On 1 September David Cameron made a statement to the House of Commons, covering several of the major topics discussed at a meeting of the European Council in Brussels two days earlier – Gaza, Ukraine and the growth of IS in Syria and Iraq. The first two subjects were dealt with briefly, but the third was developed at length, the European Council having concluded that: ‘…the creation of an Islamic Caliphate in Iraq and Syria and the Islamist-extremist export of terrorism on which it is based, is a direct threat to every European country’. The MI5 Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre had also decided that the threat level in Britain had increased from ‘substantial’ to ‘severe’.
The government already has a huge raft of existing anti-terrorist legislation at its disposal, thanks to the 1997-2010 Labour administration, which introduced five major new acts of parliament, each more draconian than the last. However Cameron is eager for more and announced that the government would introduce further measures so that it can seize passports from would-be travellers and interrogate them, as well as preventing those who have already gone abroad from returning. The latter will require some legal conundrums to be overcome if the alleged terrorist suspects have only ever held British nationality. Powers already exist – and indeed have been used, for example in the case of Mahdi Hashi – to exclude dual nationals, foreign nationals and naturalised citizens; however rendering people who have only ever been British citizens completely stateless, even temporarily, would be open to legal challenge, as has already been pointed out to the government by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve.
Cameron also told parliament that the government would ‘introduce new powers to add to our existing terrorism prevention and investigation measures, including stronger locational constraints on suspects under TPIMs [Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures], either through enhanced use of exclusion zones or though relocation powers.’
This came as music to the ears of Labour leader Ed Miliband, who eagerly pointed out to parliament that the current government’s TPIMs are simply a watered down version of Labour’s far more invasive control order system:
‘I welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition that the independent reviewer on terrorism has made clear the inadequacies of TPIMs, in particular, the inability to relocate suspects away from their communities. Relocation was indeed a central part of control orders, and it was a mistake to get rid of them in the first place.’
Miliband went on to make sure there was no doubt that the government has the full backing of the Labour Party in ‘an approach based on genuine multilateralism’ and that it will support any repressive measures the ConDems bring in. Indeed Labour will, as ever, argue not only for more repression of those whose activities the increasingly widely drawn anti-terrorism law has successfully criminalised, but for more surveillance and interference with the lives of people who are convicted of no crime. For such people, Miliband called on the Prime Minister to bring in ‘a mandatory and comprehensive programme of deradicalisation’ and to ‘overhaul the Prevent programme… to do far more with parents and communities’.
‘Prevent’ is one of the four arms of the government’s anti-terrorism strategy, the overall strategy being called ‘Contest’ and the other arms being ‘Pursue’, ‘Protect’ and ‘Prepare’. Like the rest of the current machinery, ‘Contest’ originated under Labour, who first introduced it in 2003, since when it has been reviewed and updated on three occasions, most recently by the current government in 2011. ‘Prevent’ advises and provides funding for local councils, schools, universities, mosques, sports clubs and community groups which sign up to ‘countering radicalisation’, essentially by agreeing to spy on participants and to challenge any opinion or behaviour which does not conform to a prescribed British ‘norm’.
The timetable for turning Cameron’s announcement into legislation is not yet clear; however what is certain is that, under the guise of ‘fighting ISIL’ abroad and at home, there will be yet more repression of Britain’s Muslim community. Furthermore, this ever more bulked-up armoury of legislation, surveillance and control will continue to be maintained for use by the current and future governments, not only against Muslims, but against any organised resistance which arises in response to British imperialism or to the increasing state attacks on the working class.
Nicki Jameson
