Patrick Ward | ukwatch.net

Interview: Moazzam Begg

JamieSW — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:26:41 +0000

Operation end your freedom

The government won the House of Commons vote to extend detention without trial to 42 days. What do you think about this attack on civil liberties?

It's important to remember that the government didn't want 42 days - they wanted 90 days and they've settled for less than half of that. What's really bizarre for me is that I was at the protest close to Downing Street when George Bush visited and I actually caught a glimpse of him.

In 1996 the IRA fired a home-made mortar very close to Downing Street. Despite all of that and the whole of the period of the Troubles in the 1970s, detention without trial - other than internment, which I think was terrible - never went beyond three days as far as the law was concerned. That it's now 42 is unbelievable. The government do have the power - regardless of whatever it wants on pre-trial detention - to detain people without charge or trial, and they've done that in the case of several people held in Belmarsh prison who have been detained for seven to eight years plus.

One lawyer has said it's tantamount to torture because of the conditions under which people are kept, often without light or contact with people.

The United Nations convention against torture defines it as being both physical and psychological. It's not just about fingernails being pulled out or being waterboarded or hooded. The psychological effects of being detained without trial are very real. They destroy not only the individual - they destroy their family; they destroy the individual's ability to reintegrate back into society, to get a job. I know many individuals who have never been charged with anything and yet they can't be cleared to do any of the jobs they were trained to do to begin with. It's a bizarre concept because the government is always harping on about how Muslims need to integrate.

How have you been treated by the government and media since your release from Guantanamo?

The government hasn't treated me in any particular way, other than not allowing me to leave the country without express permission - a condition for my release and the release of others at the same time. Other than that the government hasn't really put any stops on me at all and hasn't caused me any problems. I have even spoken inside the House of Commons many times.

The public has been fine. I spend most of my time speaking up and down the country to thousands of people and I get a tremendous response from the average person. I get very little, if any, hostility from people at all. As far as the media is concerned, it varies. Most of the time they call on me to comment on one thing or another, but what I often have to say is that it's sad that we're walking into a situation nearing that of a police state.

Samina Malik, the "lyrical terrorist", has recently won the appeal against her charges. There was a big furore when she was first convicted and very little coverage now that she has won the appeal.

I've met people, from the heads of the BBC to ITN, and spoken to them about these specific issues - the sensationalist style of reporting on issues surrounding Muslims - and they've often said that they have to get there before the Sky News helicopter.

There doesn't seem to be an onus on good quality reporting. It seems to be more about what fits the pattern. So when a former member of the British National Party was arrested for possessing a huge haul of chemicals which could be used for explosives in Pendle last year, they felt it wasn't newsworthy in the same way that it would have been had he been a Muslim. It is sad, but it's the reality. Sensational reporting will take place when there's an arrest but there will be very little if that person is released or found not guilty. The media decides to take upon itself to become the mouthpiece of government policy.

What has been the impact of all this on young Muslims today? Has it got to the stage where people don't know what's legal and what isn't?

I don't think it's just Muslims actually. I think most people are confused as to what they can and can't do. How does somebody avoid the sort of prosecution cases we've seen against the "lyrical terrorist" or people who've downloaded things from the internet? People don't really know what the parameters of the law are any more. I remember discussing this with some former IRA prisoners of war who were released as part of the Good Friday Agreement, and one of the things they said was that at least in their time they were convicted of things that they did, or were planning to do.

Today people are being convicted literally for thoughts; for looking at things, for having something on a computer or having a copy of the Al Qaida manual downloaded from a US government website. It's ludicrous.

What was your aim when you started writing your book in Guantanamo?

I wanted people to learn from it. In a sense the book was about my experience with the US and of the US. I'd never been there before it came to me. But it was for US soldiers and also British soldiers who are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also for the British public, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

For the Muslims it was to give strength and hope, and for the non-Muslims to give a glimpse of a world parallel to them but that perhaps they don't know very well. We're not so different; we all want the same things. We want security; we want happiness. We love; we get angry; we get upset.

That was my intention, to make people understand. Not necessarily to empathise or sympathise - not everyone is going to be my friend just because they think I've been tortured or abused. I want to look beyond that and look at the society we're in. It's not just about tolerance - we can tolerate anything - it's about acceptance. If they can accept difference, then that's the Britain that I thought we were heading towards and wanted.

Are you surprised at the support you have when you give talks?

The support is tremendous. It's so difficult to quantify. It's massive, and it's continuous. Last night I was speaking in Cambridge and a lady came up to me at the end and said, "I've never been at political meetings, I've never been involved in these sorts of things, but just listening to you has made me want to be involved more than I ever was and I am going to make it a point upon myself to learn about things before I ever make judgements."

Some people may have some fixed views, but once they face them they'll find that they've been mistaken. I'm trying to break stereotypes, to explain to people that we are not, and I am not, representative of what they may have assumed.

The US still claims that it does not use inhumane treatment at Guantanamo. How does this sit with your own experiences?

We have a detention site in Cuba where there is no freedom, and outside the walls and the cages you have written on the plaques "Honour bound to defend freedom". They called it "Operation: Enduring Freedom", but freedom isn't something that you endure. Freedom is a right for every creature on this planet, from the point that it's born to the point that it leaves its life.

The things that you have to endure are torture; cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment; being beaten, punched and spat at; humiliation; pain without charge or trial; being falsely imprisoned; being held away from your family. They should call these things "Operation: End Your Freedom". It would be nearer the truth.

Guantanamo has become untenable. Even Colin Powell, one of the architects of the "war on terror", has waded in. He wasn't one of those further on the right, but he was certainly there. He called for the closure of Guantanamo Bay. It has become chic to call for its closure - everybody's doing it.

But Guantanamo is the tip of the iceberg. What lies beneath is much more sinister and causes much more damage - the secret detention sites where the majority of the people held in the "war on terror" are. After going through some of those secret detention sites, I was looking forward to going to Guantanamo.

What impact have organisations like Liberty and Reprieve made in highlighting the conditions of prisoners and people who've suffered rendition?

I think they have made an impact - there's no doubt about that. Clive Stafford Smith, of Reprieve, was the first person I met in Guantanamo. There is also my own organisation, Cage Prisoners, which consists of prisoners. The organisations are very good but they speak on our behalf and they need to hear what we - the prisoners, the people who went through and continue to go through the process - have to say about what happened.

One thing that has surprised people is your level of sympathy with the Guantanamo prison guards.

The important thing to remember is that they are individuals, and I dealt with them and judge them according to my experiences with them. There are some good, some bad and some in between. People are complex characters.

Many of the soldiers treated me and other detainees in a decent way. It's important not to let any personal experience of torture or witnessing murder cloud my judgement of the others who were appalled that it was taking place, are appalled now, and have apologised for their wrong - even though they didn't take part in the torture. I think it's important to recognise that many of these people have now become outspoken against the "war on terror" and their own government, which requires a level of courage and bravery which should be commended.

But as far as the system they were part of then, yes, it is one that destroys lives and continues to do so. If the argument is that this has happened as a result of the 11 September 2001 attacks, well, it happened seven years ago. The deaths in the US stopped on 11 September. Deaths have not stopped in Afghanistan and Iraq from the day they were invaded. You cannot justify the deaths of untold numbers - millions perhaps. But who knows? who cares? who counts? - because of the tragic deaths on 11 September.

I spoke to one of the Guantanamo guards, and suggested organising a speaking tour. He said he was happy to do it. I'm concerned for his safety more than anything else - particularly on his return to the US having spoken on a platform with a former Guantanamo detainee. After all, his president did designate us as "the worst of the worst, most dangerous men on the planet". But if he's able to do so then I will be too.

You wrote about how you heard about the Stop the War demonstrations in Britain when you were in Guantanamo. What effect did that have on you personally and on British society today?

The Stop the War movement has become a buffer between people who may want to carry out acts of violence on innocent Westerners, and the government itself that does carry out acts of violence against people in the Middle East.

I had a conversation with the only self-described member of Al Qaida I've met, in Guantanamo. He said that people in the West are not innocent because they vote in their leaders and therefore must share part of the blame. I explained that most people vote on domestic issues like the health service and roads. I said that you'll probably find a great number of them don't support the war, but when you strike you don't discriminate. Then he started thinking about it a little bit.

The Stop the War movement is a buffer which helps prevent terrorism in a way that the government would never conceive; when they see people demonstrating against the war it helps to pacify some of the radical elements who would otherwise have said, "They're all the same - go and bomb the whole lot of them."

After your experiences many might have opted for a quiet life, to recover and rebuild your family life and everything else. What inspires you to keep fighting?

On the day I returned from Guantanamo I was welcomed back to the country in a cell especially prepared for me in Paddington Green police station. Shortly after that I met the solicitor Gareth Peirce - the first really friendly face I'd met in all these years. She couldn't be there for me for the next day as she had to go the House of Lords for a historic decision was going to be passed about the detention of terror suspects who had been held for three years.

That's the same amount of time I had been held in Guantanamo, but in this country. I realised what sort of situation I returned to. I couldn't just sit around. People I knew were being held in Guantanamo and secret detention sites, and I was a witness in history to what had taken place. To remain silent would be doing a great disservice to myself and people being held, especially in the wake of the 7 July bombings, the racist Islamophobia that has resulted, and foreign policy. It's been important for me to speak out.

It has given me a great sense of strength and moral support to see that there are a great number of people in this country who haven't given in to the ludicrous attitude of the government and some forms of the media, and have stood bravely challenging both of them. As long as that remains in this country, I'm very pleased to be part of it.

Louise Casey is tired of human rights

Ellie Keen — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:55:00 +0000

In the government-commissioned "Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime" report Casey argues, among other things, that people doing community service should have the added shame of wearing high visibility jackets stating that they are being punished. She also argues that websites, leaflets, posters and public meetings should be used to name and shame those guilty of crimes such as vandalism and tell people what their punishment will be. She also suggests giving community support officers the power to detain and fine people - a bit like budget versions of Judge Dredd.

"We're all a little tired of hearing about the human rights and civil liberties of people who break the law," said Casey.

While there is little evidence to suggest that public humiliation would stop crime, that doesn't seem to be the reason for the new measures.

"More offenders than ever are brought to justice and punished more severely - partly reflected in a doubling of those now locked up in prison and 93 percent of offenders being made to pay their fines," Casey acknowledges. But the public still "don't believe wrong-doers face adequate consequences for the crimes they commit. They don't believe that crime has fallen when they are told so." So crime is going down and sentencing is going up - but since people don't understand that, it's time to make life even more intolerable for graffiti artists and litter bugs.

Plastering a town centre with someone's mug shot would seem to serve as an attempt to show that the government is being tough on crime. No more of this politically correct nonsense about being "tough on the causes of crime" - this is the modern equivalent of being tarred and feathered.

Casey is a long-term friend of New Labour. She can boast being one of the brains behind the anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos), and Tony Blair's "homelessness tsar". In 1999 she accused charities of "perpetuating homelessness" by giving out sleeping bags and soup (how are we expected to rid the streets of the homeless if people don't just let them freeze to death?).

Home secretary Jacqui Smith is said to be enthusiastic about the report, always salivating at the opportunity to make Britain a pioneer in ineffective draconian punishment. But these tactics have not always gone down too well. In Shenzhen, China, 100 people convicted of offences related to prostitution were paraded through the streets in yellow tunics in 2006. This caused such a wave of public revulsion that the government didn't dare use the punishment again. So the question is: can crime fighting duo Smith and Casey succeed in offender humiliation where the Chinese government has failed?

Olympian Failure

Ellie Keen — Thu, 15 May 2008 23:11:34 +0000

When Ken Livingstone lobbied for the 2012 Olympics he argued that the resulting investment was needed desperately by east London, as it had seen none since Victorian times.

Yet the games have received a chorus of damnation in recent weeks. A study by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) thinktank has shown that the regeneration of the East End of London was wishful thinking, at best.

This shouldn't come as a surprise. New Labour tends to see "regeneration" through the prism of how much profit can be made by business, blindfolded by its belief in the "trickledown" system. The report states that the games will mean that small local businesses will be unable to compete with the multinational stampede into east London, while residents will be priced out of the area. Indeed, the 1992 games in Barcelona displaced tens of thousands of low income families, while the 1998 Seoul games displaced 720,000. China is currently going for gold, with an estimated 1.25 million already displaced from Beijing.

Josh Ryan-Collins, the co-author of the NEF report, said, "The regeneration legacy was not just an enlightened addition to the plan for the games - it was central to the bid."

We will be paying more than double what Tessa Jowell, minister for the Olympics, first estimated. The original budget was set at £4 billion, £738 million of which was due from the private sector. The new budget stands at £9.325 billion, with predictions for private investment down to just £165 million. The extra cost will be picked up by direct taxation and the National Lottery - 20 percent of the lottery's total "good cause" budget.

MPs on the Public Accounts Committee last month damned the original budget estimations, saying they "ignored foreseeable major factors" including tax and security. Policing and security costs have risen by £600 million since the original proposals, with the "delivery budget" up from £16 million to £600 million. The bid also omitted a VAT bill of £836 million.

Is it any wonder then, given New Labour's notoriety for its anti-Midas touch on white elephants ranging from Wembley Stadium to the Millennium Dome, that three quarters of British people don't think the Olympics will benefit them?

One of the tests for whether London was to host the games was the level of public support. Perhaps that public support would have been less forthcoming had they known the true cost.

London: Capital's Capital

Ellie Keen — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:05:45 +0000

The reaction from much of the press to government plans for the City of London's non-domicile super-rich might make you think they were about to hand control of the square mile to the RMT. The outrage from non-domicile fat cats was coupled with threats to leave Britain altogether and for a raft of bizarre claims that London-based capitalists were being driven out of the country. Digby Jones, once CBI boss and now Gordon Brown's trade and investment minister, publicly turned on the rest of the cabinet when he said that the policy has caused "non-doms" to ask, "Does this mean they don't want us?"

The proposal is for non-domicile capitalists in Britain, but "resident" elsewhere on the planet, to pay either a one off sum of £30,000 or have their overseas income declared and taxed. The non-domicile law was introduced 209 years ago as an incentive to those who had benefited from the spoils of imperial conquest; who they had pillaged remained a private matter of conscience.

The recent proposal actually originated in Tory HQ before autumn's election-that-never-was after a YouGov poll had shown it to be a big vote winner. Seeing this, Gordon Brown quickly nabbed the policy as his own, not realising that he might have to stick to the commitment even if he managed to dodge an early election.

Considering there is currently £120 billion held by British business in overseas trusts, this doesn't sound too controversial - even the US already has similar tax structures in place. Yet when the hapless Alistair Darling attended a recent bash held by the "Worshipful Company of International Bankers" (a Livery Company of the City of London - more on these later) at which he eulogised in his speech about how great and good the super-rich are, the reaction was an attack on government tax policies and regulation from the Lord Mayor of London and for the 450 diners to bang their tables and jeer. There followed a series of U-turns as the chancellor "clarified" (ie watered down) his position. Even London Mayor Ken Livingstone - who has noticeably steered clear of the row and received only warm applause following his own fawning speech during the same dinner party - now genuflects to the City. "There isn't an ideological conflict any more," he said in an interview with Prospect magazine in April 2007. "The business community has been almost depoliticised."

Undemocratic

Livingstone and his advisers lobbied heavily for Crossrail, the commuter rail link to ferry City workers from the Home Counties largely at the expense of residents and taxpayers, while his economic adviser, John Ross, has been defending the obscene profits, payrolls and bonuses of hedge fund managers.

The position taken by government towards the City has always been one of kneeling before it. This has made Britain in the words of the neoliberal International Monetary Fund (IMF) a tax haven, due to the way in which City authorities actively assist businesses to avoid tax. (In a telling show of arrogance, the Treasury financial secretary, Jane Kennedy, retorted that the methodology used by New Labour's usually beloved IMF was therefore "seriously flawed".)

But the City is more than just a tax haven. To really make sure that there is nothing in the way of wealth accumulation, several elements of regular local authorities must be kept at a distance. These elements include democracy.

In a parliamentary debate in November 2002 the then Tory MP (now New Labour minister) Shaun Woodward said: "The City of London is indeed unique - unique in its national role, in its size, its population, its local finance, its responsibilities, its work in the arts and its charitable work. The City is unique too, in having an electoral system that was unaffected when, in 1969, the non-residential vote was abolished for local government elections." (Incidentally, it was Labour chancellor James Callaghan who argued through this exception to the rule.)

Woodward was certainly right about the uniqueness of the City of London - it is the most undemocratic local authority in Britain. While the 7,800 residents of the square mile have the vote, business based in the City can appoint a further 32,000 voters. In November 2002 a private act of parliament, submitted by the City of London itself and gushingly (and arguably unconstitutionally) endorsed by Tony Blair, doubled the business vote from 16,000. But it doesn't stop here.

The City of London Corporation is governed by three institutions: the Court of Aldermen, the Court of Common Council and the Lord Mayor. Residents and business are allowed to vote for the aldermen and the Common Council, but only "freemen" are able to stand for election. You can become a freeman either by "servitude" (apprenticeship to another freeman), by appointment by the part-ceremonial, part-business associations of the Livery Companies, by heredity, or by payment of a £30 "freedom fine" (if the sitting Common Council accepts you). If you want to be an alderman you must also have the blessing of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Mayor must have previously been a sheriff, and sheriffs are appointed by the Livery Companies. Additionally, standing under a party banner is severely frowned upon. This basic structure has existed since AD 886, and was preserved by William the Conqueror to maintain a degree of autonomy for European merchants.

All public expenditure comes from the interest earned on the corporation's billions of pounds of wealth, hoarded away over centuries. And just to make sure this "better than everyone else" attitude continues, it runs two private schools for the wealthy (one for boys, one for girls), and the City of London Academy school in Southwark (with its own City run curriculum of business and commerce) for everyone else.

But this is more than just another Great British anachronism - it ensures that the City is not held up to any unnecessary accountability. A democratic system might, for example, block the building of a new skyscraper or insist that the amassed wealth held inactive in its vaults be put to better use.

So with local and national government on side the City has a free rein. In 2007 City bonuses hit £14 billion, a figure equal to annual national spending on higher education - and this was up from £10.9 billion in 2006. The rationale for all this, of course, is that wealth then trickles down through the economy. But a brief look at how the City treats its own workers puts the lie to this myth (and by "workers" I mean waged labourers rather than those paid to make a few phone calls between checking the size of their wallet).

Barclays' 2007 profits were £7.08 billion. But the people who clean the bank's offices are paid just £7.50 per hour. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs (or "Golden Sacks" as it is often known, owing to its obscene bonuses) part-owns cleaning contractor ISS who pay their workers just £5.60 per hour. Marsh, the world's leading insurance broker, recently suspended 12 cleaners in its City offices, contracted out from ISS, for demonstrating against poverty pay (only after completing their regular 12-hour shift).

There are 20,000 cleaners working in the City on similar wages, yet average pay across the board stands at £971 per week (£600 more than that of Devon and Cornwall). If the wealth has trickled down, the cleaners have obviously not managed to mop it up.

The City boasts of its contribution of 10 percent to Britain's gross domestic product. This, it claims, means it should be a special case when it comes to taxation. But what good is this contribution to the economy if even the people at its heart, vacuuming the floors and cleaning the computer screens, are paid up to £2 per hour below what Ken Livingstone himself considers a living wage? What good is having the richest square mile on the planet if the government claims poverty when it comes to paying the public sector? What good are champagne-quaffing City boys when in Tower Hamlets, a step over the border to the east of the City, two thirds of all children live in poverty?

As profits in the City increase, so does the gulf between rich and poor, and as the rich purchase obscene levels of housing as investments and drive up prices elsewhere in the capital, it is the rest of us who have to tighten our belts. And it is important to remember that they are rich through lending, earning interest and gambling with money we as workers struggle so hard to produce. So the argument that asking for a few crumbs from the Livery Hall banqueting tables will cause the rich to leave the City is like arguing that you shouldn't ask someone to stop punching you in the face because if you do they might stop punching you in the face so hard.

New Labour's attitude to the City is unsurprising. "True to his neoliberal belief in the market Gordon Brown has allowed the worst excesses of corporate greed to let rip in the City," John McDonnell, the only MP to attempt to challenge Brown for the Labour leadership, told Socialist Review. "For a decade under New Labour finance capital has been given a free hand to profiteer at the expense of many who have lost their jobs, savings and pensions through City speculation. By turning a blind eye to the award of obscene levels of City payoffs and bonuses Brown has created a scale of inequality in our society not seen for three generations."

Lindsey German, the Respect candidate for Mayor of London and the London Assembly, said, "It's time the government stopped giving such a favourable tax burden to the City. We're always told that if they are taxed any more they will go elsewhere.

"My attitude is that if they're going to use blackmail then let them leave the country, and see how well they get on somewhere else. If we want to pay for transport and housing in London then the City is the obvious place the money should come from."

The City of London is, of course, the real constituency being represented by Brown. His arrogant belief that unbridled capitalism will bring an eternal boom for the benefit of the country has led to the City being allowed to do as it likes.