever since. Rarely has it been constructive and overwhelmingly it has used by racists as a convenient means of expressing anti-Islamic prejudices. It has be reignited by last week's vote in the French parliament's lower house to ban face-covering veils, a decision expected to receive approval in the Senate in September.

Now the new government in Britain seems divided on the issue. First the Tory MP for the predominantly middle-class, rural constituency of Kettering, Philip Hollobone, is conducting a futile attempt to introduce a Private Member's Bill that would make it a criminal offence to wear a veil in public. Now today, the press has reported comments by the new Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman, which appearing to describe the choice to wear the veil as "empowering".

I'm sure that Spelman, with the best of intentions, was simply trying to counter the bigotry that exists in her own party, hamfistedly expressing the view that banning the veil would run counter to the freedom to choose what to wear. But her comments about empowerment are still rubbish.

Even if the decision to chose to wear a niqāb is made freely and without pressure, it can never be truly 'empowering', because it is based on a deeply conservative cultural view of the position of women in society, one that restricts personal, social and economic freedom outside the confines of the home. Face-covering is not simply a fashion statement, as Spelman's comments seem to suggest, but a religious one that encourages a separation between the supposed world of men (the public space or the community) and that of women (the private space or the family). It is therefore a symbol of patriarchal oppression and, where it is strictly enforced by men in conservative communities, an instrument of oppression too.

That doesn't mean that the veil should be banned, although it does mean that anyone who chooses not to wear a niqāb must receive legal protection from those who try and insist that they should. Once the state starts deciding what its minorities can or cannot wear, it can target anyone: the garb of the Hasidic Jews of Stamford Hill, for example, or Sikh turbans, or the plain dress of the small German sect based in Forest Gate (when it comes to appearance, one of the most diverse communities in London is even more diverse than you might expect).

I've always thought it is revealing that most people who get so upset about a woman wearing a veil, so angry that they demand it is banned, have an awful lot in common with those men who seek to police the customs and behaviour of 'their' Muslim communities. Both have a rigid, narrow view of what a a religious and cultural identity represents and both fail to understand that within broad religious perspectives, people interpret their beliefs in a variety of different ways - sometimes regrettably by embracing oppressive customs and more often by creating new codes and traditions.

When it comes to religion, it's not about needing to understand the views of others, but about tolerating them, no matter how absurd they may sometimes seem. I'm sure plenty of Muslims find my atheism incomprehensible - but if people don't tell me what not to think or say then I won't tell them what not to wear.

The IHRC and The Right to Abortion Information in Pakistan

As I have been arguing with friends over the issue of ex-Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg, it is more important to judge people and organisations over what they actually do than what others say about them - especially when the criticism comes from the pro-war 'Decent' left represented by the likes of Nick Cohen and the Harry's Place blog.

So it is with the Islamic Human Rights Commission. It's to their credit that they have protested against the brutal killing by Egyptian police of Khaled Saeed and have called on the Sudanese government to give four journalists the right to a fair trial "articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights". But IHRC should be roundly condemned for comments made by its chair Massoud Shadjareh that were reported in yesterday's Independent on Sunday.

In Pakistan, an abortion hotline set up by women's groups, to try and save the lives of thousands of women who die every year as a result of estimated 890,00 backstreet abortions, has faced a violent reaction from the country's fundamentalist groups and political parties, who oppose even the provision of accurate family planning information to women.

Shadjareh's reaction to this has not been to offer support for the right to potentially life-saving information but to accuse the organisers of the hotline of actions that are "counterproductive", will "create huge problems"and that are deliberately provocative.

But it is this argument that disgusted me the most - he is quoted as saying attempts to set up the hotline are "part of the colonial idea that the West's way is the best, and that is not the case."

Since when did providing information become 'colonial'? In fact, when did human rights no longer become universal in the eyes of the the Islamic Human Rights Commission? IHRC is happy to quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in other situations but Shadjareh seems to believe that Article 19, the right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless frontiers", should not apply to Muslim women in Pakistan on the basis of their gender and religion.

Before now, the IHRC has asked whether the concept of a Muslim human rights activist will ever be fully acceptable in Western society. I think in some quarters it already has, despite the doctrinaire attitude of some in the human rights field and their allies in the Islamist-obsessed 'left'. It's just that Massoud Shadjareh and the IHRC set an incredibly poor standard for others to follow and emulate.

Rather than simply raging against Shadjareh's crassness and double standards, a practical idea would be to contact IHRC and - politely - call on them to withdraw comments made by their chair, whilst also clarifying their position on Article 19 rights to receive and impart information and ideas. IHRC can be contacted at info@ihrc.org and their postal address is: Islamic Human Rights Commission, PO Box 598, Wembley HA9 7XH.

Hypocrisy Over Anti-EDL Protest On 20th June

Yesterday Unite Against Fascism (UAF) issued a statement, signed by a number of councillors and community groups, against a rally planned by the racist English Defence League in Tower Hamlets.

An anti-EDL march has been called for Sunday 20th June, assembling at 11am at Stepney Green Park and finishing at Altab Ali Park, Whitechapel. The UAF statement says:

The English Defence League is a violent, bigoted organisation and an embarrassment to our country. They should be condemned everywhere, but will be particularly unwelcome if they come to Tower Hamlets.

Most people in the East End live in peace and mutual respect for neighbours, regardless of their faith or skin colour.

As residents and workers in the borough, we will not tolerate attempts to divide us or stir up hatred. The real enemies of Tower Hamlets are poverty and inequality, not Islam.

At Cable Street in 1936 the people of the East End united to block the way to Mosley’s fascist blackshirts. We stand ready to do the same to the EDL. This will be a peaceful protest to celebrate our diversity.

Opposing the EDL is clearly something that all anti-racists in east London should support. But it is interesting, however, that a number of the UAF's signatory organisations include those who have defended Gita Saghal's attacks Amnesty International for its work with former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg.

Doesn't it seem extremely hypocritical for those who have accused others of guilt by association with 'the Islamic Right' to put their names to a statement alongside organisations they fiercely condemn, such as the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) and East London Mosque?

Doesn't the fact that they've signed anyway rather prove the point that I and others been making repeatedly - that often a campaign against racism or injustice is more important than vetting the purity of all of your allies?

What the UAF statement fails to mention is the target of the EDL rally - an event called 'The Book That Shook The World' organised by UK Islamic Conferences at the Troxy in Commercial Road. A number of the speakers seem like exactly the kind of 'Islamic Right' wingnuts that Gita Saghal's supporters get so irate about. So why no equal condemnation for this event? As far as I'm aware, the only people to attack both the EDL rally and the conference are the Whitechapel Anarchist Group (WAG).

Personally, I find it hard to get as excited as the WAGs about a fringe conference of religious nutters - as the Whitechapel Anarchists quite rightly point out, most have "all been kicked out of mosques by Muslims themselves". The EDL's presence in Tower Hamlets is a far more serious threat.

But at least the WAGs are consistent - the same from others would be nice. Next time a group like my own, the Newham Monitoring Project, finds itself campaigning against discriminatory anti-terrorism laws, I would expect to hear no more criticisms alleging that we are condoning fundamentalism, simply because the likes of the IFE happen to also believe that discriminating against Muslims is unjust.

Better To Light A Candle Than Curse Human Rights Defenders

Back in February, I wrote a few posts about the dispute between Amnesty International (AI) and Gita Saghal, the former head of the human rights organisation's Gender Unit (see here, here and here). My reaction at the time was similar to that of many onlookers - utter confusion and then increasing frustration about the total lack of evidence in the attacks made by Saghal against former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg. Unfortunately, the severe distraction of my hospitalisation following a traffic accident meant that I lost track of more recent developments. But then I saw Wednesday's furious rant by Saghal on the openDemocracy website.

Saghal makes the astonishing claim that the "tyrants" at AI have "come to resemble the forces that it has done so much to oppose". And that's not all:

The actions of human rights advocates mirror those of governments from Chechnya to the UK. Recruit former insurgents or fundamentalists and subcontract them to provide surveillance and control over the mass of the population. Defeat one form of fundamentalism by supporting another.

This represents the absolute abandonment of perspective or rational argument. AI may not be perfect but it quite obviously does not resemble or mirror governments who abuse human rights. It doesn't encourage support for disappearances, murder and torture and it isn't involved in surveillance and control of cowered masses anywhere. It is neither a government, a powerful multi-national corporation nor an armed militia. It just disagrees with Saghal on whether working with Moazzam Begg is a good idea.

Saghal goes on to allege that groups like AI and Human Rights Watch have "rushed to condemn the niqab ban in Europe", but have said nothing publicly "against increasing dress code restrictions imposed by the State in Iran and accompanied by draconian punishments". This is a criticism that Saghal has picked up wholesale from her allies in 'Women Living Under Muslim Laws', who have a fondness for issuing strident communiqués and who have accused AI of adhering to a "different set of standards when reacting to Iran and its stricter enforcement of compulsory veiling".

But it is also incredibly disingenuous criticism. AI has been far from silent on discrimination against women in Iran and far from soft on the country's human rights abuses, as its latest State of the World's Human Rights report makes clear. Moreover, there would seem to be a obvious difference between responding immediately to restrictions on freedom of expression in EU countries, who have pretensions to respect for human rights, and long-term campaigning against the conduct of a recognisably repressive state like Iran - where practical action in support of women's rights defenders would seem rather more important than just issuing statements.

In a comment to her own article, Saghal said she was "calling for a debate with Amnesty leaders". I hardly think that attacking AI using the same kind of carelessly disproportionate debating points adopted by those who loathe the organisation is the way to ever make that a realistic possibility.

A Homage To The Sunday Times' Richard Kerbaj

With not particularly sincere apologies to Richard Kerbaj

Secular feminists ‘damaged’ by 'Decent' link
Allies deplore lack of distance from 'apologists for torture and war crimes'

Friends of a number of leading secular feminist organisations have expressed concerns about their failure to publicly distance themselves from the 'Decents', British former leftwingers whose wholesale embrace of a neoconservative world-view after 9/11 has become increasingly angry and paranoid.

Leading 'Decents' such as Melanie Philips and Nick Cohen have been described as "Britain’s most famous supporters of the War on Terror". Others, such as the bloggers at The Spittoon or Harry's Place, have been accused of vigorously championing the right of Christian fundamentalists in the United States and their followers in Europe to launch an illegal war in Iraq, bomb the shit out of civilians in Afghanistan and create a global network of secret prisons where torture is commonplace.

Activists who have considered themselves allies of groups such as Southall Black Sisters, Women Against Fundamentalism and Women Living Under Muslim Laws, in some cases for many years, described 'association' with the pro-war media commentators and apologists for torture and war crimes, in a campaign of vilification of Amnesty International and Moazzam Begg, as an "error of judgement" that "fundamentally damages" their organisations' reputations.

Speaking in east London, one long-standing anti-racist activist, a humanist and fierce critic of the Archbishop of Canterbury's assertion that sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable", said:

"I believe the way the campaign against Amnesty International and Moazzam Begg has been conducted fundamentally damages these organisations' integrity and, more importantly, is becoming a threat to our collective ability to properly articulate the defence of human rights. Failing to condemn the antics of Britain’s most famous supporters of the "War on Terror" and refusing to challenge them as they continue to irrationally scream about 'Islamists under every bed', is a gross error of judgement."

Asked to elaborate further or provide evidence for these accusations, he added

"You know, I’ve been concerned about what the pro-war Right and its spokespersons stand for for a long time. But I think the issue that I really have is with allies in secular feminist organisations, because they are a human rights organisations and they should make very very careful decisions about how they associate with people. I can tell you that I asked friends in organisations such as Southall Black Sisters questions about their evidence against Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners that should have been very easily answered".

Another campaigner claimed that many of the 'Decents' have "an agenda that is way beyond concerns about fundamentalism" and have a "set of ideologies that support not only state-sanctioned violence in itself but very very discriminatory behaviour, systematic discrimination against Muslims who don’t agree with them."

To date, only one organisation facing criticism from its friends has sought to disassociate itself from the 'Decents', saying in a statement that it "deeply regrets the attempts of some media commentators and apologists for torture and war crimes to hijack this important debate to smear progressive movements, organisations and individuals".

However, the allegations were described "ridiculous" by another source, who added,

"It's not fair. Just because we make demands of people like Moazzam Begg to disassociate themselves from extremists, that doesn't mean we should be made to do the same".

Fair? Hell no. But smear campaigns - even parodies of them - never are.

Moazzam Begg: Another Communiqué From The Front Line

Originally I wasn't going to bother commenting on yesterday's statement from Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML), adding their support for Gita Saghal in her battle with Amnesty International (hat-tip to Harpymarx for pointing it out). I didn't see that it added anything new, but mainly I don't understand the tendency of certain NGOs to imagine they are engaged in some kind of international diplomacy, issuing long rambling communiqués like G8 countries at the end of one of those troubled summit meetings, where discussion is euphemistically described as "frank and full".

But WLUML's contribution to the debate - make that lack of a contribution - about Gita Saghal's decision to attack Amnesty International, Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners in the pages of a Sunday newspaper is particularly expatiative and particularly hypocritical. Aside from providing, at some length, the circumstances of Ms Saghal's suspension and praise for her previous work, the statement mirrors Saghal's own in offering a total lack of evidence for its attack on Begg and yet expresses "deeply regrets [at] the attempts of some media commentators and apologists for torture and war crimes to hijack this important debate to smear progressive movements, organisations and individuals".

Sorry, but as the Americans say, that dog won't hunt. If Gita Saghal has a well-respected expertise and "demonstrated commitment to exposing and addressing fundamentalisms", which I'm sure she does, then there is no way that she can possibly be unfamiliar with the politics and tactics of people like Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch, Martin Bright, Melanie Philips, Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens at the Centre for Social Cohesion or the bloggers at The Spittoon or Harry's Place. Targeting individuals and denouncing progressive organisations for 'collaboration' is hardly a secret, it's their stock in trade - as this article and this one and this one amongst the hundreds I could choose clearly illustrates.

Did Saghal not suspect, even for a second, that the pro-war 'Decents' wouldn't leap at the chance to castigate Amnesty International the moment she spoke to the Murdoch press, or are we expected to believe that an experienced campaigner and activist suffers from staggering naivety? Why not distance herself from them if she too feels an important debate has been hijacked?

Moreover, if WLUML genuinely regrets such tactics, why would Marieme Helie Lucas, its founder and former International Coordinator, even consider joining others in conflating fundamentalist armed groups in Algeria with Moazzam Begg and placing him amongst "perpetrators of violations [who] cannot be considered defenders of rights" - a charge that not even Saghal has accused him of?

I started following this ridiculous affair from the solid secularist position of refusing to take anything on faith alone. Show me the evidence and let me make up my own mind. But instead there has been little more than a stream of smears and innuendo. Moazzam Begg may be far from perfect, but after a year in Bagram and two more in Guantánamo Bay, where the lawyer Clive Stafford Smith said there was "credible and consistent evidence" that he had been tortured, at the very least he deserves to be listened to, not vilified.

Looking at the way the attacks on him have been conducted since the article in the Sunday Times appeared on 7 February, however, I'm no longer convinced that 'the very least' is enough. Begg, in his statement on withdrawing from an Amnesty event on Tuesday, said that he “truly cannot understand why this is all happening now, since nothing that has been said in the media is new at all – no new and sensational revelations, no new controversial comments, at least not by or about me.” So unless Gita Saghal, whose actions kick-started the current furore, can come up with something far more convincing than what's been offered so far, then those who loathe the tactics of the pro-war 'left' should, on principle, offer Moazzam Begg their sympathy and solidarity.

Amnesty International And The Rights Of Convicted Terrorists

Still nothing from friends who are supporters of Amnesty International's Gita Saghal, so I've been trying to work their position out a step at a time.

Amnesty International is apparently lending "spurious legitimacy to extremists who spurn its values" by allowing Moazzam Begg's to take part in a speaking tour in Europe, one calling for countries to accept non-EU citizens from Guantánamo Bay so that they are not tortured in their own countries and so that the secret prison can finally be closed. This is because Begg, despite calling for exactly what most human rights defenders also agree with and having a unique perspective on Guantánamo after years of detention there, is guilty of two things: not personally passing the 'sufficient liberal credentials' test set by his exacting detractors and being the director of Cageprisoners, who insist that even convicted terrorists are still entitled to human rights. In particular, Cageprisoners stands condemned for publishing information about convicted terrorists on its website.

The entire tour itself, although completely in keeping with Amnesty's long-standing objectives, is condemned for 'collaboration' by association with the Taliban, even though Anmesty actively opposes legislation in Afghanistan providingTaliban figures who agree to cooperate with the Afghan government with immunity to prosecution.

Furthermore, Amnesty International has itself defended the human rights of convicted terrorists before - and like Cageprisoners, it has published details of this defence on its website. What are we to make of this, from 2001:

On 16 May 2001, Timothy McVeigh is scheduled to become the first federal prisoner to be executed in the United States of America since 1963. Amnesty International urges you to prevent this retrograde step by announcing an immediate moratorium on all federal executions.

The crime of which Timothy McVeigh was convicted shocked the conscience of the world and caused immeasurable suffering to hundreds of people - not only the victims and survivors of the bombing itself, but their family members as well.

Such suffering deserves compassion, respect and justice. As an organization that works with and on behalf of victims of human violence on a daily basis, Amnesty International has the utmost sympathy for the families and friends of those killed in the Oklahoma City bombing. Nevertheless, the organization unreservedly opposes the planned killing of Timothy McVeigh, as it does all executions, in the belief that such a policy represents no more than a continuation of the cycle of violence it purports to confront. By imitating what it seeks to condemn - the deliberate taking of human life - society will once again have allowed violence and vengeance to gain the upper hand. Justice will not have been served.

In a country where judicial killing has increasingly come to be seen as an issue of ''victims' rights'', a growing number of murder victims' relatives are challenging the death penalty. The organization Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, opposing the execution of Timothy McVeigh, has said: "We believe that cold calculated killing by our government, replicating the very act of violence that brought us to pain, dishonors the lives and memories of our beloved. The ritual of executions damages all of us in society, and creates another grieving family. With the focus on putting someone to death, capital punishment makes icons of our murderers, while the lives of victims are forgotten and the needs of survivors are often ignored."

Demanding that a rightwing convicted terrorist has the right to life, no matter how popular his execution may have been in the US, whilst working with an organisation that does the same in forthright terms? What are we to make of that?

Moazzam Begg Pulls Out Of Amnesty Event

No doubt those who have been attacking Amnesty International for working with former Guantánamo Bay detainee Moazaam Begg and Cageprisoners will be rubbing their hands with glee. In order to avoid detracting from the campaign against human rights violations in the name of the 'War on Terror', Begg has decided to pull out of this evening's screening of “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” at Amnesty International’s Human Rights Action Centre in London, where he was due to speak alongside filmmaker Andy Worthington and another former detainee, Omar Deghayes. The documentary focuses on the stories of the two ex-prisoners and a third man, Shaker Aamer, who is still held in Guantánamo.

In a statement reproduced on Pickled Politics, Moazzam Begg has said:

It has been my pleasure to have worked closely with Amnesty since my return from Guantánamo on highlighting the cases and campaigning against the human rights abuses that have occurred in the name of fighting terrorism since the outset of the ‘War on Terror.’ The relationship I have with Amnesty goes back to the years when I was incarcerated in US custody and my father was receiving immense moral and practical support from the organisation – something both he and I will never forget.

It is very unfortunate that this relationship is now being severely tested by both internal and external forces that would like nothing better than to see that work damaged, or even terminated. Since my return I have spoken about and written my views more times than I can remember. My goals for doing this have been to expose the reality of detention without trial, torture, cruelty and dehumanisation and at the same time, develop a nuanced approach to fostering understanding between communities that are increasingly becoming polarised through the language of education, understanding, acceptance and reconciliation.

I do not claim to have all the answers to every question on human rights; five years ago I could not even answer if I was going to live or face execution. But, I truly cannot understand why this is all happening now, since nothing that has been said in the media is new at all – no new and sensational revelations, no new controversial comments, at least not by or about me.

I have just returned from a pan-European tour asking governments to give sanctuary to cleared Guantánamo prisoners who are unable to return to their homes so I find it odd that this argument is occurring now, especially at time when revelations are being made that UK intelligence was fully aware that Binyam Mohamed was being abused. This is something I have said about my own case since my return too – and, I believe, the same will also be revealed about Shaker Aamer, on whose behalf I hope most people tonight will campaign.

I apologise for not attending this evening’s events but I have decided to abstain from taking part only so that the focus is not about my personal beliefs or Amnesty’s internal issues but, that the lives of men who have suffered human rights violations for so many years, as discussed in Outside the Law, are are not overshadowed.

If people are interested in knowing my views regarding all the controversies discussed in the national press last week they be can seen on www.cageprisoners.com.

I wish this evening’s event and Amnesty UK and Andy Worthington every success.

Moazzam Begg

More on Gita Saghal, Moazzam Begg and Amnesty

Yesterday's Sunday Times has returned to its efforts to link Amnesty International with the Taliban, in a piece claiming that Sam Zarifi, Amnesty’s Asia Pacific director, backed Gita Saghal and "has urged the charity to admit it made a 'mistake' by failing publicly to oppose the views of a former terror suspect".

In response, the organisation's interim Secretary General, Claudio Cordone, has sent the following letter:

Your article (‘Second Amnesty chief attacks Islamist links’, 14 February) misses the point.

A central element in the development of our policy and strategies has always been a frank, informed and robustly-argued debate involving people – like Gita Sahgal and Sam Zarifi– who are acknowledged as experts in their fields.

Like with any of our campaigning work, our work with Moazzam Begg in the context of the Counter Terror with Justice campaign was also the subject of a healthy internal debate in which different views were expressed.

In the end, we decided to work with Moazzam Begg to highlight the suffering of those being held at Guantánamo and to campaign for its closure. Nothing has yet come to our attention that would justify us stopping this work.

Lastly, Gita Sahgal was not suspended for voicing her concerns in our internal debates. The suspension is not a sanction. She remains employed on full pay.

Sam Zarifi has also sent a letter to the Sunday Times, which says:

Your recent article mischaracterizes my views.

I have been a part of the internal AI debate surrounding the issue of AI’s collaboration with various groups as part of its campaign to close down Guantánamo.

My opinions have been heard, considered, and where appropriate, implemented.
I do not oppose our current initiative working with Moazzam Begg in the recent European tour seeking to convince European states to receive more of the Guantánamo detainees who cannot be repatriated because of the risk of further human rights abuses.

As I told my programme staff in the internal email leaked to your paper, my concern has been that AI’s campaigning has not been sufficiently clear that when we defend somebody’s right to be free from torture or unlawful detention, we do not necessarily embrace their views totally.

This raises the risk of creating a perception, particularly in South Asia, that AI is somehow pro-Taleban or anti-women, playing into the rhetoric often used against us by governments and groups in the region that wish to deflect our criticism. But any suggestion that our work with Moazzam Begg or Cageprisoners has weakened our condemnation of abuses by the Taleban or other similarly-minded groups does not withstand scrutiny.

I believe that it was wrong to take this debate into the public in the manner and at the time done. And I fully agree with the measures AI has taken in response to the decision to publicize this debate now and in this manner.

This at least appears to clear up a couple of points that I have been waiting for answers to. Firstly, it seems that Gita Sahgal was suspended solely for talking to the Sunday Times because she didn't agree with the outcome of what sounds like a robust internal debate, not as punishment for voicing the concerns within Amnesty.

Secondly, the implication in public statements that Ms Saghal's "highly respected colleagues, each well-regarded in their area of expertise" support her stance does not seem to extend to the director of Amnesty’s work in Pakistan and Afghanistan, who obviously feels it was wrong to take internal discussions into the public domain and who supports the decision to suspend her.

Separately from the Sunday Times' latest coverage, the website supporting Gita Saghal also has a statement from a number of Algerian women's activists supporting her on for standing up against "fundamentalists who, as perpetrators of violations, cannot be considered defenders of rights." As far as I know, not even Ms Saghal has accused Moazzam Begg of personal culpability in actual human rights violations - her issue is with his views. Isn't conflating the two a rather dangerous road to venture down, one based almost exactly on the George W Bush formula that 'if your not X, you must be Y?

POSTSCRIPT: Anyone wanting to see what providing a platform to an extremist who advocates violence is like, then check this out

Update: Gita Saghal, Moazzam Begg and Amnesty

Since I wrote about them on Monday, the allegations made by Amnesty International's Gita Saghal against her employer's relationship with former Guantánamo Bay detainee Moazaam Begg and Cageprisoners have rumbled on inconclusively. I had been promised, by a friend who knows Ms Saghal, the evidence to back up the accusation that Begg or his organisation are "committed to systematic discrimination" that "fundamentally undermines the universality of human rights", but as yet have heard nothing more.

Meanwhile, with unfortunate timing for Begg's detractors, the court of appeal's decision today to order the government to reveal evidence of MI5 complicity in the torture of another former detainee, Binyam Mohamed, strongly suggests there are probably far greater and more immediate threats to 'human rights for all' than Amnesty International's choice of platform speakers.

With little else to go on in the way of evidence, we can only judge from Ms Saghal's own statements and those of her supporters, in which there continues to be a deliberate effort to steer clear of specifics that has become increasingly frustrating.

Interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme this morning, Gita Saghal argued that "Cageprisoners has an agenda that is way beyond being a prisoners' rights organisation", although she attacked not Begg but his colleague Asim Qureshi, who she had been interviewed with the previous day on BBC World Service's Newshour (see below - transcript here) and who, in my view, acquitted himself very well. Ms Saghal added her suspicion that Amnesty "needs perfect victims", which struck me odd, for on the face of it, the opposite seems true: that it is precisely Moazzam Begg's failure, in Saghal's view, to be a 'perfect' victim of the war on terror (because of his as-yet unspecified 'discriminatory' views) that disqualifies him as a person to work with and worse still, makes him an 'enemy combatant' of universal human rights.

Today, Women Against Fundamentalism and Southall Black Sisters issued a statement that is equally disappointing, providing little more on what exactly the charges are against the legitimacy of Begg or Cageprisoners as human rights campaigners and arguing, with no apparent irony, that:

We believe that Amnesty International’s stance is being rightly questioned by organisations like ours who struggle to ensure that the debate on the War on Terror and religious fundamentalism is not reduced to the logic of ‘either you are with us or you are against us’.

But isn't this exactly what is being demanded of Moazzam Begg - either individuals agree within us completely or they must be against us? That is the implication of alleging "collaboration with those who sympathise with all religious fundamentalist forces" - sympathies that WAF and SBS have decided are damning enough for condemnation of entire organisations but not, it seems, worthy of greater discussion or elaboration. The WAF/SBS statement goes on to say:

When so called victims of the War on Terror advocate ‘engagement’ with combatants – perhaps necessary to achieve peace – why are they not challenged on the authoritarian social and political agenda that they support?

"So-called"? Does illegal incarceration in Guantánamo really count for so little? Moreover, if such 'challenges' are to have a productive or meaningful outcome, rather than amount to plain and simple demonisation, why must they involve Ms Saghal going on the radio, accusing someone with important insights on human rights abuse of "advocating views that are abhorrent to any kind of universality standard", refusing to explain more and, rather shamefully I thought, adding that.she feels "profoundly unsafe, I have to say, talking to Asim Qureshi and Moazzam Begg"?

This doesn't sound like much like it offers any prospect of compromise - it sounds more like outright rejection of debate and of Moazam Begg's continued participation as a campaigner for the closure of Guantánamo, largely because of his individual refusal to define himself solely as a meek, broken victim of US human rights abuses.

What has also been illuminating about these interviews and the WAF/SBS statement has been the shift of focus onto Amnesty itself, in what looks like an attempt to smear it as engaging in what WAF/SBS calls "a denial and abrogation of internal and external accountability". And this may well be because a publicity-conscious organisation with a liberal membership is a much easier target.

Instead of answering a question this morning about the substance of her allegations, Gita Saghal simply said that she "had been concerned by what Moazzam Begg and his organisation stands for for some time, but the issue I really have is with my employer." In the course of the following exchange, she suggests that Amnesty's decision to suspend her was the direct result of raising her concerns internally with her managers:

JUSTIN WEBB: I know you can't talk in detail about why you have been suspended, but do you know why? Have Amnesty told you exactly why?

GITA SAGHAL: I can't talk about that. But I can tell you that I asked Amnesty International two or three questions that should have been very easily answered – and by Amnesty International I mean my own bosses, I was working inside the organisation – and raised perfectly legitimate questions, and that was how did we come to have such a close relationship with Cageprisoners and how did we decide that they were a safe and proper organisation for us to work with?

JUSTIN WEBB: And you sent these e-mails, these requests, to people within Amnesty and you're saying that their reaction has been to suspend you?

GITA SAGHAL: That's correct.

So: Gita Sghal was suspended because she raised an issue that her managers didn't want to hear, right? Not necessarily. During the BBC World Service interview yesterday, Ms Saghal was asked why exactly she had been suspended and replied:

I can only say that my suspension came a few hours after the Sunday Times
article came out.

So was it because of the e-mails, or the Sunday Times article? Does Amnesty seek to deliberately silence its critics, or did the unexpected appearance of a critical newspaper article on a Sunday morning, when most of Ms Saghal's colleagues were at home and there would have been, at best, a skeleton staff available, force its hand?

I've read, I've listened and I'm still none the wiser. So if the friend who promised me the hard evidence against Begg and Cageprisoners could get back to me soon, I'd be very grateful. For as things stand, I think that Moazzam Begg rather than Gita Saghal is the real victim of this sorry affair.

An Unsuitable Job for A Former Detainee

There has been plenty of comment but very little clarity following yesterday's Sunday Times report of accusations by Amnesty International's Gita Saghal that her organisation's "high profile associations" with former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg in its 'Counter Terror With Justice' campaign "was risking its reputation". After speaking to the newspaper, Ms Saghal has been suspended from her post pending the outcome of an internal investigation and a website has been set up by South Asia Citizens Web to defend her.

In a statement, Gita Saghal said:

A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when a great organisation must ask: if it lies to itself, can it demand the truth of others? For in defending the torture standard, one of the strongest and most embedded in international human rights law, Amnesty International has sanitised the history and politics of the ex-Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg and completely failed to recognize the nature of his organisation Cageprisoners.

The tragedy here is that the necessary defence of the torture standard has been inexcusably allied to the political legitimisation of individuals and organisations belonging to the Islamic Right.

Amnesty International has responded with a statement of its own and Cageprisoners has published a detailed rebuttal letter from Moazzam Begg to Sunday Times journalist Richard Kerbaj, accusing him of ignoring the answers to questions raised in a telephone interview. Mainstays of the muscular 'Decent Left' Nick Cohen and Martin Bright have set up a Facebook page in Saghal's defence, David Aaronovitch has joined the fray, the jihadi-obessed Harry's Place has cranked into gear with its usual tirade of insults and arch rivals Islamophobia Watch has replied with some thoroughly nasty comments of its own about Saghal and Women Against Fundamentalism.

The rest of us, it seems, are in the dark and somewhat bewildered, unable to make an informed judgement in the absence of specific detail in the allegations against Moazzem Begg (right) or Cageprisoners's work with Amnesty.

I don't know either Begg or Gita Saghal, but her general comments so far seem only to imply that by raising concerns about the treatment in Britain of what I would otherwise consider extremely obnoxious individuals - by opposing the chaotic system of control orders or the use of expulsions to countries with dubious human rights, for example - Cageprinsoners is guilty of association with 'the Islamic Right'. Presumably the same applies to providing support to their families and therefore means there are plenty of others (including myself) as well as Amnesty International who are equally guilty. Saghal's allies in the 'Decent Left' and the rightwing press undoubtedly think so.

If, however, there is specific evidence that Moazzem Begg or Cageprisoners are "committed to systematic discrimination" that "fundamentally undermines the universality of human rights", then I don't think it is unreasonable to expect some hard facts to back up this serious allegation.

Equally, not one of the activists I know and respect is completely infallible and supporters of Gita Sahgal are asking far too much in demanding unconditional backing because she has a track record as an anti-racist activist, rather than because of the detail of her allegations. Moreover, the argument that a mainstream organisation like Amnesty International is somehow acting improperly and 'denying free speech' in suspending a member of staff for publicly criticising her employer in the press also seems very thin - that's what mainstream employers tend to do to protect themselves and it's what defines the bravery of 'whistle-blowers': speaking out regardless of the inevitable consequences.

Then there is the issue of Moazzem Begg himself. Regardless of his past, his decision to use his experiences in Guantanamo to campaign for its closure, to speak alongside some of his former US army guards and to call for dialogue seems completely in keeping with Amnesty's work. Most importantly of all, the nature of the ordeal he faced in the name of ‘freedom’ and 'democracy' during his incarceration suggests he deserves rather greater courtesy from an activist and campaigner than accusations made through the pages of a Sunday newspaper.

Until there is more substantive information from Gita Saghal, I'm not sure that I want to automatically jump aboard a bandwagon of condemnation started by those who broadly think most Muslims are suspect and that sacrificing human rights is a necessary consequence of the 'war on terror'.

However, one of my friends, who has been involved in Women Against Fundamentalism and Southall Black Sisters for many years, has promised more detail soon. I await the next developments with growing curiosity.

Can Free Speech Survive Police On Campus?

Like some kind of geopolitical Newtonian law of motion, the actions of a minuscule number of jihadi lunatics leads inevitably to a reaction from those who claim to defend us from the threat of terrorism.

Today’s announcement by Universities minister David Lammy that anti-terrorism police are being stationed in universities considered “at risk of being targeted by extremists” is undoubtedly the latest response to the arrest of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the ‘panty bomber’ who tried to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day. The first was the list of 14 countries whose nationals automatically face more intensive body searches and luggage checks, an assumption of blanket suspicion. But because Abdulmutallab was a former student at University College London and had been president of its Islamic Society, the university itself has been forced onto the defensive. The evidence may suggest that Abdulmutallab actually embraced his extreme views in a madrassa in Yemen, but as Jerome Taylor in the Independent said at the end of December 2009:

Some believe that Britain’s universities remain alarmingly open to Islamist radicals. Others fear that a "reds under beds" style hysteria that treats all Muslims students as potential threats to national security will force Islamic debate in our universities underground and behind closed doors.

Much of the generalised paranoia about Islamic societies has been stoked by the likes of Douglas Murray of the right-wing (and misnamed) Centre for Social Cohesion or by commentators such as Melanie Phillips, who tried to imply some kind of link between Abdulmutallab and another former UCL student, the decidedly secular Samar Alami, who was convicted of detonating a car bomb outside the Israel embassy in London in 1994 (in what has always seemed like an appalling miscarriage of justice). David Lammy’s proposals take us a step further, however, from what is undoubtedly a covert surveillance presence already in a number of universities. Putting police officers on campus - and publicly announcing an intention to do so - can only increase fear and mistrust, risk closing down any potentially critical debate about the ‘war on terror’ and make Muslim students feel even more under siege. It’s hardly a great way to win hearts and minds.

Then there is the small matter, which I really must mention, of how poor police intelligence about terrorist threats from ‘student cells’ has been. You may recall, for example, the ‘anti-terror’ raids that followed Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick’s failure to conceal secret documents from photographers in Downing Street. On 8 April 2009, the result was the hurried arrest by armed police of twelve students in the north west of England as alleged terrorist suspects. One, a Liverpool University student, was thrown to the ground and held there at gunpoint for an hour (above). At the time, Gordon Brown spoke his lines from the security services and the police, saying:

"We are dealing with a very big terrorist plot … there were a number of people who are suspected of it who have been arrested. That police operation was successful.

But just like the immediate aftermath of the Forest Gate raids in June 2006, this turned out to be more nonsense: after three weeks of interrogations and searches, there was no evidence against any of the students. Manchester police admitted they were innocent but unlike the two brothers who live around the corner from me, the ordeal was far from over.

Ten students, all Pakistani citizens, were immediately rearrested and imprisoned as a ‘threat to national security’ (or to cover the government’s embarrassment, depending on your point of view). The remaining two were electronically tagged and forced to live under curfew conditions. Denied bail, the ten were held as Category A prisoners and were moved around the country from prison to prison. Neither they nor their lawyers were told of any “evidence” against them at a special immigration court and eventually the twelve agreed to voluntary repatriation to Pakistan rather than face prolonged imprisonment.

So is there religious extremism on Britain’s campuses? To a degree (if you pardon the pun), the answer is yes, of course there is. There has been a rapid expansion of high education over the last decade, more and more young people attend university and it is certainly true that many of those who have subsequently been involved in terrorist incidents have been university-educated. Is that enough, however, to rubbish studies (as bloggers on Harry’s Place tried to do in 2008) showing what those of us who lives in areas with sizeable Muslim populations already know, that the majority of young British Muslims are opposed to political Islam and more likely to join Amnesty International than al-Qaeda? Only if your immediate knee-jerk reaction to the minuscule number of jihadi lunatics is to assume that the majority of Muslims are almost certainly extremists too.

Moreover, if you are a student facing the prospect of police officers on campus, a fear of being labelled ‘extremist’, even the prospect that innocence will not be enough to avoid detention as a ‘national security threat’ or even expulsion from the country, another question may well seem far more important than whether extremism exists or not on campus.

How on earth can universities hope to remain as centres of free speech in an atmosphere as poisoned as this?

David Lammy’s interview for BBC Radio 4’s The Report is broadcast tonight at 8pm.