Britain is poised to draw an ambitious plan for adopting anti-terrorism measures. But can these measures prevent another terrorist attack, asks Doaa El-Bey This month witnessed an active British move to lobby European Union support for its attempt to clamp down on terrorism. In a meeting of EU justice and interior ministers held in Newcastle, northern England, Britain tried to push through a comprehensive package of anti-terror measures by December this year with the agreement of the 25 EU member states, the EU executive committee and the European parliament. Home Secretary Charles Clarke requested greater intelligence sharing on terrorist activities among all 25 EU member states. He said that Britain is seeking EU agreement on harmonising biometric data, telephone records, Internet protocols, and visa information by December in an attempt to fight terrorism and organised crime. In another meeting that concluded earlier this week in Manchester, EU finance ministers agreed to exchange information that would allow them to freeze terrorist assets. Late last month, the British government revealed a new plan to help deport or bar from entry into Britain Islamist radicals who promote terrorism. The plan listed what it referred to as "unacceptable behaviour" which included fomenting, justifying or glorifying terrorist violence and fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence. It also prohibited activities such as writing, producing or publishing provocative material, preaching and other forms of public speech, running a web site or exerting influence as teachers or community leaders. Given that the list is indicative rather than exhaustive, it grants the Home Office the right to deport and exclude foreigners engaging in any of the numerous activities listed or those which might be added to the list at a later time. These measures are part of a wide ranging government crackdown on Islamist extremism and other groups in the wake of the 7 July suicide bombings that killed 56 people including the four bombers and left hundreds wounded. Two weeks later, a similar attempt failed when another group of attackers failed to detonate the explosives they were carrying. No one was killed or hurt. However, the government seems to have missed the mark in its attempts to counter terrorism. Instead of addressing what many acknowledge to be the main causes behind the 7 July attacks, namely, Britain's involvement in the invasion of Iraq and the alienation of young Muslims in society, it has introduced a range of tough laws that are likely to endanger human rights and further isolate Muslim communities. Ever since Britain's participation in invading Iraq, and especially after the 7 July attacks, Tony Blair's government has been widely criticised for making Britain a more dangerous place. Kenneth Clarke, a veteran politician who is set to contest the Conservative leadership, accused Blair of making the country a terrorist target by helping to invade Iraq. He criticised the government for responding to terrorist attacks by proposing new laws when an abundance of tough legislations to deal with the problem were already in place. In a videotape aired by the pan-Arab Al-Jazeera television station early this month, one of the 7 July bombers, Siddiq Khan, linked the attacks to British policy. "Until we feel security, you will be our targets. Until you stop the bombing, the gassing, the imprisonment and torture of my people, we will not stop this fight," he declared. The tape showed that he was inspired by Al-Qaeda. Azzam Tamimi of the Muslim Association of Britain said that the bombings and the video delivered Al-Qaeda's message, "that unless British troops are withdrawn from Iraq, the threat will remain and the attacks may recur." On the subject of Khan, Tamimi commented, "it was one thing to learn something about him, but it was completely different to listen to him explain and justify his act and even threaten that more would follow if [Britain's] policies remained unchanged." Blair's government has not shown any sign of change in its policy in Iraq. Instead, Charles Clarke has introduced a series of measures that, though unlikely to come into effect immediately, nevertheless threaten to stifle human rights and increase feelings of isolation or polarisation among Muslim communities. Human rights and civil rights groups expressed concern that these measures present a blatant violation of the British way of life. Commenting on the government's proposed list of unacceptable behaviour, civil rights organisation Liberty expressed concern with the inclusion of "justifying" and "glorifying" terrorist violence. They are also worried about the fact that the list is indicative rather than exhaustive. "The list is incredibly broad. There is very real danger. It provides guidelines. Other activities can be included, nothing is excluded. The breadth of this is very worrying," said Douj Jewel, Liberty's press officer. Jewel also criticised Clarke's move to urge judges to re-examine the way they interpret the European Convention Human Rights (ECHR) when ruling on deporting foreign terror suspects. Clarke has argued that the ECHR was established in 1948 in response to completely different circumstances. He said the law is clear. "We have an absolute prohibition on torture. The British law states that suspects cannot be deported to a state where they could face torture." Muslim associations believe that at this stage, Britain needs to integrate British Muslims in society rather than introducing laws that increase their feeling of alienation. "What Britain really needs is for its politicians to come out of the state of denial they happen to be in. The security threat to the UK has been the product of British involvement in the US war on terrorism, which many Muslims believe is nothing but a war on Islam. It is this policy which, if continued, will do enormous damage to community relations as a result of perceived threats and extreme polarisation." Unless the British government reviews its policy towards Iraq and tries to create a sense of shared values and shared visions among the different factions in society, even the toughest of laws cannot guarantee its security.
