Anti-Terror Laws and the Muslim Community: Where Does Terror End and Security Begin?
Agnes Chong
borderlands e-journal, volume 5 number 1, 2006
"Agnes Chong chronicles the manner in which Muslim communities in
Australia are being targeted in racialised/religionised regimes of
security. As an advocate working for Australian Muslim Civil Rights
Advocacy Network, Chong points out the chasm between governmental
rhetoric, which insists that the anti-terrorism legislation does not
target Islamic groups, and the embodied ways in which Muslim
communities are targeted. Chong describes how Muslim communities are
terrorised as a result of the anti-terror campaigns in Australia.
Chong's chronicling of the effects of the anti-terror laws on Muslim
communities, therefore, necessitate an accounting of the manner in
which words like terror and insecurity apply unevenly and
differentially in racial and religious terms."
- Extracted from Introduction by thematic journal editor Dr Goldie Osuri Regimes of Terror: Contesting the War on Terror
Anti-Terror Laws and the Muslim Community: Where Does Terror End and Security Begin?
Agnes Chong
borderlands e-journal, volume 5 number 1, 2006
1.
I must confess that I have lost track of how many pieces of anti-terror
legislation have been introduced since September 11. I used to know
this number. I know that this time last year the number sat at 18, but
I can't be sure anymore. At a recent rally I heard someone say it was
25 by their count, yet still others said it was as high as 33. When the
latest piece, the Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 passed
Parliament in December 2005, the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said,
"These new counter-terrorism laws place Australia in a strong position
to prevent new and emerging threats and to stop terrorists carrying out
their intended acts" , and that "this is a further
demonstration of the Government's commitment to the national security
of Australia" (Ruddock, 2005: 230/2005). No doubt these laws are
intended to end terror, and to ensure security. But how effective are
they in ending terror, and in introducing security? The Government has
also said that the laws are not targeted at Muslims. The Prime Minister
John Howard said, "There is nothing in our laws, nor will there be
anything in our laws, that targets an individual group be it Islamic or
otherwise" ( The Age , 9 November 2005). That is true. There
is nothing in the laws that says, "Police have the power to search a
person if they have facial hair or if they affix materials to their
head." But the laws are drafted so broadly that they are really open to
interpretation; and the removal of safeguards leaves much room for the
laws to be applied in a discriminatory way. Just how effective are they
in ending terror and in ensuring security, when members of the
community are feeling fearful, nervous, targeted, when the community
feels under siege? So where exactly does terror end and where exactly
does security begin?
2. Since the unfathomable
horror of September 11, I have witnessed a community being dragged
through the maze of media, politics and fear. It has had to adapt very
rapidly to suit these changing demands. When the first set of
anti-terror legislation was introduced in 2002, many people already
suspected that they would have potentially adverse effects on Muslim
communities in Australia. These concerns were expressed to the Senate
Legal and Constitutional Committee considering these laws by a range of
different groups, including the Australian Arabic Council, the Ethnic
Communities' Council of Victoria, the Supreme Islamic Council of NSW,
the Federation of Community Legal Centres (Vic) and the Victorian
Council of Social Service. However, the laws went through, and things
went on. Scarves were still being pulled off regularly on the streets,
bearded men were viewed with suspicion, but by and large, people got on
with their lives.
3. That is, until a series of
raids happened in November 2002. The Australian Security Intelligence
Organisation (ASIO) raided approximately thirty homes, all Muslim
families, some with young children and babies, some with elderly men
and women. As many as 30 men would surround a suburban Muslim home, all
of them with black balaclavas, black flak jackets, with submachine guns
ready to shoot. Sometimes they would knock first, but other times
without warning, they would break down the front door of these homes
with sledgehammers. They held grown men to the ground by putting their
foot on their head, and confiscated those critical elements of
terrorist activities: family videos, passports, birth and marriage
certificates, scanners, printers, and in one case, the all-important
tabloid newspaper. None of these raids led to any terror charges, but
Muslims started feeling terrorised.
4. Then there
was the first arrest under the anti-terror laws, a 21-year old medical
student called Izhar Ul-Haque in April 2004. His case is complex and
interesting, but the odd thing was that for someone charged with a
terrorist offence, it seemed that his activities were not really
directly linked with a terrorist act. In his second bail hearing, the
Court said that it was "important to note that it is no part of the
Crown case that this young man poses any threat to anyone in this
country". So what terror was there to end? To some of those who know
Izhar, he has been said to be the antithesis of the terrorist
stereotype. A friend said of him, "He is extremely sociable and
interacts daily with non-Muslims and Muslims alike. He is bright, happy
and polite" (Kadous, 2004). The response from Muslim organisations to
the arrest was muted, even though from our informal interactions with
members and organisations there were deep concerns about what this
meant for them. They could identify with people like Izhar, someone who
was perhaps a bit naïve, someone who might have made some mistakes in
the past; but treating him as a dangerous threat to Australia by
putting him in maximum security made other Muslims feel rather
insecure.
5. Yet, there was very little public
support for Izhar: while his former teachers, non-Muslim friends and
even parents of non-Muslims friends came forward to defend him, his
Muslim friends were advised by their parents not to even allude to the
fact that they were acquaintances. I think that there were probably
complex reasons for this, including the desire to avoid the stigma
around "terrorism", and the complexities of the legal system. In the
end, I think that some in the Muslim community hoped that the problem
would go away, with many adopting a "don't rock the boat" attitude.
What has been most striking to me is that while for many civil
liberties are seen as a theoretical construct, in this new and
difficult world of tough anti-terror laws, the personal impact of the
losses of civil liberties, including freedom from arbitrary detention,
the right to privacy, due process and freedom of association are very
real for many Muslims in Australia.
6. For
example, the anti-terror laws that were passed in December 2005
increased the powers for police officers to stop, question and search
people if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person
might have just committed, might be committing, or might be about to
commit a terrorist act. In a "prescribed security zone", the police can
exercise this power in relation to anyone without suspicion ( Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005).
But from the Muslim community perspective, greater street policing
powers also increase the risk of discriminatory application, exposing
visible communities - and the Muslim community is very visible - to
arbitrary interference. Similarly discretionary laws, such as
consorting and vagrancy laws have been shown to be open to abuse,
especially against Indigenous communities. Unrestricted coercive powers
of this type have the potential to encourage racial profiling. There is
a danger that decisions by front-line police as to who they will stop,
search and question will be affected by commonly held prejudices and
personal biases. Not only that, these laws reinforce stereotypes. They
encourage non-Muslim members of the community to suspect Muslims as a
group, whether or not they are individually involved in terrorism.
7. The Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005
also introduced a "preventative detention" power, where people may,
especially in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, be detained for up
to two weeks simply for the purpose of preserving evidence. In the
tragic event of a terrorist attack, these provisions could be used to
cast a wide net. Muslims would likely be severely affected by this.
This is not mere speculation, but a concrete fear having observed the
application of the notorious "material witness" measures in the US
after the attacks of September 11. Under the material witness laws,
individuals who have not committed any crime themselves may nonetheless
be detained for extended periods of time (Levenson, 2002). Two months
after the September 11 attacks, up to 1,100 people, mostly Muslim, were
detained under the material witness provisions. The exact number is not
known, as there is no requirement that they report on the number of
people detained. But even as late as 2005, it is believed that up to 70
people are still being held as material witnesses. Many of the people
detained had nothing at all to do with terrorism. Similar measures in
Australia could clearly be misused and abused, which could lead to
massive community tension and be extremely detrimental to the harmony
of the community.
8. The sense of insecurity has
also been exacerbated by the worrying trend of the creation of a
parallel legal system. I'll give an example. Imagine a paddock (on
Crown land), an abandoned car, and a person puts a bomb in the car, and
detonates it. It makes a crater in the ground 5 metres wide and 2
metres deep, bits of the car fly off in different directions, the bomb
could be heard 20 metres away, and was said to be as powerful as
Oklahoma city explosion. Was that person a terrorist? It depends. If
your name happens to be say, Mark John Avery, then you get a suspended
sentence, 200 hours of community service and a slap on the wrist by the
judge. But if your name was Mohammad Yusuf Islam, then you might find
yourself in a very different situation. You might find yourself being
accused of training for terrorist activities, or preparing for an
unspecified act (as a result of an amendment of the Anti-Terrorism Act No. 1 (2005) there
is no requirement that it be connected with a specific terrorist act)
of terrorism, or possessing a thing in relation to a terrorist act
(which is a true offence by the way under the laws). As it happens,
this is a true story that happened early last year, and the person's
name was Mark John Avery.
9. When what makes a
terrorist is unclear, it allows for the creation of parallel legal
systems. If they like you, and you happen to fit the right profile,
then you're up for 200 hours of community service, as opposed to life
imprisonment. Senator Kerry Nettle said of this in Parliament, "A bomb
went off near the Rooty Hill mosque about three weeks ago. That person
was not tried for terrorism offences; that person was tried under the
criminal law. They faced 200 hours of community service. That was a
non- Muslim Anglo member of community. Every Muslim community
individual who has been picked up in similar circumstances has been
tried under terrorism legislation. No wonder the Muslim community feels
that there are two systems of justice in this country" (Nettle, 2004).
10.
But this is not happening just in this country. A recent report in the
UK by the Institute of Race Relations found that there was a
discriminatory use of anti-terrorist powers when Muslim individuals are
charged with terrorist offences for their involvement in routine
criminal activities:
In a
number of cases, Muslims who have been involved in crimes such as
credit card fraud or forgery have also been charged as suspected
terrorists. In this way, the police have, it seems, used the extra
powers available under terrorism legislation against ordinary criminal
suspects. This is a worrying trend in which powers granted by
parliament to the police specifically for tackling terrorism are
extended to other spheres in a discriminatory way. (Institute of Race
Relations, 2004).
Similarly, here in Australia
commentators suspect that the same will happen with our expansive
anti-terror laws. In the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties'
recent appearance before the Senate Inquiry, they expressed exactly the
same concerns. President Cameron Murphy stated, "I have said in the
past that it allows ordinary criminal matters to suddenly morph into
terrorism investigation. If you cannot obtain a search warrant in a tax
evasion matter or some other criminal matter then suddenly it can
become a terrorism investigation and you can obtain the evidence that
way. That is the real danger" (Murphy, 2005).
11.
These are the easily measurable effects, but there are also very
serious psychological effects. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission produced a comprehensive report Isma in 2004 that
detailed the findings of their national consultations on eliminating
prejudice against Arabs and Muslims. A lot of participants of the
consultations felt the Muslim community in Australia had been unfairly
targeted in investigations by ASIO officers and Australian Federal
Police following the Bali bombings in October 2002 (Isma,
2004: 67). In a consultation with nine young people in Adelaide, four
of the participants reported being questioned by ASIO in their homes,
and they believed this was done solely on the basis that they are
Muslim. A participant said: "There is a fear in the community that one
day you will wake up and your husband will be taken away under the new
ASIO laws. The way the government treated people who underwent the
raids was shocking..." ( Isma, 2004: 67). This was a
consistent message we see from other independent research. The "Living
with Racism Report" released by the Centre for Cultural Research at the
University of Western Sydney in April 2004 also documents a widespread
fear and alienation reported by Arab and Muslim respondents. It found
that "80% of survey respondents reported that since September 11 they
are more worried or afraid of something bad happening to them
personally because of their race, culture or religion" (Reported in Isma,
2004: 77). More importantly, it also highlights a perception from the
Muslim and Arabic communities of the lack of avenues to report
harassment from the police or by ASIO.
12. Our
regular consultations with the Muslim community confirm the findings of
these reports. There is a general perception within the Muslim
community that the terrorism-laws are "100% directed at Muslims"; there
is some underlying assumption that Muslims are not wanted, that they
are targeted by these laws, and that they are being used as scapegoats.
Take the offence of association, for example, that allows for someone
to be imprisoned for up to 3 years for talking to a person who is a
member of a proscribed organisation. In an Islamic studies class I
attended recently, a lady pulled out a newspaper clipping about the
anti-terrorism laws, and said, "They don't want us to talk to anyone
anymore". I said, "How so?" She said, "These association laws - they
stop us from talking to our fellow Muslims. Will they really care if
what I say is in support of the organisation? They will just look at
me, look at my scarf, and put me in the terrorist bin."
13.
McCulloch (2002) points out that there is a distinct difference between
protecting national security (which McCulloch suggests is a byword for
the political and economic status quo) and protecting human security
(which is to protect the life, liberty and property of those living
within the state). What has happened as a result of these new
anti-terror laws is a perceived gain in national security for an actual
loss of human security for a minority of Australians - in this case
Muslims. Judging from debates about anti-terrorism in Australian
newspapers, it seems to me that the rest of the community (having had
no loss in human security and an apparent gain in national security)
appear to see the anti-terror laws as reasonable since they come at no
cost to them. However, this is a myopic reading of the situation. With
insecurity of the Muslim community comes a host of problems. Members of
the community start to develop a siege mentality, others adopt the
mindset of victimhood, and yet some others show manifestations of fear
and isolation. Each of these phenomenon, coupled with the perception of
miscarriage of justice, causes ripples of fear and disempowerment
through the Muslim community. More dangerously, they also undermine the
spirit of cooperation that must exist between Muslims, the wider
community and the authorities if terrorism is to be fought and
eliminated.
14. While the anti-terror laws, as
McCulloch argues, may not increase either national security or human
security, they really introduce terror of a different kind especially
for Muslim communities: of insecurity, of fear, or paranoia. In this
sense, it is no longer clear to me - as a Muslim civil rights advocate
- where terror ends and security begins.
Agnes
Chong is a co-founder and current co-convenor of the Australian Muslim
Civil Rights Advocacy Network (AMCRAN), an organisation that presents
an Islamic perspective on civil rights issues in the Australian
context. She is a policy and education worker in the community legal
sector in NSW and is a board member of the Combined Community Legal
Centres Group as well as co-convenor of the Law Reform and Policy
committee of the Group.
Bibliography
Author unknown, PM Not 'Targeting' Muslims, The Age, 9 November 2005.
Greenland, Hall, Operation Terror, The Bulletin, 9 March 2005.
Isma, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2004.
Kadous, M W, Detention of Student is Unjust Logic, The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 April 2004.
Levenson, L. Detention, Material Witnesses & The War On Terrorism , Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol 35 Jun 2002.
McCulloch, J. Counter-Terrorism and (In)security: Fallout from the Bali Bombing , Borderlands E-journal, vol 1, no. 1, accessed 27 June 2006, http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol1no1_2002/mcculloch_counter.html
Media Release, New study Highlights Discrimination in Use of Anti-Terror Laws , International Race Relations, 2 September 2004.
Media Release, Passage of Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005, the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, 230/2005, 7 December 2005.
Murphy, C. Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Hansard, 17 November 2005.
Nettle, K. Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Hansard, 17 June 2004.
Poynting, S., Noble, G. Living
with Racism: The Experience and Reporting by Arab and Muslim
Australians of Discrimination, Abuse and Violence since 11 September
2001, 2004.
© borderlands ejournal 2006
|