Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-219)
MR ABDURAHMAN
JAFAR
31 OCTOBER 2005
Q200 Lord Judd: Do you have a view
on whether there is a possibility of effectively monitoring a
situation where somebody has been returned where there are assurances.
Do you think some means of effectively monitoring this could be
devised and if so how?
Mr Jafar: I think in some countries
that may be a useful method. I think it is one that we should
have had even before this whole issue has arisen with regard to
asylum seekers, etcetera, et cetera. I think it would be better
for a UN or an EU type of body to do this, which would be very
far dispatched from the Secretary of State's concerns.
Q201 Lord Judd: Could I just interrupt
you, because, as I understand it, I may be wrong but as I understand
it, most of the reputable international organisations have said
they want no part of a monitoring responsibility; so possibly
what is being examined now is, for example, the role of NGOs which
are indigenous to the country concerned. How do you feel about
that?
Mr Jafar: In the most extreme
countries which abuse their citizens there are no NGOs. There
can be no independent monitoring. Unless we can enforce some way
in which may be there can be conciliatory access to these detainees
on a periodical basis, I am uncertain, but I think inherently
one must be extremely cautious in returning to countries where
torture is systematic. I think it would be very difficult to uphold
a decision of an assurance from such a country because they have
been known to violate their obligations under international law.
Q202 Mary Creagh: Last week the Home
Secretary told us that the proposals out for consultation about
a new power to control a place of worship by orders rather than
by prosecutions were as a result of views expressed by the Muslim
community, that it would be better to proceed in this way to avoid
fostering extremism. What do you think about those proposals?
Do you think they are going to be workable in view of the difficulty
of defining a place of worship, particularly if it is in somebody's
garage, house or out on the street?
Mr Jafar: I think it was unnecessary
to have a place of worship. It seems to limit what could be a
good law, because there could be pubs that are used for that purpose.
In reality it was a dupe that was used for this purpose for the
Bradford bombers. There could be many institutions and proprietors
who could be asked to carry out these measures, and by limiting
it to a place of worship seems to not only question the effectiveness
of such a proposition but the factual basis of what happens, we
have got 1,100 mosques in this country and only one has ever been
infiltrated by the Muhajiroun and extremists, and that is the
case of the Finsbury Park Mosque. You cannot base a whole law
and executively propose to criminalise a community. What we are
doing in having provisions which potentially can order the closure
of mosques is to punish the community.
Q203 Mary Creagh: Can I make it clear,
the Government is consulting on a possible new power; it is not
a law at the moment; so these are observations that would be useful
to feed into that consultation process. What steps is the mainstream
Muslim community taking to prevent extremism in Mosques? The Home
Secretary cited an idea that had been put forward by the community.
If preaching were to take place in English, for example, what
would you say to that?
Mr Jafar: This has got very wide
support in the community. It is all about this debate, it is about
this development, it is about what is a second generation community
or a third generation really making its roots in this country
and owning this country as part of its own rather than being seen
as outside. These steps are commendable and very appropriate,
but I think the question is again wrong because it is not the
mosques where extremism takes place or takes root, or develops;
it is outside the mosques; it is in private homes; it is in gyms.
The mosque is very rarely a place where extremism develops. If
you look at the northern riots, none of the people involved in
those riots were a result of either Muslim schools or a result
of a mosque education. They were all secular educated, all adopting
lifestyles, which were football, etcetera, oriented, and so it
is not the mosque where these problems occur. I think the Muslim
community is doing a lot, not just in the mosque but outside the
mosque. In this month of Ramadan we have seen radio stations where
again the very important debates that need to take place within
the Muslim community are taking place. The MCB have undertaken
a consultation process with a huge number of youth organisations
to find out exactly what factors are facing them, what problems
they have, etcetera, and so a huge assessment of the youth in
the community, and this is amongst many, many other measures where
there is a very firm focus on the proposition that terrorism in
the UK must not be tolerated; but again we fear that that is being
diverted into a debate about disproportionality, about unfairness
under the current anti-terror legislation.
Q204 Mary Creagh: To go back to the Finsbury
Park Mosque, is it not the case that the fact that there were
no powers to deal with extremism in mosques an issue that meant
that the entire community was being punished already by the fact
that the mosque had been overtaken by extremists and most people
who lived round there had to find somewhere else to worship?
Mr Jafar: I think there was legislation.
What the extremists were doing in that mosque breached a lot of
laws. The problem was the community were not taken seriously.
They were not listened to. For over a decade they were approaching
the Charity Commission, the authorities, asking for help, asking
for intervention. These people were threatening, using violent
threats against members of the Muslim community, but there was
very little action and there needs to be more religious sensitivity
training in the police, there needs to be closer cooperation with
the police in order to have us not only as end users in terms
of subjects, but also as users of legislation, as users of the
criminal justice system.
Q205 Mary Creagh: You can understand
why the police were reluctant to intervene in that case?
Mr Jafar: I think it is because
of an historical inability to relate with the community. They
did not know us. They did not understand the issues. They had
no training terms of understanding the community, in terms of
understanding extremism. There would be great benefit in greater
diversity training, in greater sensitisation of religious issues.
Q206 Chairman: In relation to the
Finsbury Park Mosque, the Charity Commission, to be fair, issued
various orders but they had no power to enforce them, which was
one of the problems. We cannot go into that in detail because
the case is potentially sub judice?
Mr Jafar: Yes, but there are other
examples, individuals, certain clerics. Muslim have been calling
for prosecutions, have been providing evidence, and there has
been very little movement or these allegations are taken historically
with very little degree of seriousness.
Q207 Chairman: Maybe that is why
the Government is looking to strengthen the law.
Mr Jafar: A greater commitment
to serve the community without discrimination would also go towards
that.
Q208 Dr Harris: Are you aware of
the new list of unacceptable behaviour that the Home Secretary
issued in the summer which will inform his decision about deportation
or exclusion of foreign nationals, effectively, from this country?
Mr Jafar: Yes.
Q209 Dr Harris: You are aware of
it.
Mr Jafar: I am aware of what is
in the public domain, yes.
Q210 Dr Harris: What is your view
on the terms in which those unacceptable behaviours are couched?
For example—and I will read from it—"producing,
publishing, distributing material, public speaking, including
preaching, etcetera, to express views which ferment, justify or
glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs
or foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence
in the UK". Do you think that is just right, too narrow or
too broad?
Mr Jafar: I think it is extremely
broad. The Secretary of State already has discretion to exclude
people who are non-conducive to the national interest. That already
is very broad. I think that provision could be used. Again, the
problem with being more explicit for the Muslim community is that
there is a perception that it is targeting legitimate liberation
or resistance movements, which may sometimes use language which
in a UK context would not be correct.
Q211 Dr Harris: The Home Secretary
argues that in providing this list, although he says it is indicative
and not exhaustive, he is clarifying what is potentially a broad
power which is, as you said, conduct, or likely conduct, or something
like that, not conducive to the public good. Do you accept that
argument, that in specifying to a certain extent he is narrowing
and not broadening, even if you think the terms are broader than
you would like them to be?
Mr Jafar: But he is not replacing
the broader provision, the broader provision stays?
Q212 Dr Harris: Correct?
Mr Jafar: The point I am making
is that the objective is achieved either way. It is just that
the latter way seems maybe unjustifiable but it could be seen
by people who are very concerned about international issues to
be disproportionate and to be directed against silencing or censoring.
Q213 Dr Harris: My final question
is about the wording, and this is something I put to the Home
Secretary as well. Would you be happier, even though you are not
happy, if the Terrorism Bill, the places of worship guidelines
that you had discussions about and these unacceptable behaviours
all use the same terms like "encouragement of terrorism",
because the places of worship talks about fostering extremism,
which may or may not include the encouragement of terrorism and
this, as I have said, talks about fostering hatred and justifying.
Would you be happier, or simply never happy, if it was restricted
to a specific offence defined in the Terrorism Bill?
Mr Jafar: Yes, I think there has
to be consistency in the way we approach this issue. There are
many facets and different types of extremism. There is one type
which everyone agrees on, but that is just saying extremism per
se is not what everyone is against, and there is a potential
that . . . .
Dr Harris: I have been described as extreme
by government ministers, probably with some validity, in my time!
Q214 Baroness Stern: Can we just
have a little discussion about the extension of pre-charge detention?
My first question would be: do you accept that developments in
international terrorism, including the use of suicide bombers
(and this is certainly the evidence that the police have put to
us) present the police with new problems in ensuring public safety?
Mr Jafar: I think the bare assertion
that a suicide bomber necessitates a different approach to someone
who would place a bomb in a shopping-bag and leave it—I
cannot see the logic behind that. I can understand that international
terrorism requires a different approach, and I can certainly see
that there is justification for Parliamentary intervention and
new legislation, but not anything beyond 14 days. I do not think
a case has been made out for it at all.
Q215 Baroness Stern: So you are not
convinced by any of the justifications that the police have put
forward mainly about their operational difficulties in doing all
that they have to do within the 14 days?
Mr Jafar: No, I am convinced that
there is a need for measures to be taken to assist them, but there
can be amendments to bail, there can be amendments to the way
we approach charges, there can be amendments to having people
on control orders, surveillance, etcetera, but there are two options
that we have. We have one, increasing pre-trial detention which
has the potential of devastating hundreds of lives. To date Muslims
have been, as I have said, the end user of a lot of anti-terror
legislation disproportionately and it really does disaffect people.
Just by being arrested one night they are judged as being found
guilty in their community, and being detained for six months—I
am sorry, three months, which is the equivalent of six months,
it is very difficult to see how one can pick up their life after
an experience like that. I think 14 days separates western democracies
from other nations. There are other nations that use three months,
and they, like Sudan, like Libya, they all have three months'
pre-trial emergency detention.
Q216 Baroness Stern: We are talking
about pre-charge?
Mr Jafar: Yes, sorry, pre-charge,
not pre-trial.
Q217 Baroness Stern: Carry on.
Mr Jafar: I think a line needs
to be drawn with regard to what is acceptable. The arguments for
the 14-day extension in 2003 were almost identical to what is
being put forward as the justification for the three months. To
date the longest person kept in detention has been 13 days. There
have been some people detained, about three or four, for 10 days
and released without charge whatsoever, but there could have been
three months.
Q218 Baroness Stern: Would you be
opposed to any extension over 14 days?
Mr Jafar: Because the objectives
can be achieved by other methods, I would object, yes. I think
the police need their assistance, need Parliamentary intervention,
but there is no need for an extension of 14 days.
Q219 Baroness Stern: Lord Carlile,
who reviews the terrorism powers, as you know, said that the problem
is not about the length of the pre-charge detention but the safeguards
of the suspect during the period of pre-charge detention. Do you
agree with that?
Mr Jafar: I do agree. I was pointing
out countries which have three months pre-charge detention and
they invariably abuse human rights, and there seems to be a pattern
that people can easily admit to crimes they have not committed
in the period of three months. It is a very draconian measure
and I think it is disproportionate.
| 
