The Chilling Price of Security - Q-News July 2006, Issue 367

Solicitor Imran Khan doesn’t pull punches. Whether it was taking on the Metropolitan Police during the Stephen Lawrence inquiry or the Prison Service in his bid to understand why murdered Muslim teenager Zahid Mubarek was allowed to share a cell with a violent racist thug in Feltham prison, his pursuit of justice is dogged, determined and at times controversial. In his assessment of the Islamophobia post-7/7, Khan is damning and clear - British Muslims face gross institutional discrimination and “community leaders” have been able to do little about it.

It is perhaps self-evident, given the nature of the perceived threat, that those who have most significantly been at the sharp end of the post-7/7 landscape have been Muslims, and perhaps, more particularly visible Muslims. Those who consider themselves Muslim in Britain today are not an homogenous group, despite common perceptions. They come from a variety of countries and speak numerous languages. Furthermore, these disparate groupings follow different schools of thought. Clearly because of the history of migration to Britain, the most visible Muslim community has tended to originates from the Asian subcontinent.

There is no doubt that the events of the 7th July crystallised in many ways the ongoing experience of Muslims in the UK. Reports of surveys, which took place between 1998 and 2000, suggest that 45% of the Muslim respondents reported that either they or a member of their family had personally experienced discrimination or hostility, based on the fact that they were Muslim. The evidence obtained post 7/7 does suggest a clear and unambiguous rise in anti-Muslim discrimination commonly referred to as Islamophobia. For example, recent Home Office research showed that of 59,000 racist incidents recorded by the police, 37,000 were racially aggravated offences. There are the direct and overt attacks on individuals based upon their religion. There is also now what might be termed “institutionalised discrimination” based upon the institutional practices of the state and its organisations which leads to discriminatory practices against those of the Muslim faith. It is this process of discrimination which is probably the most pernicious in its effect because, by its very nature, it has the sanction of the state and the blessing of society. There are a number of ways in which it can be evidenced.

It is seen most extensively in the criminalisation of the Muslim community. This has taken place at an alarming rate with the introduction of ever more draconian “anti-terror” laws intended to terrify and terrorise a specific community. Government statistics show that, since September 2001, 895 individuals were arrested under the Terrorism Act. Of those only 29 - some 3.2% - were actually convicted of a terrorism related offence. Put another way, 96.8% of those arrested under the Terrorism Act, usually in the full glare of publicity, were innocent of any terrorist activity. The lives of these individuals, branded forever in the public eye as threats to society, were inevitably ruined with the consequential adverse effect on their family and loved ones.

These statistics, however, fail to give the full picture of the degree of (discriminatory) discretion which is being exercised over the Muslim community. One often used - and fairly reliable - indicator of how a community is treated by the state is in the use of stop and search. Between the 7 July and 5 September 2005, 27% of the people stopped in the street by police under anti-terrorist powers were Asians, who make up only 12% of London’s population leading to the predictable conclusion that this measure was now a further weapon in the armoury of the state to criminalise those of the Muslim faith.

Regrettably the process does not stop here. It may be surprising to note that Islam is currently the fastest growing non-Christian religion in British prisons. According to Prison statistics there were, in recent years, 4445 Muslims, enough to fill ten average sized prisons. By comparison there were 418 Sikhs and 254 Hindus. Taking into account the number of Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus in the national population it is clear that there is over representation of Muslims within the prison population. Such figures are explained not only by the high level of policing and over-representation in arrests and prosecutions but socio-economic (unemployment and poverty are rife within Muslim communities) factors and racial inequality as evidenced by the reports into the events in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham in 2001.

Whilst discrimination outside the prison population can to some extent be monitored the closed and oppressive nature of the prison system makes the collection and collation of data within prisons extremely difficult. The death of Zahid Mubarek, in Feltham prison, made it clear that institutional discrimination exists within the prison system. The way it is manifested is not only in the disproportionate numbers of those who are in and have died in prisons but in the daily lives of Muslim prisoners. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Muslims are not provided with the religious needs they require. Complaints are rife about the provision of suitable halal food; concerns over the place and times of worship and the availability of an Imam. Often prisoners complain that deprivation of religious needs is used as punishment. Of equal concern is, of course, the direct discrimination which Muslim prisoners face in the form of harassment, abuse and assault.

It is probably not surprising when the state effectively brands a community as criminal that others will not take advantage of it. It is, perhaps, inevitable that having set the agenda from the top many parts of society will follow and the media will reflect that move. Few people will not have noticed the nature of the vilification contained in certain parts of the national press when reporting allegations against Muslims. Invariably the word “Muslim” would be followed by “fundamentalist”. Arrests would be reported with the salacious verve normally set aside for Hollywood celebrities. Threatened action against the media in such cases would be met by the stock defence that such reporting was necessarily “in the public interest” as if there were some fifth column that needed to be exposed. The fact is that such reporting has two chilling effects. Firstly, it overplays the fear required to subjugate society into accepting ever more extreme restrictions on all our liberties in the face of a supposed ever increasing threat. Secondly, it has the direct effect of increasing the number of attacks on the community targeted. It is then little wonder in such circumstances that the drip, drip effect of daily Islamophobia in our media produced a swathe of BNP councillors up and down the country.

In the midst of this there have been pockets of resistance. Muslim communities up and down the country have started to organise, realising there is little assistance from beyond their own enclaves. This is because there has been, and continues to be, a serious failure of the leadership in the Muslim community. Whilst accepting at the outset that the Muslim community is not homogenous there has to be a national, broad approach to its voice. The fact is that that leadership has been missing. So-called national organizations have sought to achieve movement by dialogue with those in power without listening to those who are powerless. They have mistaken access with influence assuming that co-option onto committee is akin to a position of power. The fact is that few on the ground, in the communities, see them as talking for them - rather they are talking about them. Despite their apparent lobbying, anti-terror legislation continues to be introduced. Despite the apparent consultation, unlawful raids and arrests continue to be made. These failures have resulted in a demand from the street for action - immediate and effective, particularly in the light of more and more serious errors by the state in policing the Muslim community. The anger felt by those who have experienced or witnessed the endless stream of raids in Bradford, Leeds and London needs a voice. For the moment that anger is limited to a few in each community but there is the ever increasing refrain that “enough is enough”. The Muslim community has been criminalised and marginalised. It lives in fear and breeds an anger borne of frustration. At the very least those in power need to acknowledge that mistakes have been made and apologise for them. If not, then serious consideration is being given by some in these communities to withdrawing their co-operation until change is achieved.