From: Stasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: UK: "Now We Are All Terrorists" - SLP Youth HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------- A personal account of harrasment and arrest under the auspices of the New Labour PTA from a SLP Youth member, published in the current issue of Spark, journal of the Socialist Labour Youth. www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk >Now we are all Terrorists >================= >Fahim Ahmed, Ealing Southall CSLP > >Since the introduction of the Terrorism Bill in Parliament back in 1999 I >have followed the debate surrounding the new legislation with avid >interest. As a Marxist-Leninist I have a political interest in the >clampdown on Irish freedom-fighters and domestic 'subversives', from >liberal peace protestors to anti-fascist, anti-capitalist demonstrators, >and as a budding criminal defence lawyer I have a professional interest in >the practical application of the law. > >These two interests converged on 19 December 2001 when I was 'detained' by >Special Branch under the new legislation for the purpose of 'examination', >arrested, held for 17 hours, interrogated and tortured through repeated >forcible attempts at taking my fingerprints. Eventually I was released on >bail, to return on 18 February to find out if I will be charged with any >offences. The cuff-marks remain on my wrist and the psychological marks >remain on my mind as I write this report one month after the actual event. > >I had been in Belgium attending a massive trade union demonstration against >the EU on 13 December, and the latest big anti-capitalist demonstration on >14 December, both in Brussels. I returned on the Eurostar on 19 December >and was checked by French customs on the train before it went into the >tunnel. There were dark-suited British officers checking people on the >train once it was officially in the UK, and I assumed that they were >customs as well. An officer approached me, showed me a Metropolitan Police >badge and asked to see my passport. I asked him what he was doing and he >explained that he was a member of Special Branch and was doing routine >anti-terrorism checks. I showed him my passport and he continued on his >way. I thought nothing more of it, but when I got off the train at Waterloo >at 4.30pm, the same officer was waiting for me before the arrivals area. > >He approached me and said: "Mr Ahmed I'm detaining you under the Terrorism >Act, come with me." I could hardly believe it! I had thought about what a >fuss I would make if I ever found myself in trouble with the police, but I >never imagined I would be targeted as a 'terrorist'. I asked the officer >his name and he told me: "DS Geoffrey Singleton." I wrote it down >immediately and followed him into a room there in Waterloo station. He sat >me down and immediately began asking me questions about who I was, where I >had been, where I was going and what I was doing. I began answering his >questions thinking I was being interviewed under the Police and Criminal >Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), which guarantees criminal detainees rights to >legal advice, silence, and a standard of treatment specified in the Codes >of Practice. Little did I know I was actually being 'examined' under >Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA), which I later learnt is a piece >of legislation that makes a mockery of the 'rule of law' and civil rights, >which exist only in theory. > >After a few general questions he began asking me about my support for the >Intifada - he knew I was a supporter because I was wearing a badge which >had a Palestinian flag for a background, and the words 'End the Occupation, >Support the Intifada' in the foreground. I explained that I had been active >in the Oxford Palestine Solidarity Campaign, having meetings and handing >out leaflets (join PSC, go to www.palestinecampaign.org or call 020 7700 >6192). Unsatisfied with my answer he asked the question again, at which >alarm bells started ringing. > >I am used to representing people in police stations and when an officer >repeats a question which has been answered, it's usually my cue to say, >'You've had an answer officer, please move onto the next question.' But >now, here I was, in the custody of Special Branch under the Terrorism Act, >being questioned when I had already given an answer. I asked him to clarify >what exactly he wanted to know and he repeated the question again, at which >point I said: "I'm not answering any more questions, no comment." He asked >me where I live and I repeated: "No comment." He then asked for my >passport, which he had already seen on the train. I handed it over and told >him that the address on the passport was my address, knowing that refusal >to supply an address gives rise to a general power of arrest. I then asked >if I had the right to legal advice, I was told that I had none. DS >Singleton looked at me scornfully and left the room. I had been there no >more than five minutes and things were already getting tense. > >Another officer came in and began searching my large rucksack. He also >searched my jacket. He then asked me to stand up so that he could body >search me. I was alarmed and asked him why he wanted to do that. He told me >not to worry and that he was only going to pad me down. It was my turn to >repeat the question, so I again asked him why and what he was looking for. >He looked confused, as though no one had ever objected to being frisked, >and said that he had the power to search me and that I was just making >things difficult. I explained to the man that I was not minded to being >physically searched by police officers because I found it undignified and >degrading, and that I would gladly turn out my pockets. He persisted, so I >asked him to explain his reason for wanting to search me and he stated that >I might have something on me that could be used to injure himself or >another officer! > >I told the officer that I had got off the Eurostar expecting to go straight >home, that I had no idea that I would be sitting in that room, and that I >certainly had no intention to do him any harm. I stated further that I >would be prepared to listen to any 'reasonable suspicion' he had formed as >to whether I had anything dangerous on me, and that if it was genuine I >would reconsider. Of course, he had no real reason to search me, and so he >became frustrated. He told me that I would be searched whether I liked it >or not, and left the room. > >Having been there for an hour I was handed a 'Notice of Detention' which >outlined the particular legislation under which I was being held. It stated >that I had the right to have someone informed of my detention and to >consult a solicitor! I studied the notice and added it to the papers I had >compiled detailing the events so far, the names of officers who had given >them and the warrant numbers of those that refused to tell me their names. >Next I asked to use the toilet but was refused on the grounds that I might >dispose of something or produce a weapon! 25 minutes later I was allowed to >use the loo with supervision, after which I requested my rights. > >After I made my first phone call I was told that I was being arrested for >failing to provide address details! I immediately pointed out that the >officers had my passport, which had my address on it, and that I had told >them so when I handed it over. Two minutes later I was told that I was to >be arrested for refusing to submit to a body search! It was obvious that >they were looking for an excuse to arrest me, although I was glad that I'd >be taken to proper police station where I would have certain rights in >custody that I was familiar with. > >So, I waited another 45 minutes for uniformed officers to turn up, handcuff >me, walk me through Waterloo station like a criminal, and take me in a >squad car no more than 200 metres down the road to Kennington Road copshop. >I was booked into custody, and whilst I was waiting I gave informal legal >advice to two detainees who were being pursued for drugs and dishonesty >offences. Eventually I was spoken to by the custody sergeant, to whom I >explained the false pretences on which I had been arrested, but he had >already authorised my detention and was not amenable to my objections. I >requested my custody record so that I may note my objections on it. He >refused, saying that the record was for him not me, at which I asked for >the writing materials to which I was entitled. He then had me searched, >which I allowed knowing that he had a 'legitimate' reason (my safety) as >distinct from the original search situation where there was none. > >I was allowed to speak to a solicitor who said he'd be out soon, and then I >was put into a cell to wait for my legal advice. Two hours went by and >eventually I was let out of the cell to speak to my brief, who turned out >to be an Irishman named Adams! He was not the guy I had spoken to on the >phone and admitted to knowing nothing about the terrorism legislation under >which I was being held. I sympathised with him since I knew nothing about >it either, but the right to legal advice is useless if the system cannot >provide you access to someone who knows the law in that area. > >We were told that I would not be 'interviewed' under PACE in relation to >the offence for which I had been arrested; rather I would be 'examined' >under Schedule 7 of the TA. I had no right to silence, and in fact I was >under a duty to provide the examining officer any information he requested! >Further, if I failed to comply with this duty I would be committing an >offence for which I could be imprisoned for up to three months, and/or >receive a fine of up to £2,500! > >Following legal advice I decided that I would have to answer questions to >avoid the possibility of an unnecessary conviction for a terrorist offence, >which wouldn't look very good on future job applications and may stop me >from qualifying as a solicitor in future. I was worried about the prospect >of a police interview without the right to silence, since I knew that the >only way for the police to get evidence where there is none is through the >mouth of the 'suspect'. I did not know what they wanted to ask me about, my >solicitor got minimal disclosure and I was worried about questions being >sprung on me without my knowing what sort of allegations I was actually >facing. > >Anyway, we went into an interview room, where tapes were put in the machine >and the examination was begun. I was asked very vague, open questions, >mainly in relation to visits to Libya and Algeria, which regular Spark >readers will be aware of. I explained to the officers that I had been >attending youth conferences and festivals officially organised by the >governments of those countries, in an attempt to foster positive relations >between our respective countries. Then they asked me why I had been to >Pakistan, and I told them that I, like many other second-generation >immigrants in the UK, had family in Pakistan, and that I had been visiting >Pakistan since childhood for this purpose. I had to work hard to get the >examining officer to narrow down his questions, because I was used to >police officers asking detainees about their involvement in specific >offences, whereas this 'examination' seemed to be an intelligence gathering >exercise at my expense. Eventually the questions were exhausted and the >tape buzzer sounded before I had a chance to add my own comments to the >tape. The officers refused to put another tape in, and that was the end of >that. > >It was now 1am. I was fatigued from travelling and being locked up, and I >expected that a decision would be made and I would be released. I had no >idea how I would get back to West London from Waterloo, as I was now in >serious danger of missing the last tube. However, this was not a >consideration for the police. What Special Branch were concerned with was >fingerprints. > >I was told that I would be fingerprinted, and my solicitor discovered that >they wanted three sets of extremely detailed fingerprints. I noticed that a >female in casual clothes who had been hanging about Kennington custody was >actually a fingerprint specialist present simply to ensure the extraction >of quality prints from me. I knew that the procedure required my written >consent, and I also knew that consent could not be withdrawn once it had >been given. More importantly though, they wanted my fingerprints before >even charging me with an offence! I hadn't done anything wrong; they were >not even alleging that I had done anything wrong, yet they wanted my prints >for no apparent reason. The last nail in the coffin was the fact that they >wanted to then keep those prints FOREVER. > >I refused to consent to giving my fingerprints, and the police used all >sorts of tactics over the course of the next four hours to get me to change >my mind and submit to their will. Initially I was told that a >Superintendent would come in the morning to authorise the use of force. I >argued that I was only allowed to be held 'as long as is necessary', and >that the fact that I was still there was unnecessary, but being kept in a >cell until the morning was completely out of order. I told them to bring >the Superintendent immediately. The custody sergeant refused, saying that >the Super was unavailable until morning. So I told him to get on the phone, >but the objection came back that the authorisation had to be marked on the >custody record and that the Super therefore had to be there in person. I >had to quote the law at this custody sergeant, and told him that verbal >authorisation was permitted as long as it was written down as soon as >practicable afterwards. There was a moment of silence in Kennington custody >and then the sergeant got on the phone. > >Whilst this was a victory for me in terms of speeding up the process, I had >only succeeded in getting the police to obtain authority to use force >against me! The phone call lasted no more than 90 seconds and the police >had their 'authority'. I was then taken by the large middle-aged jailer to >the fingerprint area. I allowed him to wash, dry and ink my hands, and as >he moved my right index finger onto the print form I deliberately smudged >the print. He looked at me disdainfully and the process was repeated. I >politely explained that he was assaulting me, and that it would be >impossible for him to take fingerprints from me whilst I was unwilling. He >said something along the lines of, 'We'll see about that,' and then put >handcuffs on my wrist, using them as a clamp. The hard metal cut into my >skin causing pain, he grabbed the middle part of the cuff and tried again >to take my print. I held my ground and he failed. He then went off in a >huff and came back with another officer. The two of them held me, jostled >me and manhandled me into position, and attempted to take my prints by >force for another 40 minutes. After they had spoiled a dozen print forms >they decided to put me in a cell for while, presumably so that they could >scratch their heads about what to do next. > >The next hour and a half in that cell was an extremely testing time for me. >Whilst initially I thought the situation would be interesting - an >intellectual exercise in the rights of citizens against the power of the >state authorities - I realised that the situation I was in was dangerous >and oppressive. The police really had authority to use force on me. My >wrist and arm was swollen and bruised from their aggressive actions. I had >no idea how long I would be in this cell, or what they had in store for me >next. The police attitude so far had been, 'You will be here for as long as >it takes.' This was no joke. > >At 3.30am there was a knock on the cell door and I was pleased to see an >Inspector. I thought she would be releasing me, but she took me back to the >fingerprint area where eight large male officers were standing waiting for >me. This time they really put the pressure on and soon I was shouting and >screaming in pain. At one point I allowed myself to lean completely on an >officer as I expected my knees to give way. They applied so much pressure >on my fingers and arm that the pain, coupled with that of the cuffs on my >wrist, meant I could hardly stand. I'm not sure exactly how long that went >on, but the jailer stopped the proceedings partly out of frustration and >partly because the cuts on my wrist were becoming too obvious. At that >point I gave those officers a speech on human and civil rights, and told >them that I would be mad to hand over three sets of prints to Special >Branch, for them to keep forever, for no apparent reason. I told them >people like the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four had spent decades in >jail because Special Branch had deliberately stitched them up for terrorist >offences they did not commit. I refused to give my fingerprints on >principled grounds, and I did not submit to their will. > >At 5am I was taken to the medical room to see the police doctor who >sympathetically listened to my story, but was unable to do anything other >than make a thorough note of my injuries. After that I was told by the >Inspector that in the morning the Territorial Support Group (TSG) would >arrive, that they were a special anti-terrorist force, and that they had >methods of forcing prints from non-compliant prisoners, and that if my >fingers or wrist were broken it would be MY OWN FAULT! > >I could hardly believe that an Inspector was threatening me with broken >bones. I retorted that broken bones would constitute unreasonable force and >that I would sue her personally as well as the Met in general. In any case, >I was put back in a cell and slept from 5.30-8.30am when I was woken by the >civilian jailer with breakfast. It wasn't too bad but I had little >appetite. Having been in plenty of police stations, this was the first time >I had woken up in one. I had had little sleep and was not relishing the >prospect of being tortured by the TSG. > >Just before 9am I requested the jailer to let me speak with a >Superintendent, an Inspector, a solicitor from Birnbergs, a solicitor from >Bindmans, and my old boss at Darbys in Oxford. Shortly afterwards a new >Inspector came knocking and told me that he did not think that he was not >satisfied that I was being held 'necessarily', that he would check what >Special Branch were up to and get back to me shortly. At 9.40am I was let >out of my cell to speak to my old boss, and whilst on the phone I was told >that I was to be bailed to return at a later date. Shortly after 10am I was >out of the station and walking along the bank of the river Thames on a cold >Thursday morning in December, a week before Christmas. > >The whole episode affirmed my worst fears about the police, Special Branch >(the British Gestapo) and the criminal justice system. The rights that we >assume are upheld in our 'civilised' country are actually not recognised in >practice. The police detained me under Schedule 7 of the TA, which gives >the power to officers to 'detain' anyone for up to nine hours to determine >whether they 'appear' to be a terrorist, and the officer does not even need >to have reasonable suspicion. That is called ARBITRARY ARREST. They then >wanted to 'examine' me, during which I had a 'duty' to provide any >information they required. I HAD NO RIGHT TO SILENCE. Further, I would be >committing an offence if I failed in that duty. This means that simply >refusing to answer questions has been CRIMINALISED, and carries a prison >sentence of up to three months. This is called being GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN >INNOCENT, and is a subversion of the right to a fair trial. > >The terrorism legislation enacted recently provides the power to detain >foreigners without charge. This policy (and most others in the TA) is well >known to the Irish as INTERNMENT, or imprisonment without trial. Section 41 >of the TA gives the power to arrest without warrant anyone suspected of >committing a specific offence OR anyone suspected of being 'concerned in >the commission, preparation or instigation' of terrorism. This means that >the police have the power to arrest someone who has not committed any >offence or broken any law, which is a clear violation of the basic right to >freedom. Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights provides >that: "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one >shall be deprived of his liberty ... [unless under] lawful arrest or >detention ... effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent >legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence." > >In plain English this means that no one should be arrested (and therefore >deprived of their liberty) unless someone thinks they've done something >wrong. Compare that with my story. > >The most worrying aspect of the law is the removal of the RIGHTS TO FREEDOM >OF SPEECH, ASSOCIATION, AND THOUGHT. The 'proscribed list' of terrorist >organisations tells you who you can and cannot support, which organisations >you can and cannot join, and even which organisations you can and cannot >advertise with badges. The government has banned DHKC, the Peoples' >Revolutionary Liberation Front of Turkey, the leading light in the struggle >against the brutal fascistic government of Turkey. Also banned is PKK, the >Kurdistan Workers Party, again in the forefront of the struggle against >Turkish fascism, but also struggling to win nationhood for the beleaguered >Kurds. Another banned group is the PFLP, the Popular Front for the >Liberation of Palestine, one of the leading components of the PLO and the >strongest revolutionary element in the Palestinian struggle against >illegitimate Israeli occupation. > >What does all this mean? It means that slowly but surely the government is >telling you that if you support national liberation and revolutionary >movements abroad, you will be treated like a criminal, but you will not >even get the same rights a criminal suspect has. The situation as it stands >is clearly the beginning of a legislative move towards extreme reaction, >being carried out by a Labour government, which has moved everything else >towards reaction and is now changing the laws in order to clamp down on >'subversion' at home. > >The TA, in effect since 19 February 2001, defines terrorism as action or >THREAT of action (so you don't even have to do anything, just threaten it) >which involves serious violence against a person, serious damage to >property, endangers a person's life, creates serious risk to public health >or safety, or seriously interferes with an electronic system; and the use >or threat is designed to INFLUENCE THE GOVERNMENT or intimidate the public; >and the use or threat is made with the purpose of advancing a political, >religious or ideological cause. > >Hmmm, sounds like imperialist bombing of Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Sudan and >Iraq, and the sanctions against Iraq, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and other >states. The definition is so broad that it could be used to target workers >on strike (which is bound to become a thing of the future, what with the >chaos in transport, the cutting of 30,000 jobs at Consignia, and the >continuing crisis in capitalist economics), anti-war protestors, >anti-capitalist protestors, indeed anyone who even tries to 'influence' the >government. We in the SLP will leave all the 'influencing' to the >social-democratic sell-outs, the reformist revisionists and the Trotskyite >factions of the Socialist Alliance. We do not aim to influence, rather we >aim to abolish this system and replace it with socialism, and if that means >defying unjust laws, so be it. > >Hints and Tips if you are arrested for anything, including detention under >the TA: > >1. Do not speak to the police other than to give your name and address. > >2. Insist on speaking to a solicitor immediately. > >3. Insist on writing materials if you don't have any and make accurate >notes of everything. > >4. Do not get angry or frightened. Where you are taking a principled >stance, stand your ground. > >5. Do not go into interview without advice from a solicitor you are happy >with, and DO NOT give the police any evidence they would not otherwise get. > >For confidential advice or assistance in any police station, or to find out >more about the campaign, feel free to call the author of this article on >07818 026883 or e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST _________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki Phone +358-40-7177941 Fax +358-9-7591081 http://www.kominf.pp.fi General class struggle news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe mails to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Geopolitical news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________
