The New Nation - Internet Edition

Sanen Marshall

Why were Rizwaan Sabir and Hicham Yezza arrested? The UK's Terrorism Act 2006 makes a person liable to criminal prosecution if the person 'distributes or circulates a terrorist publication,' which might indicate that the person is involved in plotting terror attacks. Rizwaan, a student at the School of Politics at the University of Nottingham, had downloaded an 'Al-Qaeda training manual' from the Internet and sent it to his friend, Hicham, a university clerk at the School of Modern Languages, for printing. The discovery of the document by other staff at the School caused alarm. The university authorities responded by calling in the police and this led to the arrests. The curious thing about the above scenario was that the so-called manual was downloaded from the US Department of Justice website. Rizwaan was in fact researching terrorism for his postgraduate dissertation on radical Islam. The manual can also be purchased on Amazon.com.

An article by three Nottingham academics in the Times Higher Education Supplement thus questioned 'whether UK universities will stand up and defend academic freedom in the face of the potentially draconian ramifications of anti-terror legislation.' The University authorities responded by reminding the public that above all "the incident was triggered by the discovery of an 'al Qaeda Training Manual' on the computer of an individual [Hicham] who was neither an academic member of staff, nor a student and in a School where one would not expect to find such material being used for research purposes." The university authorities also emphasised that "there is no 'right' to access and research terrorist materials. Those who do so run the risk of being investigated and prosecuted on terrorism charges. Equally, there is no 'prohibition' on accessing terrorist materials for the purpose of research. Those who do so are likely to be able to offer a defence to charges (although they may be held in custody for some time while the matter is investigated). This is the law and applies to all universities."

Rizwaan was released without being charged after six days. His friend Hicham, who is an Algerian national, was likewise released but swiftly rearrested under an immigration charge. Hicham was incidently a former student of the University of Nottingham before eventually becoming a member of staff. Staff and students of Nottingham's university community who were indignant at the treatment of the two men, rallied to their cause.

Labour MP for Nottingham Alan Simpson remonstrated that the incident at the university had its roots in the fiercely opposed legislation against terrorism which was a 'gift to al-Qaeda. Because we would turn a pluralist, multiracial, inclusive society into a society where your neighbour became the terrorist you no longer knew.' Hicham told the UK's Guardian newspaper that 'someone could be forgiven, in this current climate, for panicking at this type of document. But I would have appreciated had I been given five minutes simply to answer the questions relevant to the document. Once the procedure was launched it was quickly out of the university's hands.'

The 'current climate' is one of heightened fear and suspicion. In the immediate aftermath of the 7/7 bombings, the UK's Independent newspaper reported chairman of the UK Bar Council human rights committee Peter Clarke's evaluation that even possessing the 'A-Z of London' travel guide could now be considered as 'possessing items that were of potential use to a terrorist.' Barely a year ago, the UK's security services were at the highest level of terrorism alert after two car bombs were discovered in London and a flaming vehicle was driven into a Glasgow airport terminal. Earlier this year, MI5 indicated that it wanted full access to the Oyster (swipe) card database that contain the travel habits of millions of passengers on London's rail and bus services. The average Londoner must already be one of the most heavily watched persons in the world, getting caught on cctv 300 times a day.

But at the university level, it is the prospect of profiling in the surveillance that has raised the most controversy. A leaked document obtained by the Guardian reported in late 2006 that under guidelines drawn up by the Department of Education and Skills 'ministers are to ask staff to spy on "Asian looking" or Muslim students, informing special branch of anyone they suspect of being involved in Islamic extremism.' The Guardian at the time reported joint general secretary of the University and College Union Paul Mackney's 'concern that we were being sucked into a kind of Islamic McCarthyism which has major implications for academic freedom, civil liberties, and blurring of the boundaries between the illegal and the possibly undesirable." The Independent likewise noted recently that some academics are 'now talking of the pressure they face to become "police informers" on their students.'

This police-university interface has persisted through the changeover from the Blair administration to the Brown administration. Soon after coming to power, Prime Minister Gordon Brown convened a meeting involving key Government officials and university representatives. The result was the guidelines on 'promoting good campus relations, fostering shared values and preventing violent extremism.' While the guidelines aspire to some noble ideals of 'maintaining academic freedom whilst ensuring that extremists can never stifle debate or impose their views,' it also asks UK universities to 'think about the implications for staff and other students, how they should be supported and how best to work with the Police.'

In a wider social context, Brown had also risked a major revolt from members of the Labour Party when he tried and narrowly succeeded in extending the maximum period of preliminary detention of those arrested under the Terrorism Act from 28 days to 42 days. Interestingly, the support from the Democratic Unionist Party played a crucial role in voting in the amendment. Many unionists will surely remember the days when 'internment' was used in Northern Ireland, mainly against their republican rivals. But even at the height of the Irish Republican Army's (IRA) bombings in London and other cities in England, this practice of internment without trial was never applied to the UK as a whole. Rizwaan, speaking to the Guardian shortly before the passing of the amended bill, claimed that '42 days is a sentence in itself.'

Recalling his experience, Rizwaan declared that 'a minute goes like an hour and an hour like a day inside a cell … You lose all concept of day or night. There are no emotions: you can't cry, you can't laugh…Six days felt like six years. I dread to think what 42 days would feel like….'

(Source: Just)