Not in my name

Page 12
Q-News, Issue 362
April 2005

In the days leading up to the election call, the government decided to drop the proposed legislation on incitement to religious hatred from its parliamentary agenda, promising its reintroduction if Labour gets its coveted third term. Khalida Khan argues that support for the bill by the Muslim Council of Britain and others is misplaced. British Muslims don’t need symbolic, ineffective laws, but comprehensive measures to outlaw religious discrimination.

During the recent high drama in the Houses of Parliament over the government's controversial Prevention of Terrorism Bill, it was very odd that the voices of organisations that claim to represent Britain's Muslim community were hardly heard. In particular the virtual silence of the Muslim Council of Britain was astonishing and it was left to the House of Lords and others to argue for the protection of important civil liberties. Instead, the MCB was too busy championing the government's proposed legislation against incitement to religious hatred, according to Secretary General Iqbal Sacranie, the most “vital piece of equality legislation” and an “important step towards ensuring the long-term safety of our community.”  

Not only did MCB fail to make adequate input in the debate on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, they were gravely mistaken in their belief in the importance of the incitement legislation, which died a death for the second time due to the dissolution of Parliament following the announcement of the election.  

The most “vital piece of equality legislation” for Muslims is in fact legislation to outlaw religious discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities. The completely unnecessary controversy that was generated over the incitement bill detracted from the need for legislation against religious discrimination. Nothing should have got in the way of getting that on the statute books because, if correctly formulated, it would truly improve the lives of ordinary Muslims.

Such legislation would make it compulsory for public bodies and others to address anti-Muslim discrimination and institutional Islamophobia which has led to the economic disadvantage and social exclusion, creating a breeding ground for all sorts of ills, including an increase in mental ill-health, family breakdown, crime, drug abuse and extremism. If we had single-mindedly pursued the government to take this path from the start, we may have achieved it by now.

Instead, MCB chose to support the introduction of an incitement to religious hatred legislation, which were part of the draconian post-9/11 anti-terror laws and were offered as a concession and 'sweetener' to Muslims.  

At an unusual November 2001 meeting of Muslim groups at the Islamic Cultural Centre in London called to discuss the Muslim position about the government's proposals, the position taken by almost all present was that the community should support the proposed legislation. The only dissenting voice was that of An-Nisa Society who argued that we should hold out and press for all-encompassing legislation against religious discrimination. An-Nisa argued that the incitement measures suited the government's purpose and that past experience with incitement to racial hatred legislation had shown that there had not been many convictions. In fact, the first person to be convicted was a black activist. However, An-Nisa's warnings were ignored and its analysis, no doubt due in part to an element of male chauvinism, rejected.

Following the meeting an MCB delegation, including Mahmud al-Rashid, Iqbal Sacranie, Tanzeem Wasti and Khalid Soofi met with Home Office Ministers John Denham and Angela Eagle. After the meeting an appreciative Eagle said, “I am pleased we have the support of the Muslim Council for these measures and I hope this will help those opposed to them to re-consider their views.”

MCB's advocacy for the bill opened another round of attacks against Islam and Muslims, at a time when the community was feeling most vulnerable, traumatised and terrorised by the immediate post-September 11th climate. An ideal opportunity had also been lost to press for legislation against religious discrimination at a time when the government may have been willing to consider it if the push from the community had been strong enough. If the government had done so it would have been a welcome move enabling the immediate setting in motion of urgent strategies needed to bring the Muslims from the margins into the mainstream of British life.

In the end, it was all for nought, as the incitement to religious hatred proposal in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill 2001 was thrown out by the House of Lords, although the amendment to the Crime and Disorder Act 1986, to include religiously aggravated crime, survived.   
Did the MCB learn from this? No, because when the former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, reintroduced the religious incitement measures in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill last year, MCB were behind him all the way. The inevitable consequence was that the Muslim community was at the receiving end of another bashing from those who saw the bill as an infringement on freedom of expression and a clampdown on the criticism of religion.

“The result will undoubtedly be intimidation, self-censorship and grossly curtailed public debate,” shrilled Melanie Phillips.  Much-loved and popular comedian Rowan Atkinson, who led a writers and artists campaign the first time around, took up the cause again. Seeing they were losing the argument, the MCB appealed on party leaders and members of Parliament to “vote for equal treatment under the law”.  

By January, having invested much effort and energy in supporting this bill and with its credibility in tatters, MCB called a hasty conference jointly with the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), the Association of Chief Police Officers, Justice and the Humanist Association to argue for the bill.  Most of the line-up had vested interests in the bill going through. The CRE, for example, is determined to be the champion of Muslim issues and wants religious discrimination included in its remit when legislation is finally brought in.

Many participants of the conference felt that the organisers were on the defensive, as the attack on the bill, made on the grounds that it would criminalise legitimate speech, had already done serious damage to the government's case. Indeed, following a meeting between Rowan Atkinson, Salman Rushdie and Geoffrey Robertson, QC, with Home Office Minister Fiona Mactaggart the bill was renamed as 'hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds' to make clear it is about persons and not religions, religious beliefs or ideas.

Real embarrassment for the MCB came when Ken Macdonald, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) entered the fray. He warned MPs at the Home Affairs Select Committee that he wanted to play down Muslim expectations to avoid a backlash against police and politicians because very few cases were likely to reach the courts. In the light of existing laws on incitement to racial hatred, British courts would “set the bar very high” before convicting, he said. Since 2001 there had been 86 referrals to the Crown Prosecution Service for racial hatred but only six prosecutions and two convictions, with one dropped and three cases ongoing.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph's Joshua Rozenberg, the DPP was asked “if the existing law does little to protect racial minorities, why give equally little protection to religious groups?” The DPP's response was, “I see the force of the argument that if you're protecting racial groups, there are other groups who deserve equal protection.” He emphasised that it was all about “criminalising a state of mind - which is what this legislation does,” adding,  “some people believe it's an important symbol, and there is a place for symbolism in the criminal law. They say it's a question of equality under the law - that if you protect people from racial abuse, you should protect people from religious abuse.”

Asked, “If Mr Blunkett was trying to protect ordinary Muslims from hatred - or was he trying to prevent extremist Islamist clerics from inciting hatred against those of other faiths?” The DPP replied that the new law could be used either to protect or prosecute Muslims. “With all legislation, it is not always entirely predictable how it will be used,” he said.

After having led the community down another dead end, the rather sheepish response to this bombshell confession came from the MCB's Inayat Bunglawala, who said that, “not just Muslims fail to understand [the proposed law] but also the likes of Rowan Atkinson, who has said it would prevent jokes and satire. So it has been misunderstood by those who want the legislation and those who oppose it.”

So, that's all right then. It didn't matter that the whole debacle ratcheted up extremely high levels of acrimonious debate. To put us through the wringer for what is essentially only a symbolic piece of legislation is criminal. Because each time there is a hysterical media onslaught on Muslims it adds to a mountain of prejudice and hatred, increasingly discriminatory attitudes and attacks. We could have taken the hostility if the end result would have been worth it. However, taking flak for an inconsequential piece of legislation cannot be justified.

So what are we left with? The anti-terrorism measures are more likely to entrap Muslims than anyone else. These are likely to be some impressionable, alienated and marginalised young Muslims. Let down both by their own community and the government, they may express their frustrations by embracing half-baked extremist ideas. Whereas in the general society youthful rebellion may be expressed with little danger of landing in prison, troubled Muslim youth may be arrested and confined indefinitely without charge.

Meanwhile, Muslims will continue to suffer discrimination because comprehensive legislation addressing religious discrimination is still a long way off. The longer it takes to do this, particularly with the new anti-terror measures that have been passed, feelings of anger and alienation will fester amongst Muslims and community relations will deteriorate.

With the election, the fate of religious discrimination legislation hangs in the balance. The government was planning to bring it in as part of the Single Equalities Bill. If Labour is successful in achieving a third term, it will inevitably give MCB a key role in shaping any new legislation against religious discrimination. Past experience and recent events have shown that MCB are not capable of taking on this extremely vital task. How can we be sure that they will not, on our behalf, agree to a limp piece of legislation and hand over the remit to the CRE?

In the event that the Conservatives win, they are unlikely to rush to bring in religious discrimination legislation because the Tories have said time and time again that they will even consider scrapping the Human Rights Act.  

Due to MCB's grave blunder in pursuing the incitement legislation precious time has been wasted and the community continues to suffer. This is not the first time that MCB have bungled so badly. If the MCB were Members of Parliament we could have demanded that they step down in disgrace. But as MCB is not accountable to the community it professes to serve, it has carte blanche to act as it pleases. Its 'special relationship' with the government ensures that other voices in the community are sidelined.
Our ignorance and apathy of the essential issues that affect our lives allows others to act on our behalf without consideration of its impact and consequences. The onus is on all of us to be informed and to take an active part in the endeavour to achieve justice, equality and diversity.

The issues are too important for the future of Britain's Muslims to entrust them in the hands of those who are clearly not up to the task. Their actions directly affect the well being of our families and community.  In the interest of our own self-preservation, if nothing else, it is imperative that we take our so-called leaders to task and question what they are doing in our name.