|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 1250-ii House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
TERRORISM AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Tuesday 16 November 2004 MR HENRY GRUNWALD, MR MICHAEL WHINE, MR SADIQ KHAN, MR KHALID SOFI AND MR JAGDEESH SINGH Evidence heard in Public Questions 100 - 172
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday 16 November 2004 Members present Mr John Denham, in the Chair Mr James Clappison Mrs Claire Curtis-Thomas Mrs Janet Dean Mr Damian Green Mr Gwyn Prosser Mr Marsha Singh Mr John Taylor David Winnick ________________ Memoranda submitted by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Sikh Community Action Network
Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Mr Henry Grunwald, QC, President, and Mr Michael Whine, Defence Director, the Board of Deputies of British Jews; Mr Sadiq Khan, Chair, and Mr Khalid Sofi, Secretary, Legal Affairs Committee, the Muslim Council of Britain; Mr Jagdeesh Singh, the Sikh Community Action Network, examined. Q100 Chairman: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you very much indeed for coming this afternoon. Unfortunately, one of the witnesses, Jagdeesh Singh, has not found his way here as yet but I hope he will join us before the session extends too far. As you know, this is the second hearing of the Committee into the impact of terrorism on community relations. We did also hold a one-off hearing last summer about the use of police stop and search powers and we will be taking that into account in our report. I wonder if briefly each of the witnesses could introduce themselves for the record and explain the position they hold in each organisation they are from. Mr Whine: Michael Whine, defence director of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and a director of the Community Security Trust. Mr Grunwald: Henry Grunwald, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Mr Khan: Sadiq Khan, chair of the legal affairs committee of the Muslim Council of Britain. Mr Sofi: Khalid Sofi, vice-chair, legal affairs committee of the Muslim Council of Britain. Q101 Chairman: Can I start by asking each of the organisations a fairly general question? What is your own assessment of what has happened to social cohesion in this country since international terrorism achieved such a high profile on 9/11 and then obviously the subsequent events in Bali and Madrid? Mr Grunwald: We are very grateful for the opportunity of coming along to give oral evidence to you this afternoon. We are concerned about the effects of the incidents that you have mentioned on social cohesion, on relations between the faith communities. We as the Jewish community are committed to maintaining good relations and we do all that we can to ensure that problems that might impact from other parts of the world do not get in the way of maintaining those good relations here. It is probably right to say that there have been divisions amongst faith communities since 9/11. The Jewish community has felt particularly apprehensive and concerned. We, as I am sure some of your members will know, have had to increase the security measures at many of our communal buildings, synagogues and schools, although unfortunately we have become all too used to living in one sense in a fortress condition because we have had to have security at our synagogues, our schools and our buildings for a long time now. There is no doubt that there has been an increased need for that since 9/11 and since the threats from international terrorism have grown. Mr Khan: There is in a perverse way a positive result as well as a negative one. In positive terms, there has been greater inter-faith dialogue and working relations post the incidents you referred to previously. It has also led to mature discussions within communities and good relations being built with the government and respective Parliaments. It has led to better relations than we have had hitherto with the police, a dialogue with the security services, more open systems of accountability with various bodies, so there has definitely been a positive side to the horrific incidents you referred to. On the negative side, as far as we in particular are concerned, quite clearly there has been a well documented increase in criminal acts against the visible Muslim community and those who get mistaken as Muslims as well in the UK post 9/11. Islamophobia is on the rise and there is clearly a link between reprisals and other incidents. There has also been the impact of some of the terrorist legislation on the perception in the Muslim community about the way they are policed and the relationship they have with the authorities. There is both a positive and a negative consequence of the things you talked about. Q102 Chairman: What would you say were the reasons where there has been a rise in tensions for that rise to take place? At the previous evidence session two types of phenomena were described to us. One was the impact of what government and the police had done and the other was the influence of groups active in the community. Sometimes accusations were pointed at particular faith groups who were seen to be responsible for aggressive actions against another faith group. Far right organisations were also blamed for being active in that way. In your own assessment, where would you say the balance of problem lay, where there has been a problem, between the things the government has been responsible for causing or for doing and those that have been other members of the community, other community organisations or other community groups? Mr Khan: Our starting point is a recognition that there is a positive duty on the government to look after its citizens. We think that is only right. You will be aware - I have some copies with me - that the MCB produced a rights and responsibilities card which recognises and understands the responsibilities on the government. As far as the rise in tension is concerned, there are two issues. One is the real concern about a community feeling they are being targeted rightly or wrongly by legislation passed by a government seeking to protect it, especially in the context that victims of terrorism are likely to be Muslims in this country, Bali, Istanbul or elsewhere. You know of the increase in stop and searches in the Muslim community. You know of those who are detained indefinitely and what their faith is. You know also the disparity between the figures for those who have been arrested and the very small number of convictions. Out of 14 convictions, only three are of the Islamic faith. There are issues regarding actions of the government/police. As far as community activities are concerned, we have seen far right groups being far more sophisticated than they ever have been before. We have seen on the BNP website and in the language used by far right groups targeting of Muslims as opposed to what has historically been the case: ethnic minorities, blacks and Jews to an extent. I am not suggesting that anti-semitism is on the decrease but the BNP is now far more sophisticated, as are far right groups, than they have been. You will be aware that the government is trying to close the loopholes with regard to far right groups who use the English language deliberately so they are inciting hatred against persons associated with the Islamic faith but not inciting hatred against a race. Up until recently, the duties that exist on public authorities against discrimination in the provision of goods and services existed to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race but not on the grounds of religion which was a real problem with regard to the police and immigration services. That loophole also is going to be closed with, hopefully, an announcement in the Queen's Speech. Mr Grunwald: Our concerns are not so much against any actions of the government that might have heightened tension. The concerns of the Jewish community are really coming from threats that have been made - let me be specific - by al-Qaeda to attack Jews anywhere in the world. That is not just an inchoate threat, an unfulfilled threat. The concerns of our community in relation to terrorism are real and stem from attacks that there have been in Jerbar in April 2002, in Casablanca in May 2003, in Istanbul just over a year ago -- the one year anniversary has just passed of the attack on the synagogue - and foiled attacks on Jewish targets in Berlin and Düsseldorf in September of last year. Because the threats have been made and carried out elsewhere, there has been a heightened concern and apprehension here that the same thing will happen to this community. That has nothing to do with the acts of our government. We welcome what the government does to deal with the threat from terrorism. Q103 Chairman: Would it be fair to say that your main concern, as far as the Board of Deputies is concerned, is about organised international terrorism of that sort rather than what might be described as more random acts by individuals who think they are following the same philosophy but are acting as individuals in local communities and have a deep strand of anti-semitism? Mr Grunwald: There are two separate issues. There is the international threat which is of concern to us and the concern that some British citizens might be caught up in those threats and therefore carry out attacks on Jewish targets in this country. The second issue, I suppose, is the other one that you refer to and that is the increase in anti-semitism which we refer to in our submission. We have given you the figures for recent years. We are not at the end of this year and the figures for this year will not come out until some time next year because we collate and check them very carefully, but it looks as if there has been a continuing increase in anti-semitism and anti-semitic incidents here this year. Those are carried out by people from within British society. Whether they have any proper place in British society is another question. They are not necessarily just random acts. It is nice to think that somebody just wakes up in the morning and decides, "I am going to carry out something." Our concern is that it is more than that. We do not point the finger at any particular community. We have concerns obviously about far right anti-semitism. We also have concerns about some elements from within the Muslim community, not the Muslim community as a whole. We have no doubt that the Muslim community as a whole want nothing more than to live their lives in this country in peace as British citizens, enjoying good relations with the rest of us, but there are some groups which are fed by anti-semitic literature and material that comes into this country from abroad. There is real concern that that feeding leads and has led to the increase in anti-semitic incidents. Q104 Chairman: Mr Khan, you have been very forthright as the Muslim Council in condemning terrorism, al-Qaeda and those groups. Mr Grunwald is perhaps describing a wider group of people who are not organised as part of the al-Qaeda network but who may within the Muslim community as a small minority of it advocate an extremist point of view in relation to Jewish people. Do you acknowledge that as an issue or a problem and how big a problem do you think it is for your community as a whole? Mr Khan: Anti-semitic attacks? Q105 Chairman: Yes, the extent to which that is coming from sections of the Muslim community. It may not be in any organisational way or tied to al-Qaeda. Mr Khan: I think you would need to be wearing blinkers not to recognise that there is an issue, especially on campuses. I do some work with an organisation called Alifalef which is trying to foster really good relations between those of the Muslim and Jewish faiths on campusus. We recognise there has been a problem on campuses with some of the bigotry you are talking about. We continue to seek to work with various communities. Anti-semitism is a problem for us as well. Nobody likes citizens being verbally or physically abused but I think it is unfair to blame an entire faith for the actions of some members. Just like I would not dare to say that all whites are racist murderers because of the Stephen Lawrence killing, nor can it be fair to hold Muslim organisations to account for the stupid actions of people who follow the Muslim faith on campuses. Q106 David Winnick: In the evidence that your organisation has given to us on page 15 there is a rather kind reference to the cleric whose visit to this country was and remains the subject of a good deal of controversy. You know who I am referring to. Mr Khan: Yes. You referred to him last time I was here as well. Q107 David Winnick: He was quoted on Qatar TV as saying the following: "Oh God, deal with your enemies, the enemies of Islam. Oh God, deal with the usurpers and oppressors and tyrannical Jews. Oh God, deal with the plotters and rancorous crusaders." Say someone was trying to come from Israel who made the same sort of remarks about the Islam religion. Would we want such a person in our country as a visitor? Mr Khan: This dialogue is taking place at the moment. You will probably have seen it in the letters page of The Guardian and there is a debate about the balancing exercise between the rights and responsibilities of freedom of speech that we have in this country and the importance of having an open dialogue. I cannot comment on the specific quote you have given but there is a consensus among Islamic scholars that Mr Al-Qardawi is not the extremist that he is painted as being by selective quotations from his remarks. If there was a concern that his entry to the UK would not be conducive to the public good and would lead to public disorder, the Home Secretary has the right to have an exclusion order placed on him to prevent him coming into the UK. The reality is that this man has been to the UK on more than 25 occasions in the last X years and we know the Home Secretary has used his power, for example, to exclude many others from the UK on that premise. If it is good enough for the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London to allow him into the UK, I am not going to have a theological debate about selective quotes that he may or may not have said in the particular context, but what I do know, for example, is in a very long interview he gave to the BBC a few months ago a 15 second snippet was used to try and demonise him. I cannot defend him. It is for him to defend himself, but it does not help foster an open relationship if you are selecting quotes to do with what this man may or may not have said. Q108 David Winnick: Does it help race relations for someone to be welcomed into this country who, as far as I know, has not denied saying what I quoted a moment ago? All religions have extremists. I have read one or two comments from rabbis in Israel which to me are equally disgusting as the remarks of this person. My question is if someone, an Israeli cleric, rabbi or whatever, a scholar as he may be, had made those remarks about the Islam religion and about Muslims, would we not be right in trying to prevent such a person from coming into our country, whatever the Home Secretary of the day may or may not wish to do? Mr Khan: If you want to use a hypothetical example, the answer is yes, of course. We have a real life example of what happened in this particular case and it went through both the Mayor of London, upon whom there is a positive duty under the Race Relations Act to foster good relations, and the Home Secretary. I think it is unfair for the MCB to be held to account for actions taken by the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London. There is a consensus amongst Islamic scholars that this man is not the extremist he is painted to be by certain quarters. Q109 Mr Clappison: There are issues where you and the Jewish community would have a common interest in putting forward the same points of view. It seems clear there is also a need for leadership within both communities in the light of some of the things which we have heard about and to try and give a good lead to the sort of elements which you were describing, who are not representing the Muslim community. Do you have meetings at a high level between the Muslim Council and the Board of Deputies? Mr Khan: We have regular, quarterly meetings. I am not at those meetings but my understanding is that we have bilateral meetings on a regular basis. Mr Whine: We have been meeting the Muslim Council for some time, although our relationship is a little bit fractured as a consequence of international events, but there are any number of venues and means by which we are meeting - that is, the Board of Deputies and representatives of the Muslim community, both of a bilateral nature like our joint meetings with the MCB, and through multilateral organisations of which we are both members. Q110 Mr Clappison: You mentioned certain tensions which there have been but when was the last time there was a meeting between the two leaderships? Mr Grunwald: It is several months ago. We have been trying to fix a date for a meeting now for several months. We are waiting for suggested dates to come to us from the Muslim Council. There ought to be more frequent and regular meetings and at those meetings we ought to agree to differ on certain issues on which we are never going to reach agreement but there is a whole range of issues on which we can and ought to work together. The will is certainly there on our part. Mike has referred to a slightly fractured relationship and, if I can pick up on what Mr Winnick has said in relation to the visit made by Al-Qardawi, we felt - and we were not the only group that felt - that this was not a man who should be given a public platform in the way that he was. A whole coalition of moderate Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Sikhs have been seeking to meet the Mayor of London to discuss this visit. So far he has not agreed to such a meeting taking place. When we raised our concerns at the time of the visit, we were a little upset at being accused of being the Zionist lobby in calling for this man not to be given a public platform in the way that he was. We were called that by the Muslim Council. The relationship is a bit fractured. I would like to see it mended. I would like to see it healthy because I think it is important not only for our individual communities; it is important for British society that we work together on all those issues where we can. Q111 Mr Clappison: I understand entirely the desire to have spiritual leadership and also to exercise freedom of speech that we all enjoy but, without going into particular quotes, when a coalition like that comes together representing different issues, is that something you would be prepared to reflect on? Mr Khan: A spin on a coalition is not quite a coalition. Let us not get into how big or moderate a coalition is. As far as our relations with other faiths are concerned, in addition to the meetings that are had where there are many other faiths present, we also have regular meetings with the Hindu Forum. That is very relevant on issues in Kashmir and tensions there. Problems that occur overseas should stay overseas and we have regular contacts. We are seeking to start meetings with the leader of the Sikh community, although that has not happened yet. In addition, we have good relations with the churches. We are giving joint submissions on issues to do with religious hatred and other issues as well. I am working with the CTBI and other committees so it would be unfair to leave you with the impression that we are some sort of isolationist group that does not meet with our brothers and sisters from other faiths and those who are not in our faith. For example, we work with the inter-faith network and there is the work that the DTI is doing on the issues of equality and the Human Rights Commission. I do not want to leave you with the impression that the hand is put out by the faith and is not being taken. We meet regularly with other communities. I am afraid I am not senior enough to meet with the Board in the MCB so I cannot give personal experience. Q112 Mr Clappison: There is one other avenue I would like to explore with you on that arising out of the evidence we heard last week. As you may know, Gerry Gable gave evidence to us and he was talking about the aftermath of 9/11. Like him, I was very concerned after 9/11 that there would be attacks upon the Muslim community. He told us that after 9/11, in his experience, whilst undoubtedly there were tensions and problems for the community, there was not the rise in attacks which perhaps we might have thought there would be. You may have some views on that. What he did say was that there were increases in attacks on the Jewish community following 9/11 and some of the propaganda which came into the country. Have you any reflections on that and on the question of leadership to lead people away from that sort of attack? Mr Khan: I think it is all documented that there has been an increase anti-semitic attacks. There is also quite clear evidence that there has also been an increase in Islamophobic attacks on the visible Muslim community and that includes Sikhs and Hindus as well because obviously if somebody is going to attack you they do not ask whether you are a Muslim, a Hindu or a Sikh. There have been quite a few attacks on mosques, attacks to human bodies, cemeteries and all sorts of other examples. There are really good examples of police forces, local police commanders and communities working in partnership to prevent reprisal attacks. Where I live in Tooting we had a really good example of the local police showing leadership at the local council and the local mosque straight after 9/11. There was high visibility policing outside the mosque, up and down Tooting High Street, and advice given by the police on how to check bins near the mosque because of the experience of the Dave Copeland incident, where to place CCTV cameras and all the rest of it. I am afraid there has been an increase in Islamophobic incidents and, secondly, we should not forget the really good work that police forces up and down the country have done, working with the community to avoid those increases being higher than they otherwise may have been. Q113 Mr Clappison: I completely accept what you say about Islamophobia and the need for anybody in a community or in authority in the police force to bear down on that sort of attack and deal with it, but going back to my original point about the increase in attacks in the Jewish community, do you accept there is a need in the Muslim community for vigorous leadership on their part to try and prevent that sort of attack from taking place? Mr Khan: The Muslim community must and does seek to provide leadership to prevent attacks on any community. Hate crime is hate crime. It would be unfair for you to be left with the impression that we only look after our own. We are concerned about hate crime against any community. We seek to do whatever we can to prevent that happening, just like our brothers and sisters in other faiths also speak out eloquently when there is a Muslim under attack. Jewish, Sikh and Hindu leaders have also been at the forefront in saying Islamophobia is wrong and those on the left also have been saying it is wrong. Hate crime is wrong, full stop. Mr Whine: Whilst the top down leadership dialogue is there but is fractured, the bottom up dialogue is probably more effective and continuing, less subject to strains as a consequence of international affairs. We do not control it and half the time we do not necessarily know what is going on. We receive reports continuously of synagogue/mosque longstanding relationships. There are half a dozen continuing initiatives at street level, one in Stamford Hill where you have a strictly orthodox community rubbing up against a growing north African community which has been working for some years, a very effective one in Manchester and any number of other local initiatives between Jews and Muslims which I think are probably more effective in the long run because they are creating real bonds of contact and friendship at that local level, rather than something imposed from the top down by people like ourselves. Q114 David Winnick: Do you sometimes consider the possibility of inviting representatives of the Muslim community to speak at meetings of the Board of Deputies, if not in the present atmosphere which you have mentioned, when matters perhaps are more relaxed? Mr Grunwald: There is no problem with that at all. Q115 David Winnick: Has that been considered? Mr Grunwald: We have on occasions invited representatives from the Muslim community to events that we have organised at the Board of Deputies. I have no problem with that. None at all. Q116 David Winnick: There have been questions, mine included today and on previous occasions, about parts of the Muslim community being affected by anti-semitism. Do you not feel that there are a number of people in the Jewish community who are not necessarily anti-Muslim as such but have very little understanding of Islam and have a prejudiced view, if only of what is happening in the Middle East? Do you not think more could be done by the organised Jewish community to try and get your people, your community, to understand what Islam is, where it springs from and its practices which in so many respects, as I understand it, are akin to the Jewish religion? Mr Grunwald: I fear that you are right in this sense and you are equally right about an understanding on the part of members of many minority groups and religions about other people. Within the organised Jewish community, stemming from people who have been long serving members of the Board of Deputies, we have the Three Faiths Forum. Sir Sigmund Sternberg founded that together with Sheikh Zaki Bedawi and others a while ago. It is designed specifically to foster understanding and conversation between Muslims, Jews and Christians. We have the Indian Jewish Association, which again stems from the work of the Board of Deputies, to get away from the misunderstanding, the ignorance, to which you have referred. Alifalef that Sadiq mentioned is a very important initiative to try and take away the blinkers that many people in both groups but in all religious groups have about other people. We are very staunch members of the inter-faith network. We are involved in lots of inter-faith initiatives with all the different religious groups in this country because ignorance is at the root of so many problems. Chairman: Can I welcome Mr Singh? I will bring you into the discussion in a moment. Q117 David Winnick: Mr Khan, would your organisation at its top level invite the Board of Deputies to make a presentation of its views and so on? Mr Khan: I agree with everything Henry has said, but there has been an increase in grass roots activity at regional levels as well. You are right: there need to be even more cordial and open relations between the two faiths. Q118 Chairman: Mr Singh, would you introduce yourself and the organisation you come from? Perhaps you could say what, from the point of view of the Sikh community, you have seen as the impact on community relations and the change in community relations since 9/11 and the other terrorist events. Mr Jagdeesh Singh: There is a great deal I can say but I will endeavour to summarise it into a few sharp points. The most immediate issue that has come up for the Sikh community following 9/11 has been the very visible and very ongoing cycle of racist attacks that Sikhs have been subjected to immediately following 9/11 and continuously so as international affairs continued in a state of abeyance and have gone from high to low and so forth following 9/11. We would definitely say 9/11 represents the opening up of a new phase of racialism, a new phase of racism, vocal racism and physical racism that the Sikh community has definitely experienced. We are aware that other visible minorities like Sikhs, in the sense that Sikhs are very visible as you can clearly see, have equally at various levels also suffered following 9/11. Certainly for the Sikhs, for the first time in their history in this country they have suffered what appears to be a very deliberate, very random, very fashionable - I underline the word "fashionable" - form of racism in that a Sikh person could walk down a street and will often be referred to as, "There is Bin Laden. Let's have a shout at Bin Laden. Let's throw something at Bin Laden. Hey, Mr Bin Laden, why don't you fuck off back to your own country." These are quite casual, quite random, quite daily, quite ordinary words that Sikhs are being subjected to, not by every person, but by that section of society that considers it quite okay to select its victims and launch attacks at them. Sikhs feel that 9/11 has been a trigger for that section of our society, that very tragic, small, factional section of our society, very much a sore part of our society, that racist part of our society, that racist, fuggish part of our society, to go out and randomly, casually pick out people with beards and turbans and randomly swear at them, abuse them and so forth. That cycle of attacks has not receded. If anything, it has continued at a consistent pace and there have been instances of Sikhs being not only sworn at in a very virulent way, vulgar, racist language, but Sikhs being savagely beaten up. I had the pleasure of being beaten up on 26 September earlier this year, around the very time that Ken Bigley's case was very much in the headlines. As I walked home one evening at eight o'clock I was told that we Pakis were causing a great deal of problems in Iraq. I was told it was because of us that Ken Bigley was in trouble in Iraq. As I chose to walk on, I was then savagely attacked. That particular incident epitomises the kind of verbal brutality and physical brutality, the verbal aggression and the physical aggression, that members of the Sikh community are suffering. The point is: are we to treat this as part of life? Are we to treat this as part of an ongoing situation? As a community we feel very much exposed, very vulnerable but even more so we feel that the British government has done next to nothing in terms of putting into place any form of measure by way of public statements of support. Chairman: I am going to stop you there because there will be plenty of opportunities in the questions that arise to all witnesses to move on to what should be done. You have set out your experiences and perspective very powerfully. Q119 Mr Prosser: I want to ask you some questions about the media and the effect media coverage of events has had on minorities, especially Islam. What practical suggestions can you make to improve the media coverage of these matters in this country without infringing on freedom of speech and freedom of expression? Mr Grunwald: There should be more good news stories. There are many instances of good community relations in many parts of the country, not just in synagogues and mosques - there should certainly be more of that - but between synagogues and churches, between synagogues and temples. They are initiatives that we support and that we want our members to become involved in, but good news does not make the front pages. You are much more likely to find a newspaper showing a story of a broken window in a synagogue than you are of a meeting that might have taken place the night before between members of different faiths in that same building. Frankly, I do not know how you get more good news stories into the media, but that would go a long way towards making people see that it is not all bad; it is not all something to be condemned, but there is good stuff to be promoted. Mr Khan: We recognise from the way newspapers report that the government has control about what newspapers print and what the TV shows. We recognise there is a limit about what can be done. There are things that can be done. The use of language is very important. Hate crime is hate crime and similarly terrorism is terrorism. We find it offensive when before the word "terrorism" is inserted the word "Islamic" or "Muslim". It does not help. There is an issue about leadership being provided by the government or people with power and influence. I would query whether the PCC does enough when it comes to, for example, high profile arrests or arrests made of "Muslim extremists" but if you are lucky it will get a line a week later or 14 days later when those eight people have been released without charge. There is also an issue about police tip-offs. For example, how could it be that the press could report so soon after the arrests in Manchester inside the premises of those Kurdish people that programmes were found for Old Trafford games? There are issues about whether there is any tip-off going on between people in positions of knowledge and the press. Q120 Mr Prosser: You mentioned that point in your written evidence. Those are quite well known cases but how generally widespread is this issue of the police tipping off the press and providing the photo opportunity for these events? Mr Khan: We do not know whether it is as common as we fear it is but the question needs to be asked - no journalist will disclose their source - how can journalists report so quickly, often with TV footage, of these arrests being made? There is a concern. There is also a concern about whether anybody arrested, if they are charged, can receive a fair trial, bearing in mind all the hoo-hah that goes on when an arrest is made. There are issues regarding the AG's powers on contempt of court. There is a concern when an arrest is made and the press publicise it. The Home Secretary once or twice has said unhelpful things about the presumption of innocence, due process and that has been published and printed to a potential pool of jurors who will read this and a month later will be trying the case. Q121 Mr Prosser: Mr Singh, the Board of Deputies have told us in their evidence that the incidents of anti-semitic attacks have been covered quite sympathetically in the British press. With that background, how important is the media coverage in all that goes on? Mr Jagdeesh Singh: We have found personally that the national press has not paid any coverage to the attacks on Sikh individuals whatsoever. It is a tragic contrast to coverage that has duly been given to the anti-semitic attacks, bringing them to the public fore, bringing them to public attention and to the attention of decision makers in society, MPs and politicians. In contrast, the equally savage and equally far more numerous attacks on Sikhs have gone completely uncovered by the national newspapers. That is a deeply disturbing situation for the Sikh community. Why is that? Why this disinterest in the attacks on the Sikh community? It is very puzzling. It is very disturbing. It is a matter of great concern to us. In contrast, regional newspapers, local papers in local towns, have done important, powerful stories but that is where they remain. That is a matter of great concern. What is it about the national media psyche that brings them to have such disinterest in the attacks on the Sikh community? We feel that there is a pervasive culture of disinterest on racist attacks in the Sikh community. Is it because the whole phenomenon of racist attacks on the Sikh community that has been there for many decades is something which is only now being shouted about, is only now being vocalised in a significant way and therefore there is this culture of disinterest still. Black people get attacked. Jewish people get attacked. Muslim people get attacked but we have never heard of Sikh people getting attacked. Therefore, it will take a bit of a time for the issue to register with us. The fact of the matter remains we feel deeply aggrieved that the message of attacks on Sikhs is certainly not filtering through the media and the media is not performing its role. On a wider scale, noting that the media is essentially a private, independent entity with private, independent functions, we equally stress - I think this is self-evident and not a matter of argument in any sense - the media have a public function, a public information role, a public service role, whether they like it or not. Therefore, we feel there needs to be a lot more regulation and stronger regulation of what the media does with its resources and how it processes information than it is currently subjected to. There needs to be a lot more than just self-regulation. The media gives us information. We read that information. We process that information. That information informs our decision making, as it does on many aspects of society, ordinary people, ordinary residents, Members of Parliament, decision makers in local authorities. In so many different arenas, the media has a direct and indirect impact. Therefore, we believe very powerfully, coming to the questions of diversity, race equality, community cohesion, that the Race Relations Amendment Act should have been extended to the media as well, not just left to the traditional or conventional public service bodies. By reason of the fact that the media have a public service role and a public function role, albeit independent and private, they nonetheless still have a crucial role. Q122 Mr Prosser: Mr Khan, you said in your evidence that you were astonished by the lack of measures to counter the discriminatory effects of current counter terrorism legislation. Do you want to tell us a bit more about that? Mr Khan: There are a number of markers we can use and objective criteria to see how successful the implementation of the legislation has been. For example, section 44 of the Terrorism Act allows stop and search without reasonable suspicion. As a consequence, we have seen a more than 300% increased rise in stops and searches of "Asians". There are no records kept by faith. We have examples of individuals who are white but are visible Muslims because of the beard and other things, who have had their house searched, have been searched in the street and arrested. They all come under this categorisation because they are white. There are issues about whether the definition of ethnicity is enough to gauge the number of arrests made of Muslims. There have been more than 600 arrests. There have been 48 or so charges, 14 convictions and only three of the four were of the Muslim faith. The others were loyalists to Irish activities. We also have those who are detained indefinitely. What you have are measures of success which show that the way the legislation has been implemented has a disproportionate impact on Muslims, mainly British and 14 non-British. We are concerned about whether there are systems in place to properly monitor how successful some police forces are compared to others, that best practice is being shared; whether, for example, there is enough independent scrutiny of the intelligence relied upon. We understand that it is not sensible for people like us to monitor intelligence and its reliability but it may be appropriate for a joint select committee in the House of Commons to be monitoring that. Either the intelligence is extremely shoddy which is leading to so many incidents of people being picked up, which begs a number of questions, or the intelligence is not being used but maybe stereotyping and prejudice are being allowed to get in the way of effective policing. The importance is that it is incumbent upon all of us, if we are going to fight terrorism and crime generally, to work in partnership with the authorities, but it is not conducive to good community relations, to encourage people to come forward and report suspicious activities, when a week or a month previously either they themselves or family members have been wrongfully searched or arrested or had their property searched. Q123 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Mr Khan, in front of me I have a copy of the Home Affairs Report into the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill 2001. The British Council of Muslims submitted evidence to that particular inquiry. I will read a paragraph of their evidence: "The extension of incitement legislation at this particular time is unlikely to protect Muslims. We have grave reservations about the introduction of legislation at this particular time." There is a signatory to these particular statements and the entire statement was submitted on behalf of a number of Muslim organisations. That statement conflicts very much indeed with the statement you now give which is to say that the lack of legislation protecting followers of multi ethnic faiths such as Islam and the failure to outlaw incitement to religious hatred exposes one of the most vulnerable and marginalised minorities in the UK to further harm. One statement in 2001 and another today. What has changed to produce this significant change of heart, as far as you are concerned? Mr Khan: We have always believed that an offence of incitement against religious hatred is important. We thought it inappropriate for emergency legislation, an emergency Act brought in over concerns about security, to be the vehicle for bringing in this important change in legislation. The proper forum is for there to be legislation properly discussed in both Houses, for there to be discussions about the balancing act between freedom of speech and for that to be the vehicle for that to happen. If you bring in a piece of legislation to protect a community what you should not do presentationally is bring that in as a sop to a community at a time when you are bringing in legislation that is emergency, which many people believe will be used against them. Q124 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Do you think the environment and circumstances are now adequate enough to allow the government to bring in an offence of incitement to religious hatred? Do you think now is the appropriate time? Mr Khan: The actions of the far right groups post-9/11 and the sophisticated methods they have used provide the government and those of us who believe legislation is important the ammunition to show how the lacunae and loopholes are being used by far right groups. Q125 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: The answer is yes then. Mr Singh, do you think now is the right time to introduce this legislation? Mr Jagdeesh Singh: Could you reiterate that question? Q126 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Should there be an offence of incitement to religious hatred? Mr Jagdeesh Singh: We certainly feel that conditions are correct and right for such legislation. We feel that there are groups active from different communities, not just traditional, white, racist groups, but equally experienced religious groups in this country from different ethnic minority groups as well, who are inciting religious hatred. One example that we would cite is a prominent group called the Al Muhajiroun, which recently disbanded, but that group has been the subject of much anxiety for the Sikh community because it has directed much of its rabid hate propaganda against the Sikh community as well as other communities like the Jewish community, the Hindu community and others. We feel that there definitely needs to be some legislation in place which is robust and clear cut and which the government needs to be ready to enforce at the right time, in the right circumstances. Mr Grunwald: Jews and Sikhs have been protected by such legislation as there is at the moment because we have been considered to be not only religious groups but ethnic groups as well. Therefore, we could not possibly say that there should not be legislation to extend the protection that we have had to other groups. It must follow. Q127 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Mr Khan, we have had some evidence from the National Secular Society who say that we should not introduce legislation of this kind. How do you answer critics of the proposal to create an offence of incitement to religious hatred, who say both that it would not work because of difficulties in definition religion and that it would unacceptably restrict free speech? Mr Khan: As far as the definition is concerned, we already have legislation that prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief in the employment context. Those arguments have been had. From December last year, it is now against the law for an employer to discriminate against somebody on the basis of their religion or belief. The important point raised by the Secular Society is: how do you ensure that you do not prohibit legitimate, free speech and candour between different faiths and those of no faith? The importance is this: the law should be framed to outlaw incitement of hatred against persons who are associated with a religion because of their association with that religion. If it be the case that that falls foul of criminal law, that is fine but we know there are examples where there is incitement of hatred against persons due to the linkage with, for example, Islam that is currently not able to be prosecuted. What it is not designed to do is to open the floodgates, but that there are safeguards in place to ensure that a prosecution can only take place with the AG's consent, for example. We know from the race hatred legislation that Henry talked about that, over the years, it has been used pretty successfully, although not as much as some people would like. What it has not led to is the floodgates opening up and comedians not being able to make very bad jokes about different races and religions. What it has led to perversely is far right groups having self-censorship now. They do not openly incite hatred against Jews and Sikhs for very obvious reasons. They would fall foul of the law but they are a bit more subtle in inciting hatred against persons associated with Islam. Q128 Mrs Dean: Mr Khan, you are critical of the stop and search powers created by the Terrorist Act. What do you think would have been a reasonable response to the greater threat of terror worldwide after 11 September? Mr Khan: Do you mean generally or stop and search? Q129 Mrs Dean: Generally and stop and search. Mr Khan: In our view, stop and search is a legitimate tool for police when it comes to fighting crime. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act allows the police to stop and search if they have reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. The Terrorism Act allowed the authorities to deem an area a designated area to allow the police to stop and search even without suspicion. If, for example, the police received a tip-off that there was going to be a bomb in Canary Wharf, it seems sensible for the police to be able to stop and search anybody going in and out of Canary Wharf. The problem is that the whole of Greater London has been deemed a designated area. It is possible for the police to stop and search anybody in London, even without reasonable suspicion. Our view is that was not the intention behind this piece of legislation. That is one example on stop and search. It is not a problem with intelligence led, proper policing. As far as other measures that could be used, we have seen that no other European country, for example, suspended Article 5 of the European Convention, the right to liberty. Other countries have used other forms of surveillance, whether it is covert surveillance or telephone tapping. Another thing discussed by the Home Secretary which we have no objections to and we welcome is the use of telephone taps in court proceedings. We do not see any objection to that on human rights grounds. The objection to that comes from the security services about unsavoury characters then knowing what is being tapped and how they are tapping. We cannot see any objection to that. We have seen in some countries the use of restriction orders so people have to report regularly to the police, and we have one case where one of those detained indefinitely is now under house arrest. Thus it is possible to keep an eye on those deemed to be a threat to national security, but the basic point is this: if somebody is suspected of having committed a criminal offence or is suspected of planning to commit a criminal offence, there is enough legislation to charge them and for them to have an open and fair trial. Conspiracy and other offences already exist. Q130 Mrs Dean: Thank you. Statistics show wide regional variations in the use of stop and search powers. Why do you think different forces use them in different ways and to different extents? Mr Khan: That is one of the things we raised some time ago. One of the things when I was here last time was we welcomed the announcement by Hazel Blears of a Stop and Search Action Team. We have heard nothing about it since. One of the things that needs to be looked at is best practice and bad practice. If, for example, in Greater Manchester (I am just making this up) there are only 20 people stopped and searched using this piece of legislation, but it has led to eight arrests, four charges and one conviction, that is not bad. If, for example, you have in the Met Police 3,000 stops and searches, zero arrests and zero convictions, then serious questions need to be asked. One of the problems is that there is no proper monitoring and analysis of stop and search. The Met Police Authority did some very good work in the scrutiny committee on the use of stop and search in London. Nobody else around the country has. The Home Office promised us leadership back in July with a Stop and Search Action Team but so far we have not seen the fruits of any evidence of that. There is a real issue about best practice and bad practice. Q131 Mrs Dean: Mr Singh, do you have any comment to make on the variations in the use of stop and search between different forces? Mr Jagdeesh Singh: I would make two very quick comments. As a community we have not experienced anything significant in terms of stop and search both prior to the recent terrorist legislation and post the terrorist legislation, so we do not have any significant concerns with regards to our experience of stop and search. Equally, we are mindful of the concerns raised by the Muslim community. We have read their document and the comments they raise do make significant reading and the disparities that have just been raised again now by Sadiq between the large numbers of stop and searches and zero output in terms of end product also make alarming reading and we can share their sense of concern on this. We recognise the importance of stop and search as a tool in preventing terrorism and fighting crime and so forth, but we recognise equally that there needs to be some more conscientious effort made to carry out stop and search in such a way that it is substantively fair and is seen to be fair and proper. The current concerns do not give a reassuring picture and therefore we share those concerns. Q132 Mrs Dean: You have no evidence of increased stop and search of Sikh communities? Mr Khan: For the simple reason as Sadiq has said quite plainly, that with stop and search as with racist attacks on Sikhs as with many other forms of crime on Sikhs and on Muslims and many other groups, there is no form of monitoring. If I were to be stopped and searched tomorrow on the street, there is no mechanism by any police force in place now which would register the fact that Jagdeesh Singh was stopped and searched on such‑and‑such a road, a person of Sikh ethnic origin, a person of Sikh religion. I would just be a blob on their report with no ethnic or religious significance. That is one of the core issues that we have highlighted in our document and hope to further elaborate on during the course of our discussion today. There needs to be comprehensive and clear‑cut monitoring so that you know which groups are being stopped and you know which groups are being victimised and you know which groups are being subjected to the criminal process in whichever way they are. Q133 Mrs Dean: Could I ask Mr Grunwald, do you have any information that you could give us on the variations between authorities on stop and search? Mr Grunwald: No we do not, I am afraid. We cannot assist on that. Q134 Mrs Dean: Thank you very much. Can I ask then if either Mr Khan or Mr Singh have any feelings about any police force that could be cited as a model of good practice as far as this is concerned? Mr Jagdeesh Singh: We certainly do not know of such an example. There may well be but we are not mindful of such an example. Q135 Mrs Dean: Mr Khan? Mr Khan: As I say, the police have a hard time and we recognise that. I think that the Met Police deserve a mention. You have a Met Police Authority which is holding to account its police officers and you have a police force that has set up a Muslim Safety Forum that meets regularly with Muslim groups. There are issues about who is on there and the accountability stuff but I think those are issues of detail. The main thing is that you have senior members of the Met Police meeting with Muslim communities and coming along to meetings. I think it is worthy of mention as is the leadership shown by the Mayor of London and the pilot project set up to do with recommendation 61 of Lawrence about giving records of stop and search, for example. So if I were doing a school report on the Met I would say "work in progress, doing okay, a lot more to be done." It is also working very hard on recruitment and retention, so I think there are good examples of the Met Police doing some good work but there is clearly more that can be done. Q136 Chairman: Can I just confirm a couple of points. Mr Khan, you have said that you have not heard anything from the Minister about the stop and search group that was set up. We were told it was going to be set up in the summer. Is that you personally or as far as you are aware the MCB? Mr Khan: The MCB. We are involved in the Met project. There are two separate things, Chairman. There is a national thing and the question was about variation which is why the national thing is more important. We are involved with the Met Police work and Khalid is on the Met Police group, but it is the national work which is more important with regard to best practice. Q137 Chairman: And so far as you are aware the MCB has had no contact about that? Mr Sofi: Can I just explain, there are two things. One is the Metropolitan Police has set up a stop and search steering group. We are there but we have been told that although the action team has not taken off fully a community panel is being set up and ministers have identified someone as chairman but they will announce it at the appropriate time. That is information we were given in that steering group but nothing else has been officially sent to us at the MCB. That was information given to us in that steering group. Q138 Chairman: I ask because that is something we can pursue as a Committee. Mr Khan: Yes, please. Chairman: Mr Taylor? Q139 Mr Taylor: My first question perhaps is primarily to you, Mr Khan, if I may. You argue, I understand, that the fact that complaints have not risen in line with stops and searches suggests that there is a loss of confidence in the authorities. Would you first of all confirm if that is your view and, secondly, say what you think should be done to address the matter? Mr Khan: Thank you for the question. I reread that this morning and I think it would be unfair to accuse the IPPC of lacking the confidence of the community simply by the low level of complaints made to the IPPC. I think that would be unfair and probably the way it is written is not as tight as it could be. Our views are this ‑‑‑ Q140 Mr Taylor: Mr Khan, the last thing I want to do is to give you the impression that I am trying to put words into your mouth. If you think I put an unreasonable proposition to you, you must correct it, please. Mr Khan: You have read verbatim, I am afraid. It is the chicken and egg. If there is under-reporting or a low level of complaints, does that equate to customer satisfaction or does that equate to people not being aware that a complaints system exists or not having confidence in it? Frankly, we are not in a position to say which of those things it is. I do know from recent experience and work with the IPPC that they are working terribly hard. They had a meeting with Muslim and community groups to try and raise awareness of the IPPC. They went independent in April of this year and they are making efforts, so I think, I am afraid, I want to amend our written submission by saying ‑‑‑ Q141 Mr Taylor: --- Please do. Mr Khan: ‑‑‑ we do a disservice to the IPPC by saying you can equate lack of confidence in the IPPC with the low level of complaints. That is unfair. Chairman: Thank you very much for that. It is a rare thing for a witness to do. Q142 Mr Taylor: I think that was very fair. My next question perhaps is more appropriate to Mr Singh. You say that terrorist profiling has led to Sikhs being subject to more scrutiny. Do you think that Sikhs are disproportionately subject to stop and search? If so, what effect is it having? In other words, are your community getting more stop and search than would be numerically appropriate perhaps? Mr Jagdeesh Singh: Certainly immediately following 9/11 there has been a consistent pattern of what we would call "irregular" stops and searches at airports of Sikh passengers fitting an appearance like me. We would often be taken to one side, taken through a series of questions for ten minutes, asked what we are wearing, what we are carrying, where we are going, and so forth. It would be done in quite a visible manner such that we would be made to feel irregular, we would be made to feel that we were being picked out. That kind of experience continued for at least 12 to 18 months following 9/11 and was a matter of great concern. This pattern of stop and search at airports was reported widely at Heathrow Airport and also at other British airports but primarily at Heathrow Airport. Be that because Sikhs travel perhaps mostly through Heathrow Airport but it was a matter of concern. Q143 Mr Taylor: What about Birmingham Airport, Mr Singh? Mr Jagdeesh Singh: The odd incident occurred there but they seemed to be obscured by the large quantity of incidents at Heathrow Airport. Heathrow Airport by far was the most prominent venue for this. There was much concern on that. That kind of stop and search at airports seems to have subsided now almost to a point where it is virtually non‑existent. Stray instances, as we would call them, do occur off and on but they seem to have petered out now. Mr Khan: Could I just jump in on the Chairman's question. Schedule 7 of the Anti‑Terrorism (Crime and Security) Act allowed the authorities power to stop people at airports and ports. One of the complaints we have had ‑ and we have been to a port visit ‑ is forget religious monitoring, there is no ethnic monitoring of the stops done at airports. They can detain you for up to seven hours without access to a solicitor. You cannot delay the interview by saying that you are waiting for a solicitor. There is no monitoring done either in ethnic terms or in religious terms, so to answer your question, we do not know how bad a problem it is because no records are kept. Q144 Mr Taylor: I think that was the point you were developing earlier. Mr Jagdeesh Singh: Could I add one brief comment. Q145 Chairman: Very briefly, if you would. Mr Jagdeesh Singh: Prior to the current 9/11 situation and the terrorist legislation, there was a long period prior to this where Sikhs were subjected to regular stops and searches at airports, specifically Sikh activists in this country. I know that from personal experience. We would be stopped, our baggage would be checked, our documents would be photocopied. Even one instance when I was off to the United Nations in Geneva once, my passport was checked and my dossier was photocopied. I wanted to highlight that, that that was a period of time where stops and searches at airports were being carried out quite regularly on Sikh activists. Q146 Chairman: That was a period of time, was it not, when there certainly were very strong allegations that there was active Sikh terrorism around the world associated with political movements in the Punjab, the blowing up of an Air India aircraft, and so on. Can I put to you a question that in a previous session was put to Muslim witnesses. If there is a type of terrorism which appears to be associated with a particular cultural or ethnic or religious group is it unreasonable for the authorities to pay particular attention to members of that group? Most recently that question has come up in the context of Muslims in Britain. The period you were discussing was a time when there was said to be active Sikh terrorism. Was it unreasonable for the authorities to pick out Sikh activists? Mr Jagdeesh Singh: It is not unreasonable for any government or any authority to carry out proportionate monitoring, checks, balances, investigations on any type of population, be it Sikh or otherwise. Whether there are allegations proven or otherwise, it is fair to investigate and monitor. However, where Sikh activists are going about lawful behaviour, for example as I was in this particular instance at Gatwick Airport going to Geneva to the UN Human Rights Committee. I had no linkage to any particular group of any contention, to have irregularly stopped me and questioned me and photocopied my documents --- Chairman: I am going to stop you in mid‑sentence but I think you have made your point well. We are going to have to adjourn for 12 minutes for a division. The Committee adjourned from 3.46 pm to 3.57 pm for a division in the House.
Chairman: We will resume the session. Mr Taylor? Q147 Mr Taylor: I did have one other question, thank you Chairman, before the adjournment, which was designed perhaps for Mr Grunwald or Mr Whine. Gentlemen, you suggest, as I understand it, that the police should be given powers "to question suspects and seize papers, camera film, et cetera, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that surveillance is being carried out preparatory to a terrorist attack." My question is why do you think that such a broad extension is justified when existing anti‑terrorism powers have already been widely criticised for being too broad and open to misuse? Mr Whine: This comment evolves out of discussions that we have been holding with the police. If you look at recent acts of terrorism, particularly highlighted by the attacks on American embassies in East Africa, you will remember that these were preceded by fairly lengthy periods of surveillance by the terrorists or the people working for and with the terrorists. That, in fact, is part of the modus operandi of modern terrorism. You cannot attack a target unless you know your way about that target, you know your way inside, exits and entrances, and times of use, and so on, so an attack on a target has to be preceded by surveillance. We have received reports from Jewish communities in this country and from Jewish communities abroad that over recent years (preceding 9/11 but certainly an increase since 9/11) they are the subject of surveillance. It is often very difficult to trace that back to who is doing the surveillance but there is very clearly a picture emerging that Jewish communities around the world and in this country are the object of scrutiny by people who intend them harm. As a consequence of that, the Metropolitan Police Service have set up something called Operation Lightening which is a national operation which we and indeed others feed into which reports these sorts of instances ‑ occupants within a car were seen filming a building, or somebody tried to get access a building who really had no right to gain entrance, or strange questions were being asked ‑ which somebody needed to put all this together. A specific power which would enable the police to stop somebody who may have been caught in committing such acts and to say to them, "May I see what is in your bag? May I take the film from your camera?" is an additional power that the police feel that they would make good use of in these circumstances. Q148 Mr Taylor: Is it within your knowledge that the police have actually promoted the desire to have such a power? Mr Whine: They have said so to us. Whether they have done so directly to Parliament yet or whether they have spoken to people framing future legislation or not, I do not know. Mr Taylor: Thank you very much. Q149 Chairman: Having heard what we have heard this afternoon from other witnesses do you share their concern that a further extension of powers might trigger further concern? Mr Whine: I can see that could be the case. Q150 Mr Singh: It is quite clear, having listened very carefully, that there are similar concerns but also different concerns that each community has and I am fairly impressed in terms of the contacts at national level or regional level between leaders of communities. That is fine and I think it is good and it proper and it should happen, but what are relations like between communities at grass‑roots community level? Are your conversations or your meetings having an impact at that level or is it just having an impact at the "worthies" level, if I can put it that way. Mr Whine: It is the point I briefly referred to before. We are very keen to foster good contact between ourselves and other communities. I cited a couple of examples on the ground of bottom‑up initiatives between the Jewish and Muslim communities. I think those are clearly more effective than the top‑down initiatives. Just to give you some more examples. We were discussing last year with the Turkish Muslim community ‑ it is a large community and people do not look at it as a discrete community but it is - school exchange trips with kids from Turkish Muslim communities going to visit Jewish schools and vice versa. There was a series of synagogue and mosque visits planned. That has not happened yet but it has already been happening between some Jewish day schools and some of the Muslim community schools. There are exchanges between the religious seminaries, not as many as one would like but nevertheless they are beginnings. If you can get in at this ground level and foster these sorts of contacts you are going to have a much longer term beneficial effect than the imposed top-down contact which is the sort that takes place between ourselves and the MCB, for example. Having said that, we have relations with other communities. Interest is not just with the Muslim community. In our written evidence we refer to a couple of initiatives. There is a long-standing one between the Hindu and Jewish communities through the Indian‑Jewish Association. There have been umpteen contacts in recent years with the Ismaili Community. We at the Community Security Trust have been assisting National Church Watch which is a Church of England security organisation established to protect churches which have been subject to theft and attacks on clergymen and so on. So we have a real long‑term commitment to developing not just the top‑down but also the bottom‑up contacts. Q151 Mr Singh: That makes sense. Going on to Mr Singh and Mr Khan, having lived in this country all my life and faced racism and dealt with racism certainly from white racists and Fascist organisations, what I notice today is that people are prepared to articulate things that they were never prepared in many ways, apart from that route, to articulate before. Not just one group white against Asian or whatever but between communities at grass‑roots level, saying things about communities which I have never heard in my life but I am now hearing as common place. What do we do about that? Mr Jagdeesh Singh: Sorry, articulate what? Q152 Mr Singh: What I am trying to say is that in my lifetime for the first time I am hearing articulated venom and hatred between communities - intra‑community hatred - which I did not hear before. What can we do about that? Mr Jagdeesh Singh: What do we do about that? What can we do about that? Very quickly, I believe that communities have moved on from what they were 40 years ago. Certainly the Asian population which arrived in its different blocs in the 1960s and 1970s arrived initially as ordinary migrants. They have now moved on, they have settled, they have bought houses, their children have settled, new generations have emerged, communities have become more conscious of themselves, and therefore their aspirations and their perceived needs have diversified. In that process of, if you like, separation and diversification different concerns, aspirations and perceptions have come into play. If we take the case study of Sikhs and Muslims, for example, a great deal can be said. Let's pick a few quick issues. There have been in places like Slough where the Sikh Community Action Network is from, years of tension between young people, young Sikh gangs, Muslim gangs, based on issues which remain very unclear to this day. Are they religious issues? Are they ethnic issues? Are they plain and simple anti‑social behaviour? Nonetheless, gangs have emerged and identified themselves around community groups and used their community emblems and their community identities as a basis to attack each other. As an organisation ourselves we have constantly tried to foster the view that both as a local society (ie Slough or indeed any such town) and as a national society (ie Britain, England, Scotland, Wales) whilst we bring with us different traditions and different histories if we are going to call this country our home, as I hope we would, then we have got to equally recognise with that that we need to live with each other as co‑citizens and that means having social relations with each other and cultural relations with each other, as well as political and economic relations with each other. What we cannot do and cannot afford to do and must not be doing is separating ourselves out even as we live side-by-side. For example I live in a house. I have a white neighbour this side and a white neighbour that side and I have a series of Muslim neighbours further down. To what extent do I interact and engage with my neighbours to my side? Do I talk to them? Do I have any social ties with them? Do I exchange anything with them? I feel that is a telling example about what level of social cohesion we have in our society at the moment. We have communities living side-by-side ‑‑‑ Q153 Chairman: Mr Singh, I am going to have to ask you to give us shorter replies. Mr Jagdeesh Singh: We have communities living side‑by‑side in large numbers but they are living ignorantly of each other. There is no active engagement and I believe there need to be initiatives both from within the community and from external government influence to encourage interaction. Mr Khan: What I would say is that the ability for different races and religions at the grass‑roots level to integrate is limited by a number of social factors. For example, if you are a North African Muslim asylum seeker living on a council estate in an inner city, the likelihood of you meeting ‑ this is a sweeping generalisation but it is to illustrate a point ‑ somebody who is from the Jewish faith is less than it would be if you lived in another part of the country. So the ability to integrate with different races is limited by what you see on TV to a large extent, by the media, so the perception you have, wrongly, of the Jewish faith is by what you see in the media as opposed to human contact that you have with one another. So there is an issue, with the best will in the world, where many people at grass-roots level simply do not meet a person of the Jewish faith or whatever. There is an issue there and that is just the reality of where we are today. If you look at all the league tables, whether it is poor housing, health needs, social deprivation, unfortunately, Muslims are there and are the most socially deprived, so there is an issue about the ability that they have to meet other faiths and so they rely a lot upon the experiences they have with the media in their perception of the Jewish faith and others. There is a point about this issue of ethnic minority upon ethnic minority hate crime. It is a serious issue but there are good examples. For example, the police worked on Operation Trident on black crime where leadership was provided by the police and by the Government to empower black communities to understand that this is an issue that affects them. There may well be an argument for some sort of leadership provided to ethnic minorities. It is not just the Fascists and right‑wing white groups that are propagating hate crime. It may be one or two minorities as well so there may be an issue around that. Q154 Mr Singh: In terms of the context of this inquiry - terrorism and race issues ‑ do you think local councils could do more to reassure communities and bring them together? Mr Khan: Do not forget there is now a positive duty on local councils provided by the Race Relations Amendment Act to promote good race relations. It does not extend to religion and there is an issue there. Although the lacuna will be closed to some extent by the extension of goods and services to religion in the Queen's Speech, it will not extend to a positive duty to promote good religious and race relations so, yes, of course local councils can and very often they do do quite a lot of good things with race equality schemes and impact assessments before they pass legislation. We must not forget that there is a hierarchy of rights at the moment with regard to race and case law definition of race and religion. Mr Grunwald: If I could just say to you that we must not lose sight of the fact that there are 140 local inter‑faith groups up and down the country which ought to be encouraged both nationally and by local authorities to increase their activities and to try to remove the ignorance which is at the root of the comments which you now say you are hearing in a way that you have never have before. That certainly is something that should be encouraged. Having stressed the importance of grass roots activity there is also a responsibility on the leadership of all the minority communities themselves not only to promote good relations but not to use language which might inflame members of their own groups and cause tension to increase which gives rise to just the sort of comments that you have been referring to. There is a responsibility on us as the leaders of those groups to prevent that happening. Q155 Mr Singh: Mr Singh, you mentioned inter‑racial violence against Sikhs. Is your local authority, Slough, doing anything to help? Mr Jagdeesh Singh: There is no recognisable initiative from Slough Borough Council on the subject. This is where we have a very commendable and a very, even if I do say so myself, impressive example of the Sikh Community Action Network empowering its community to get up and do something. There has not been any official input or resourcing for reporting or information dissemination or anything like that. That is an example of a community deciding let's get ourselves up and dust ourselves down and let's do it if nobody else is going to do it. Certainly we agree there needs to be responsibility from within the communities as well. We cannot expect government ‑ local government, central government ‑ to spoon feed us. What we can reasonably expect is for them to provide proportionate resourcing and empowerment - political, financial and otherwise - so that we can do this, I think local authorities can play a major role. If I can give you two quick examples. The Macpherson Report made great mention about schools and their major role in reducing racism and developing a culture of equality, diversity and so forth. In Slough we see little evidence of that. We do not see any significant local authority input into that and we do not see any significant input by schools into that subject either. We have also recommended to Slough, as we would to other towns and cities across Britain, to explore twinning their towns with places from other parts of the world as against the standard European towns, say, in France or Germany. Let's explore twinning our towns and making a formal friendship with Lahore or Amritsar or places like that. Let's expand and let's extend beyond the routine. Those kinds of simple yet powerful initiatives would help to give the communities in those local towns a sense of inclusion and involvement, a sense of belonging, a sense of stakeholding, of yes our town is our town, our town is twinned with our home town back home and we have a sense of pride in that. Those kinds of simple, powerful initiatives need to be done. Q156 Mr Singh: Mr Khan, in terms of initiatives, the Home Office is making a great deal of the Met's Police Muslim Contact Unit. What is your view about the Muslim Contact Unit? Mr Sofi: It is a good initiative and it is welcome but we still need to assess its progress. There are issues about accountability, who will represent the community, and what background they have. So we need to really assess it further before we commit and say that it is the best model, but it is a good beginning. It is meeting up and concerns are raised. Its constitution has not been fully finalised. The terms of reference are still in discussion as is who sits on the Muslim Safety Forum. There are a lot of other issues that have not been fully resolved so we cannot really say with certainty that is the best model and that it will resolve the problems. We need to wait and see and then assess and see where we go from that. Q157 Mr Singh: We have heard criticism of the counter‑terrorism legislation. Given that the Government is not going to repeal the legislation, and I do not think any government will whether it is in power or not, what more can the Government do to reassure communities, in this context where scapegoating is taking place and stop and search is being used, and to build closer community relations? Mr Khan: There are some sunset clauses and some of us live in optimism and faith. The most important thing is for there to be a sense of accountability in the legislation that there is and that those who use the legislation are held to account if there are errors made. It is giving the community confidence that they are being properly protected. As I said at the outset, we all recognise that there is a positive duty on our Government to protect us, and that is right, and they are trying to discharge that responsibility as they deem best. There is also an obligation on government to not infringe our civil liberties and to provide us with the rights to go about our lawful business and not to have our privacy infringed, et cetera. It is a balancing exercise we have to consider. What concerns us is ensuring that when the Government uses these powers they are held to account properly. For example, the intelligence is properly analysed to see success rates. For example, where there is evidence that officers have overused their powers that they are disciplined properly and are held to account. For example, where you know that there is some intelligence which is poor that those methods of intelligence gathering are ceased and stopped and not used any more. For example, that the best practice from some police forces are utilised in other forces. You asked a question about community dialogue. As I said at the outset, there are some really good things that have come out of the horrific incidents and the counter‑terrorism measures. There is a really productive dialogue now beginning and a maturity in the community. As Jagdeesh said about empowering the community, we have seen over the last few years the community growing up and becoming more mature. I have given to the Clerk the rights and responsibilities card. We have seen leaders from various communities saying to their communities you have both rights and responsibilities. I think there is a lot more to be done but I still say that it is for the Government to justify that this infringement of liberties is proportionate and that the derogation of Article 5 of the European Convention is justified, and I do not think they have done that at the moment. Q158 Mr Singh: Mr Singh? Mr Jagdeesh Singh: I would pretty much endorse what Sadiq has said. There is little more I can add. The need for transparency, the need to apply it fairly and proportionately, and to be open and receptive to criticism and to have the courage to acknowledge where things go wrong. That would encourage confidence in the whole process. Q159 Mr Singh: Mr Grunwald or Mr Whine? Mr Grunwald: The worst possible damage to communal relations would be caused by a successful terrorist attack on a community in this country, on a target in this country, so as long as the Government is acting proportionately ‑ and as a community we have not experienced the problems that others have experienced ‑ then it is meeting the need, as the Chairman has said, which exists at the moment, and therefore what is being done is reasonable. Q160 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: The Government issued a document earlier on this year called Faith in the Communities. Have you received it and what do you think of it, given that it is first of its kind to be produced? Mr Khan: Is this a few months ago, Fiona MacTaggart? We did and we responded to it but I am afraid I could not answer that specifically. What I can say is that the relationship we have with the Home Office is infinitely better now than it ever has been and that dialogue is fostered by regular meetings with not just the Home Secretary but Fiona MacTaggart and other ministers in the Home Office. I cannot comment on that particular document. We do respond quite frequently to Home Office document and relationships are very good with the Home Office. Q161 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: I am very pleased you said that. Mr Grunwald: Is it the document Working Together? Q162 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Yes, it is. Mr Grunwald: Neville Nagler, who is the Director General of the Board of Deputies and sits behind me, sat on the working group to deal with that paper. We welcome any initiatives that the Home Office takes to improve relations between communities in this country. Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Thank you very much. Q163 Mr Green: Can we move on to the international aspects because we have heard a lot of encouraging evidence from all of you about efforts to promote harmony between faiths, but reading your evidence, the brutal truth is that each of you support the use of force in certain circumstances and you support some actions which others sitting at the table would regard as terrorism. How do you see your responsibility to try and avoid those very, very difficult issues from becoming issues which may seriously damage relations between your various communities on the streets of this country? Mr Khan first? Mr Sofi: We think that there should be no impact from international conflict in the UK and that is why MCB has been more into inter‑faith work and other work with communities. No way should it have an impact and we should work with all partners, faith communities, government, and others to make sure it does not happen. For example, conflict in Kashmir sometimes has repercussions here and whenever there is an incident there have been meetings between communities and we have made sure it does not happen. We do not think the UK should have anything to do with it internally. We live in the society, we live within the community and that is how it should be. Q164 Mr Green: Mr Singh? Mr Jagdeesh Singh: Largely to reiterate what has just been said by Khalid, we have gone through that very experience post‑1984 to 1995 and as a community we have been heavily tested by conflict in the Punjab with the tensions and the impact it has had on our families here. We have found that despite being a very active community in engaging in the disputes and the campaigns overseas that has not been a source of conflict with any other community here. We have consciously as a community encouraged ourselves not to make any issue a source of conflict here on the streets or in the neighbourhoods or in the general social cohesion of this country, and we have found that to be the case. We do not know of any stream or cycle of incidents that have erupted on the streets or in British society or any part of Britain as a result of the conflict in Punjab and therefore we can say with some confidence that disputes have occurred over there ‑ serious violent disputes, serious political disputes, long‑standing historical disputes which remain underway now ‑ but they have not had a violent effect here. We would like to keep it that way. One thing we would add, and add very forcefully, is that in this country while the British Government has seen it fit to do what it has done in terms of anti‑terrorism - banning various organisations and so forth - one thing very puzzlingly it consistently has done is to allow a prominent organisation, the VHP, to continue to function from North London from a prominent location ‑ ie the Neasden Hindu Temple. It is a well‑known organisation, well‑known for advocating the murder of Muslims in India, well‑known for promoting sectarian violence in India and well‑known for arming its followers systematically and training them in guerrilla violence in India. Its language of violence and language of sectarianism is public record in India. It functions from premises and not just any premises but the most prominent Hindu premises you could find in the whole of London ‑ the Neasden Temple in London. This matter has been raised in round table discussions with Home Office ministers again and again and again, but it appears to be something that the British Government does not want to do anything about. Q165 Mr Green: Does the Muslim Council share that view? Mr Khan: In our submission we mention them by name and there is obviously a concern about the feeling of double standards, yes. Mr Grunwald: We condemn terrorism in all its forms and we would call upon other communities to do exactly the same and not, as sometimes is given the appearance, seek to draw a distinction between one form of terrorism and another and to condemn some and not all. All terrorism is bad. All terrorism targets innocent individuals and should be condemned by everyone in this room. Q166 Mr Green: Do you share that view? Mr Khan: Absolutely. Q167 Mr Green: One of the other interesting things in your submission is that you say that tension in the Middle East inevitably results in an increase in anti‑Semitic violence. "Inevitably" seems quite a strong word in that context. Why do you think that it is inevitable? Mr Whine: For two reasons and we have illustrated that with the appendices to our submission. It is not something that is unique to this country, it is a worldwide phenomenon, meaning that whenever there is tension not just between Israel and its Palestinian neighbours but general tension in the Middle East we see an increase in anti‑Semitic violence around the world and in this country. Inevitable because that sort of tension is often accompanied by calls from people in the Middle East ‑ clerics, governments, non‑governmental organisations, a whole range ‑ for their support communities abroad to come to their aid. Secondly, the police in this country, and now indeed in other countries, recognise that tension in the Middle East is a trigger point, so for some years now when tension builds up in the Middle East we get called in by the police, as I am sure other community leaders do as well, and told, "Right, okay, what can we do to make sure that tension remains over there and does not manifest itself on our streets?" What we did in our submission at the back, if you remember, is that we gave a couple of points of tension ‑ violence between Israel and its neighbours or others in the Middle East ‑ and then traced the spill‑over effect in this country with the rise in incidents. Q168 Mr Green: One last point, again a sort of clearing up point for Mr Singh. You call for transparency in the handling of allegations of links with terrorist activities overseas. What would that mean in practice? Mr Jagdeesh Singh: Let me cite a live example. We have with us currently the case of Balbir Singh Bains in our submission. In a nutshell, Mr Singh has lived in this country for 25 years. He is an active Sikh linked to the Active Sikh Campaign based in the Punjab but living and working from here. He goes home, is arrested, is incarcerated for three years, is tortured in prison, is accused of all manner of terrorism. The Indian courts vindicated him very clearly and they said the entire allegations against him by the Indian government were completely unfounded. He then tries to return home, having cleared his name. The British Government refuses to allow him back home. He spends two years fighting going through the procedures, going through the whole rigmarole of trying to return home to his family. In contrast, with that we have the revealing case of Peter Bleach. Peter Bleach is a prominent British arms dealer convicted in the late 1990s of terrorism in India, having been found dropping arms in certain parts of India. Peter Bleach is sentenced to something like 20 years in prison in India by the Indian courts. He is put into prison and spends six years in prison. During the course of his six-year imprisonment the British Prime Minister, the British Home Secretary and the British Foreign Secretary make consistent and frequent calls directed to the Indian Prime Minister to release Peter Bleach. They circumvent the legal system of India and circumvent his legal conviction to send him back home. There is a clear favouritism for Peter Bleach, a convicted terrorist. In contrast, a Sikh activist who has not even been legally convicted continues to be accused of terrorism by the British Government even after his vindication is denied for two years in a rigmarole of process and bureaucracy permission to return home. He has now finally returned home last month. He had to go through this whole process of delays and double standards and lack of information and lack of transparency. In contrast Peter Bleach gets special treatment. Q169 Chairman: Thank you, Mr Singh. Mr Jagdeesh Singh: The treatment he is subjected to is quite revealing. Q170 David Winnick: We know, Mr Grunwald, the poisonous nature of anti‑Semitism which your organisation plays a leading part in combating. Can I put this point to you regarding the Middle East. Is there not a danger that some in the Jewish community, perhaps a minority but be that as it may, consider that any acute criticism of Israeli policy really amounts to anti‑Semitism? It is quite likely not a view of the Board collectively, one hopes not, but is there not a danger in using the term anti‑Semitism lightly (and we know in the Second World War anti-Semitism led to the extermination of six million people) and to those who disagree, as many of us do, very sharply indeed with Israeli policy, the tag of anti‑Semitism can come lightly when I am sure you do not believe that such a tag should be used? Mr Grunwald: We are extremely careful before alleging that anybody or anything is anti‑Semitic. Criticism of the policies of the Israeli Government is not anti-Semitism. The most vocal critics of the policies of the Israeli Government often come from within Israel itself, and that is one of the strengths of that country. Q171 David Winnick: I am talking about some, I am not talking about all. Do you try as a Board to persuade people that they should be very careful in using such terms when, as you have just indicated, there is no justification for it? Mr Grunwald: We do not bandy the allegation of anti‑Semitism lightly. We take it very, very seriously. Where we do have a concern is where trenchant criticism of an Israeli Government, whatever its political hue, turns into a denial of the very existence of the State of Israel and the right of the State of Israel to exist, and that, we say, is a form of anti‑Semitism. When people seek to deny to the Jews alone of all of people in the world a right to their own homeland, then, yes, we at the Board and the community generally would consider that to be anti‑Semitism. David Winnick: I understand the distinction. Q172 Mr Clappison: Very briefly to be clear on the terms we are talking about here, when we are talking about the repercussions of what happens in the Middle East ‑ and nobody can control that and people are entitled to different points of view ‑ and the anti‑Semitism which the community suffers, are we talking there about people saying things or is it a question of physical attacks upon people, of people being attacked because they appear to be Jewish, synagogues and cemeteries being desecrated and so forth? Mr Grunwald: It is physical attacks on buildings, on cemeteries and on people. I have every sympathy with Mr Singh when he described his experience before. Coming back to Mr Winnick's point, criticism of an Israeli Government is acceptable but when Jews, who are visibly Jewish because of their garb if they are Orthodox Jews and they are wearing their head covering in the street or they are wearing distinctive clothing because it is the Sabbath or a festival, are attacked in the street by people who accuse them of being dirty Zionists (because all too often now the phrase "dirty Zionist" is used when they mean "dirty Jew") they do not bother to ask that person a) if they would have any right to vote on an Israeli government or b) if they did, whether they would support the policies of a particular government. They do not bother because it is not in their minds. They see a Jew and in their mind they make a linkage which is completely unacceptable and they are attacked. That is the concern we have and that is why it is so important to all of us to try to decrease the tension which gives rise to that sort of incident happening. Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much indeed for a session. You have given us a great deal to think about. Also thank you in your individual capacities for the leadership roles that you are obviously playing within your communities and between communities, so thank you very much. |