7.Memorandum submitted by the Church of
England
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. The Church of England shares the widespread
public concern about the impact of the threat of terrorism on
our national life. We are conscious that we are now living in
a world in which—as Lord Newton has put it—we would
not choose, and did not expect, to live, and that as a result
governments face unenviable dilemmas in seeking to reconcile security
and liberty.
2. We also share the widespread concern
about the consequent aggravation of tensions between different
ethnic and religious groups within our nation. Through its network
of parishes across the country the Church of England has a presence
in every local community; clergy and churches are often key players
in building bridges of inter-faith understanding and cooperation
between different groups. This makes us aware of the day-to-day
effects of governmental policies.
3. The major threat to community relations
in the present situation arises from the self-identification of
Al-Qaeda as an Islamic organisation claiming to defend and pursue
Islamic interests. This may encourage misrepresentation by some
people of Muslims and Muslim communities as supportive of terrorism,
and conversely misrepresentation of counter-terrorist measures
as essentially anti-Islamic. Over the past two years, the office
of the Archbishop of Canterbury has organised a series of local
"listening exercises" designed to hear the concerns
of a wide range of voices from Muslim individuals and groups across
England. It has become clear from these that many in the Muslim
community feel isolated, anxious, and misunderstood within wider
society as a result of the current situation.
4. The danger to community relations posed
by the threat of terrorism lies partly in its potential to exacerbate
existing tensions in the United Kingdom. These tensions are affected
both by the position of Muslims in our society, and by the overflow
of international conflicts into the domestic scene. Terrorism
itself is one form of overflow, and responses to geopolitical
events such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the war in
Iraq profoundly condition communal attitudes and behaviour.
5. The Act of 2000 defines terrorism in
terms of its objectives, and of its effects. First, it is stipulated
that "the use or threat [of action] is designed to influence
the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the
public, and. . .the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing
a political, religious or ideological cause." [Section 1(1)]
Second, that the action involves "serious violence against
a person...serious damage to property. . .endangers a person's
life. . .creates a serious risk to the health and safety of the
public, or. . .is designed seriously to interfere with or disrupt
an electronic system." [Section 1(2)]. Governments whose
societies are threatened by terrorism understandably treat it
primarily as a criminal act, in terms of its effects, and only
secondarily as a political act, in terms of its objectives.
6. Part of effective counter-terrorist policy
must therefore be to reassure those who may share certain political
sympathies or goals with terrorists that the policy is directed
against the violent methods of the terrorists rather than against
political objectives which would be legitimate if pursued by non-violent
means. Equally, to act against terrorists without sensitivity
towards the legitimate political interests and aspirations of
significant sections of society is likely to damage community
relations. British governments have long struggled with these
quandaries in Northern Ireland.
LEGISLATION AND
CIVIL LIBERTIES
7. Our concerns about counter-terrorist
legislation centre on the operation of the Terrorism Act 2000
and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCSA) 2001. Such
evidence as we have suggests that the power of arrest under the
2000 Act has been used disproportionately against Muslims. A number
of case studies, most recently that from the Institute of Race
Relations, suggest that while the great majority of those arrested
under the Act have been Muslim, the majority of those convicted
(a relatively low number) have been non-Muslim. Furthermore, most
of those arrested have either been released without charge, or
have seen charges dropped or thrown out of court.
8. Part 4 of ATCSA has been discussed intensively
on account of the power given to detain indefinitely foreign nationals
suspected of terrorism, subject to authorisation and review by
the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. This has necessitated
derogation from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human
Rights (the right to liberty) on grounds of national emergency.
The seriousness of this action means that its justification must
be subject to regular and careful review, since it now appears
that the emergency will be prolonged.
9. In the context of community relations,
we draw attention particularly to the differential treatment of
British and foreign nationals. Part 4 has created, with great
sophistication and care, an enclave of the criminal justice system
targeted on foreign nationals, with enhanced powers for the State
and weaker safeguards for suspects. The Government itself has
described these provisions as too draconian to be applied to British
citizens, but judges them necessary to deal with terrorist suspects
who cannot be deported. In addition to sharing doubts about its
compatibility with Article 14 of ECHR, we believe that Part 4
contributes powerfully to a sense of double standards of justice,
liberty and dignity as between British citizens and others, most
of whom are Muslims, and indirectly to a sense of injustice among
British Muslims. We support the recommendation of both the Newton
Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights that new efforts
should be made to frame legislation which deals with all terrorism
regardless of the nationality of suspects and that such legislation
should not require a derogation from ECHR.
POLICING
10. The perception of discrimination between
Muslims and others extends from the operation of counter-terrorist
legislation to more general policing strategy. Both anecdotal
and statistical evidence suggest that in recent years stop and
search powers have been employed disproportionately against Muslims
(eg the Metropolitan Police District stop and search rates for
Asian and white people respectively between 2001 and 2002). While
this situation is not the same as that facing black communities
in earlier times, confrontational methods of policing are likely
to prove counter-productive, as they risk increasing radicalisation
of young Muslims, in particular. The operation of such policing
strategies needs also to be set against a social background of
under-achievement, deprivation and consequent alienation among
many Muslim communities.
11. There is concern that Muslims involved
in credit card fraud or forgery have been treated as suspected
terrorists, so that extra powers available under counter-terrorist
legislation have been extended to routine criminal investigations.
While it is true that routine offences could be committed "preparatory
to terrorism", this is a disturbing trend which merits scrutiny.
It also appears that some arrested under anti-terrorist legislation
have subsequently been re-arrested by the immigration service
and held in custody as security risks despite the absence of criminal
charges.
12. There is admittedly a problem when interpreting
statistics which show differential treatment, in knowing whether
factors other than discrimination could explain them. It can be
argued that counter-terrorist operations directed against Al-Qaeda
could be expected to affect the Muslim population disproportionately,
but the scale of the disparity in a number of areas and the lack
of objective justifications for it suggest that the explanation
is unlikely to be reassuring. That Muslim communities experience
counter-terrorist policy as discriminatory and threatening is
a serious cause for concern.
MEDIA REPORTING
AND STIGMATISATION
OF MINORITY
GROUPS
13. In a situation where perceptions on
all sides are crucial, the role of the media is of great significance.
It is to be regretted that reporting, particularly in the national
press, frequently seems to reinforce prejudices and stereotypes.
Such phrases as "Islamic terrorism" encourage the misrepresentations
mentioned in paragraph 3 above, while comment is often shaped
by unsympathetic portrayals of all Muslims as unreasonable, violent
or (applying a misleading word drawn from Christian use) "fundamentalist".
We believe it is incumbent on politicians to speak with care and
sensitivity on these matters, especially in the period leading
up to a general election.
14. We believe that media reporting needs
to be more aware of the diversity of opinion and practice within
the Muslim community, and more responsible in seeking the views
of leading figures within that community who can speak with credibility
and understanding. It is very unfortunate that the opinions of
a handful of unrepresentatively extreme figures are regularly
given prominence. We sympathise with the position of Muslim community
leaders who are firm in their repudiation of terrorism but find
themselves outflanked in the media on one side by mavericks from
their own ranks and on the other by criticism from those who equate
Islam with "militancy". We regard it as vital that their
voices are heard and reported.
15. It is also unsatisfactory that reporting
tends to concentrate upon dramatic incidents of arrest, carrying
implications of guilt and dangerousness, while failing to report
with the same prominence subsequent dropping or dismissal of charges.
Thus the impression is given that Muslims are being arrested and
convicted of terrorism in large numbers, whereas the truth is
quite opposite, and the outcome is to increase public fear and
prejudice.
16. While we recognise that it is the Muslim
community which has most strongly expressed its sense of stigmatisation
and isolation in the present climate, we recognise that others
too feel under pressure. The Jewish community has experienced
both an increase in attacks, against both individuals and property,
and also a degree of hostility, resulting from the Middle Eastern
situation, unprecedented since 1945. Recognising the need for
people to be able to engage in robust criticism of the policies
of the Israeli—or any other—government, we are concerned
that this sometimes crosses the line into public expression of
anti-Semitic views, whether openly or implicitly.
17. We recognise that other visible minorities
have felt exposed and vulnerable. Because of their appearance,
Sikhs have been abused as accomplices of, or sympathisers with,
Osama bin Laden. Hindus, Christians and others from minority ethnic
backgrounds have all experienced increased levels of hostility
and suspicion.
18. Recently the tense national and international
situation has inhibited the trust and patience on which constructive
inter-faith relationships are built; consequently, community relations
are in danger of fragmentation in many places. In these circumstances,
a renewed commitment to the support of constructive inter-faith
engagement through adequate education and positive reporting is
crucial.
19. The incidence of hostility and discrimination
towards minority religious groups in Britain makes it necessary
to protect their rights and safeguard their interests as members
of society. The unequal legal protection offered to different
religions is a cause of discontent, particularly among Muslims,
and good community relations require this to be rectified. The
Government has favoured the creation of a new offence of "incitement
to religious hatred" and in 2002 the Church of England expressed
qualified support for such a measure.
20. We continue to support the proposal,
along with representatives of other faith communities, believing
that this would also provide a check on hateful and inflammatory
rhetoric emanating from the margins of the Muslim community. We
note, however, anxieties that the offence would inhibit freedom
of speech, and we emphasise the importance of ensuring that legislation
penalises the religiously-motivated incitement of harm against
people, rather than robust argument (whether in promotion or criticism
of religious beliefs and practices) which some may find divisive
or offensive.
CONCLUSION
21. Religions are frequently censured for
their contribution to human conflict and division. While there
is some justice in these criticisms, the religions also possess
in their traditions resources for evoking trust, making peace
and living with danger while resisting panic, despair or violence.
These resources are potentially a gift to our society as it wrestles
with the threat of terrorism, but the potential will be fulfilled
only if the various faith communities are able to work together
in the cause of peace and justice. The Church of England is committed
to making a constructive and wholehearted contribution to that
process.
14 September 2004
| 
