Showing newest posts with label protest. Show older posts
Showing newest posts with label protest. Show older posts

Friday, 26 February 2010

SEAMUS MILNE EXPOSES RACIST SENTENCING AGAINST YOUNG MUSLIMS PROTESTING GAZA MASSACRES

This tide of anti-Muslim hatred is a threat to us all

The attempt to drive Islamists and young Asian activists out of the political mainstream is a dangerous folly

The Guardian
Seumas Milne [pictured above]

If young British Muslims had any doubts that they are
singled out for special treatment in the land of their
birth, the punishments being meted out to those who took
part in last year's London demonstrations against Israel's
war on Gaza will have dispelled them. The protests near the
Israeli ­embassy at the height of the onslaught were angry:
bottles and stones were thrown, a ­Starbucks was trashed
and the police employed unusually violent tactics, even by
the standards of other recent confrontations, such as the
G20 protests.

But a year later, it turns out that it's the sentences that
are truly exceptional. Of 119 people arrested, 78 have been
charged, all but two of them young ­Muslims (most between
the ages of 16 and 19), according to Manchester
University's Joanna Gilmore, even though such figures in no
way reflect the mix of those who took part. In the past few
weeks, 15 have been convicted, mostly of violent disorder,
and jailed for between eight months and two-and-a-half
years – ­having switched to guilty pleas to avoid heavier
terms. Another nine are up to be sentenced tomorrow.

The severity of the charges and sentencing goes far beyond
the official response to any other recent anti-war
demonstration, or even the violent stop the City protests a
decade ago. So do the arrests, many of them carried out
months after the event in dawn raids by dozens of police
officers, who smashed down doors and handcuffed family
members as if they were suspected terrorists. Naturally,
none of the more than 30 complaints about police ­violence
were upheld, even where video ­evidence was available.

Nothing quite like this has happened, in fact, since 2001,
when young Asian Muslims rioted against extreme rightwing
racist groups in Bradford and other northern English towns
and were subjected to heavily disproportionate prison
terms. In the Gaza protest cases, the judge has explicitly
relied on the Bradford precedent and repeatedly stated that
the sentences he is handing down are intended as a
deterrent.

For many in the Muslim community, the point will be clear:
not only that these are political sentences, but that
different rules apply to Muslims, who take part in
democratic protest at their peril. It's a dangerous
message, especially given the threat from a tiny minority
that is drawn towards indiscriminate violence in response
to Britain's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and rejects any
truck with mainstream politics.

But it's one that is constantly ­reinforced by politicians
and parts of the media, who have increasingly blurred the
distinction between violent and non- violent groups,
demonised Islamism as an alien threat and branded as
extremist any Muslim leader who dares to campaign against
western foreign policy in the Muslim world. That's
reflected in the government's targeting of "nonviolent
extremism" and lavish funding of anti-Islamist groups, as
well as in Tory plans to ban the nonviolent Hizb ut-Tahrir
and crack down ever harder on "extremist written material
and speech".

In the media, it takes the form of relentless attempts to
expose ­Muslims involved in wider politics as secret
fanatics and sympathisers with ­terrorism. Next week,
Channel 4 ­Dispatches plans to broadcast the latest in a
series of undercover documentaries aimed at revealing the
ugly underside of British Muslim political life. In this
case, the target is the predominantly British-Bangladeshi
Islamic Forum of Europe. From material sent out in advance,
the aim appears to be to show the IFE is an "entryist"
group in legitimate east ­London politics – and unashamedly
Islamist to boot.

As recent research co-authored by the former head of the
Metropolitan police special branch's Muslim contact unit,
Bob Lambert, has shown, such ubiquitous portrayals of
Muslim ­activists as "terrorists, sympathisers and
subversives" (all the while underpinned by a drumbeat
campaign against the nonexistent Afghan "burka") are one
factor in the alarming growth of ­British Islamophobia and
the rising tide of anti-Muslim violence and hate crimes
that stem from it.

Last month's British Social Attitudes survey found that
most people now regard Britain as "deeply divided along
religious lines", with hostility to Muslims and Islam far
outstripping such attitudes to any other religious group.
On the ground that has translated into murders, assaults
and attacks on mosques and Muslim institutions – with
shamefully little response in politics or the media. Last
year, five mosques in Britain were firebombed, from
Bishop's Stortford to Cradley Heath, though barely reported
in the national press, let alone visited by a government
minister to show solidarity.

And now there is a street movement, the English Defence
League, directly adopting the officially sanctioned targets
of "Islamists" and "extremists" – as well as the "Taliban"
and the threat of a "takeover of Islam" – to intimidate and
threaten Muslim communities across the country, following
the success of the British National party in ­baiting
Muslims above all other ethnic and religious communities.

Of course, anti-Muslim bigotry, the last socially
acceptable racism, is often explained away by the London
bombings of 2005 and the continuing threat of terror
attacks, even though by far the greatest number of what the
authorities call "terrorist incidents" in the UK take place
in Northern Ireland, while Europol figures show that more
than 99% of terrorist attacks in Europe over the past three
years were carried out by non-Muslims. And in the last nine
months, two of the most serious bomb plot convictions were
of far right racists, Neil Lewington and Terence Gavan, who
were planning to kill Muslims.

Meanwhile, in the runup to the ­general election, expect
some ugly dog whistles from Westminster politicians keen to
capitalise on Islamophobic sentiment. With few winnable
Muslim votes, the Tories seem especially up for it. Earlier
this month, Conservative frontbencher Michael Gove came out
against the building of a mosque in his Surrey
constituency, while Welsh Tory MP David Davies blamed a
rape case on the "medieval and barbaric" attitudes of some
migrant communities.

As long as British governments back wars and occupations in
the Middle East and Muslim world, there will continue to be
a risk of violence in Britain. But attempts to drive
British Muslims out of normal political activity, and the
refusal to confront anti-Muslim hatred, can only ratchet up
the danger and threaten us all.

Monday, 1 February 2010

HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP PUBLISHES REPORT CRITICISING LONDON POLICING OF GAZA PROTESTS IN JAN 2009

PRESS RELEASE:

UK - New IHRC report heavily critical of policing
of London Gaza demonstrations


1 February 2010

Report provides witness accounts and photographs of police harassment, intimidation and brutality

POLICING, PROTEST AND CONFLICT: A REPORT INTO THE POLICING
OF THE LONDON GAZA DEMONSTRATIONS IN 2008 – 2009 by Adam Majeed, 96 pages, ISBN 978-1-903718-37-7, publication date 3 February 2010.

Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) is launching a report, Wednesday 3 February, on the policing of the demonstrations held in London end 2008 / early 2009 in protest at the 22 Day War against Gaza.

The report uses eyewitness statements and photographs to provide an overview of police behaviour.

The report comes at a time when many if not all complaints against the police have been sidelined or dismissed. Nevertheless, some 71 protestors have been charged with violent disorder offences, and face sentences, if found guilty, of up to 5 years. Those charged were not arrested at protests but during a series of dawn raids.

There is serious disparity between the lack of accountability for police actions, and the pursuit of these protestors.

IHRC Chair Massoud Shadjareh said:

“We are seeing protestors, some as young as 12, being charged with very serious public order offences, whilst police officers against whom there are credible cases for assault and discrimination have been exonerated. In most cases of police officers, neither an investigation occurs nor is a disciplinary procedure enacted. This is unacceptable, and deeply offensive to any sense of justice.”

The report also avers to widely available sources e.g. on Youtube, in documenting deeply troubling facets of police behaviour.

Concerns highlighted in the report are many, including:

kettling protestors;
the use of unnecessary and brute force;
discriminatory treatment of Muslim protestors and protestors perceived to be Muslim;
the role and function of forward intelligence teams (FITs);
harassment of press and freelance photographers;
arbitrary handling of the laws;
role and relationship of the Metropolitan Police Service and the CST.

Report author Adam Majeed said:

“The police exercise a legitimate function in protecting the collective
community; however, the incidences used as examples in this report undermine that legitimacy in the eyes of many and are counterproductive for police – communities’ relations, and simply prove antagonistic to the peaceful facilitation of protests.”

IHRC makes a series of recommendations in the report to police and relevant authorities, including:

reconsidering the tactic of corralling or ‘kettling’, which continues to challenge the right to liberty and security enshrined in International and European instruments.
adopting a strategy that offers a graded ‘tactical’ profile. Such a strategy should be designed for the peaceful facilitation of protest.
the development of ‘dynamic risk assessments’
the police service should inform themselves of the cultural standards of crowds and of the genuine goals that will run from these standards. IHRC maintains that equality should be the seminal determining factor in dealing with the minority and majority communities.
IHRC calls for clarification into the role and function of forward intelligence teams (FITs).

A full set of recommendations follow the body of this text.

For a soft copy (PDF) of the report (embargoed until 00.01 GMT, 3 February), please email ahmed@ihrc.org or call the IHRC office on (+44) 20 8904 4222 and ask for Ahmed Uddin.

Interviews are available in advance and on the day of publication. Please call the Press Office on (+44) 20 8904 4222.[ENDS]

Full text of IHRC Recommendations

RECOMMENDATIONS
From
POLICING, PROTEST AND CONFLICT: A REPORT INTO THE POLICING
OF THE LONDON GAZA DEMONSTRATIONS IN 2008 – 2009, pp41 - 42

IHRC recommends that the police service adopt and implement ‘Adapting for Protest’. The HMCIC submission represents an attempt to clarify the legal framework and create a strategy ‘...anchored in public consent...’. However, IHRC urges the police service to seriously reconsider the tactic of corralling or ‘kettling’, which continues to challenge the right to liberty and security enshrined in International and European instruments.

IHRC urges the police service to adopt a strategy that offers a graded ‘tactical’ profile. Such a strategy should be designed for the peaceful facilitation of protest. This would include scope for self-policing, ‘dynamic risk assessment’, communication and dialogue with participants before, during and after collective gatherings. Such an approach would serve to enhance perceptions of police legitimacy and reduce incidence of intimidation.

IHRC recommends that the police service develop and implement a use of force continuum with a strong presumption on minimum force. Progression across the continuum should only occur when absolutely necessary and with the full knowledge of crowd participants. However, such a scale needs to avoid unwarranted prescription, and instead aim to strike the right balance between the conflict resolution model and a continuum outright. It is vital that when police decide to engage with such a continuum, they do so with the full understanding of crowd participants. As part of a graded ‘tactical’ profile and subject to ‘dynamic risk assessment’, MPS officials will need to clearly enunciate their intentions when shifting across the continuum. In doing this, MPS officials must fully justify their actions to crowd participants. Achieving this balance would reduce incidence of undifferentiated and indiscriminate force.

IHRC calls for transparency and accountability from holders of public office. IHRC urges a full and thorough investigation into events leading up to and including events that took place in the Hyde Park underpass on 3 January 2009.

IHRC calls on the police service to redress any implicit or explicit institutionalised bias towards members of the Muslim community, supporters of the Palestinian cause and other minority and majority groups. IHRC recommends that the police service inform themselves of the cultural standards of crowds and of the genuine goals that will run from these standards. IHRC maintains that equality should be the seminal determining factor in dealing with the minority and majority communities.

IHRC calls for clarification into the role and function of forward intelligence teams. FITs continue to pose a challenge to the facilitation of peaceful protests. They also continue to draw criticism for their intimidatory presence and dubious tactics. The police exercise a legitimate function in protecting the collective community; however, such overt utilisation of FITs only proves antagonistic to the peaceful facilitation of protests.

IHRC urges that police service officials are made fully aware of the nature and scope of their powers. Police misuse of statutory and common law powers is of high incidence and serves to damage perceptions of police legitimacy. It is a concern that these powers are being selectively used on various groups, and safeguards should be introduced to prevent further incidence.

IHRC calls on MPS officials to abandon the harassment of press and freelance photographers. Photographers, in conducting their legitimate business, play an important role for civil society and such a role should not be viewed as an impediment. Senior officers at the ACPO have been unequivocal on this matter, however, on the operational front, incidents are still reported.

IHRC recommends that the police service reassess their role and relationship with the CST. The CST does not draw comprehensive support from the Jewish community, and so, cannot be said to represent the community. With their emphasis on ‘physical security’, they continue to project themselves in an antagonistic and aggressive manner.

IHRC draws attention to the importance of pre-demonstration briefing. Officers called upon to police demonstrations should be briefed under a harmonised aggregate of values related to the peaceful facilitation of protests. Such values should operate under the human rights framework with particular regard to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly. Officers should be mindful that in their official capacity, they should place any prejudices or indifferences (to causes, particular groups or persuasions) aside for the sole purpose of facilitating a peaceful protest. The necessary risk assessment prior to a demonstration should not be static. There should never be a preconceived assumption that certain groups will behave in a particular way, as this will inevitably prove counterproductive. Furthermore, while addressing the pre-demonstration risk assessment, the influence of external factors should be limited. There should be no undue influence or exceptional relationships with any groups (for example, the CST) while assessing potential risks. All external influences that impact on the pre-demonstration risk assessment process should be in the public domain.

IHRC recommends the issuance of a definite internalised structure of command and control and other safeguards to prevent incidence of MPS officials sans shoulder badges. By agitating crowd participants, these officers operate outside of their official capacity in a provocative and aggressive manner. Their actions only serve to damage perceptions of police legitimacy.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Islamic Human Rights Commission is an NGO in special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

Islamic Human Rights Commission
PO Box 598
Wembley
HA9 7XH
United Kingdom

Telephone (+44) 20 8904 4222
Fax (+44) 20 8904 5183
Email: info@ihrc.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Web: www.ihrc.org

Thursday, 15 January 2009

YOUR RIGHTS WHEN PROTESTING IN AND AROUND THE iSRAELI EMBASSY

  • Police need to gather intelligence on everyone, and evidence on those they suspect of being involved in committing offences. That is why they have Forward Intelligence Teams, part of the Met's Public Order Intelligence Unit (CO11). These are uniformed officers carrying out overt and covert surveillance with cameras, taking pictures of 'targets' which go into a central database. http://fitwatch.blogspot.com/

  • Whilst at the protest, challenge everything Police say. First get their name and badge number (3 numbers and 2 letters, which identify which station they're from). Second get them to explain which power they're using to make you do whatever it is they want you to do. Third get them to write down the power for you, or write it down yourself, or record it into your phone.

  • Police often bluff just to get your details. Generally, no one is obliged to give their name or address to the police. There is no crime of refusing to give your name and address. Giving false details can be prosecuted, but refusing to give details cannot (unless required under the ASBO provisions of s.50 of the Police Reform Act 2002).

  • Police DO have the power to stop and search people at random IF a senior officer has made an authorisation under s.60 of the CJPOA94 (power to stop and search ). Uniformed officers can then search ONLY for offensive weapons (which could be an actual weapon or anything intended for use as a weapon), or articles with a blade or sharp point. These can be seized. Uniformed officers can also require people to remove any item worn wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing identity. These can also be seized. You can be arrested for failure to stop when required, and failure to remove item when required.

  • Police can ban a procession or march, but cannot ban an assembly of people. We have the absolute right to protest. An assembly can have conditions imposed under s.14 POA86. A senior officer can say where, when and how many people are allowed to protest. These conditions must be reasonable and proportionate.

  • Protesters may be targeted at their homes or places of work. Police may raid and arrest people away from the demonstrations. In these circumstances it is very important to say nothing at all until you have a lawyer present to advise you.

  • Remember that the Police in riot gear are Territorial Support Group (CO20), or TSG. They are trained in crowd control tactics, and have home office approved techniques of aggression and intimidation. Don't bother trying to reason with them, just don't let them brutalise you or others. If any Police officer is attacking unlawfully you have the right to defend yourself and others with reasonable force.

  • If you get arrested ask for Bindmans Solicitors. The police will have their number, which is 0207 833 4433. Be prepared for a long few hours in custody.