‘Terror’ comes to Nottingham

The tentacles of the Security State reached into Nottingham University last week, when a postgraduate student and a staff member at the university were arrested and held without charge under the Terrorism Act 2006 [1], until their release six days later, when one was re-arrested in connection with immigration matters. They were accused of possessing “extremist material” by downloading an “Al Qaeda terror manual”. The plain facts of the case are now known:

1. The “terror manual” was, and still is, a document openly available on a US Government website and contained no ‘terror techniques’. The document is available on the US Military’s Air War College website as a translated and edited version of a training manual found in Manchester during a search of an Al Qaeda member’s home.

2. The postgrad student who downloaded it is undertaking a PhD in Islamic terrorism. According to a Times Higher article:

“Mr Sabir’s lawyer, Tayab Ali of McCormacks solicitors in London, told Times Higher Education that as preparation for a PhD on radical Islamic groups, Mr Sabir had downloaded an edited version of the al-Qaeda handbook from a US government website. It is understood that Mr Sabir sent the 1,500-page document to the staff member – who was subsequently arrested – because he had access to a printer. Mr Ali said: “The two members of the university were treated as though they were part of an al-Qaeda cell. They were detained for 48 hours, and a warrant for further detention was granted on the basis that the police had mobile phones and evidence taken from computers to justify this.” [2]

3. The cops were alerted by a member of clerical staff:

“A spokesman for Nottingham confirmed that the police had been called after material was found on the computer used by a junior clerical member of staff. “There was no reasonable rationale for this person to have that information,” he said. “The police were called in on the basis of reasonable anxiety and concern. In response to that, the police made a connection with a student who, we understand, was impeding the investigation and arrested that person.”” [2]

4. When the arrests took place, the cops stormed the campus mob-handed, stopped and searched students, and were still at it the day after the arrests:

“Secondly, Dr. Greatrix [University Registrar] claims that this was a low-level investigation. This claim, however, does not stand up to scrutiny. Students had their bags searched by uniformed police before entering the Trent Building the day after the arrests. The student and member of staff that was arrested was held from Wednesday May 14 until Tuesday, May 20 without charge, in spite of the fact that Rizwaan Sabir’s supervisor and personal tutor both confirmed to the police that the document they had downloaded and printed was legitimate research material on Friday, May 16. The homes of the two men were raided; they had their computers impounded and they have still not been returned; the family of Rizwaan Sabir was ejected from their home during the police’s search; several colleagues in the School of politics were interviewed for hours by the police. A low-key investigation would have resolved this matter within hours by contacting the relevant members of staff at the School of Politics and International Relations; indeed, a low-key investigation, to use Dr. Greatrix’s term, would have been conducted by the university itself, without any police involvement at all.” [3]

5. The document was passed by the postgrad student, Rizwaan Sabir, to the staff member, Hicham Yezza (an ex-postgrad student) because Sabir wanted to print it out and didn’t have enough print credits to do so on his own account, whereas Yezza, as a staff member, would have easy access to a printer.

6. Both men are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing and have zero to do with terrorism.

This has led to an understandable and righteous furore at the University, with staff getting up tight about academic freedom, students getting uptight about personal freedom and political repression, and foreign students getting very uptight about being targetted by the spooks on account of having dusky skins, as there certainly seems to be a strong ethnic element to the treatment by the cops of the detainees. A demonstration by students and staff will be taking place tomorrow (28th May) by the main campus library to protest against the arrests, in favour of academic freedom, and against the threatened deportation of Hicham Yezza.

That Yezza is being threatened with deportation smells of an act of spite by the cops, who have come out of this looking like complete idiots. They’ve held two guys for six days – imagine yourself in that position! – without charge, turned their homes and their lives upside-down, on sod-all evidence other than the download which even thick cops should have been able to track to a US government website – er, you do know what server logs are, don’t you, boys? It really feels like they’re trying to pin something on them just to give their bungling a fig-leaf of respectability. That Yezza would be deported to Algeria, a country not known for its tolerant attitude to political dissent, but well known for its love of torture and killing political opponents, plainly doesn’t bother the cops one little bit – the point seems to be to save face.

Students also feel that the arrests were part of a campaign against student activism:

“During questioning, the police regularly attempted to collate information about student activism and peaceful campaigning. They asked numerous questions about the student peace magazine ‘Ceasefire’, and other political student activities. The overt police presence on campus, combined with increased and intimidating police presence at peaceful demonstrations, has created a climate of fear amongst some students. Many saw the operation as a message from the police that they are likely to arrest those who have been engaged in peaceful political activities. There is widespread concern in the community that the police are criminalising peaceful activists using terrorism legislation, such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.” [4]

The university has signally failed to support either man, and has covered itself in dishonour by its craven acceptance of the police line. Its only comment has been an email to staff, which accuses the THE article [2] of inaccuracy but otherwise says very little using a lot of words (reference [3] is a response to this statement). The main campus union, UCU (nèe AUT) has come out in support of the detainees, but only reluctantly and tepidly, saying that it wants to work “constructively” with the university to safeguard academic freedom, and maintaining that it has to support both the arrested staff member and the clerical staff member who shopped him so can’t stick its neck out in public comment. It’s been students and academic staff who’ve really been enraged by the whole affair and have brought it to public attention, and thanks to them the business is rapidly becoming a national cause cèlèbre – had it been up to UoN and the UCU the whole thing would have been quietly swept under the carpet.

As for the University, even if all questions of morality and ethics are put to one side, this story is going to hurt the institution financially. The university is absolutely dependent on overseas students from outside the EU, and in particular from SE Asia and China – it even has campuses in Malaysia and China. If word gets around that foreign students are being narked to the cops then they may well choose to go elsewhere, taking their very lucrative course fees with them. The uni has a lot of PR to do to repair the damage that this incident will cause.

Postscript

The demo on campus was well-attended, maybe around 300 at a guess despite it pouring with rain, and although mostly students there were a significant number of staff present. Wisely, the cops stayed away, though undoubtedly there were spooks in the crowd. An amusing fact that came up is that the ‘training manual’ is openly available on Amazon, a snip at $15. So much for illicit “extremist material”…

References:

[1] Two Nottingham terror arrests. Nottingham Evening Post, 16/5/08

[2] Research into Islamic terrorism led to police response. Times Higher Education, 22/5/08. See also the comments on the THE story which, for a change, are enlightening and reasoned.

[3] Comment on university communication on recent events. Statement by 3 academic members of staff, published on Nottingham Indymedia on 27/5/08.

[4] Terror law arrests at Nottingham: Statement by students and staff. Published on SACC website, 21/5/08.

Further reading:

Nottingham Uni detainee innocent but still facing deportation. Nottingham Indymedia, 23/5/08.

Al Qaeda download sparked my arrest. Nottingham Evening Post, 23/5/08

Terror arrest ‘cock up’ – MP. Nottingham Evening Post, 26/5/08

Student tells of his despair in ‘terror’ inquiry. Nottingham Evening Post, 23/5/08. The comments on this story from locals really show how stupid, ignorant and bigoted some Notts people are. No change since the days of the 83-84 Miner’s Strike, then… ;-\

Psst! Got any fags under the counter?

Another day, another ‘control measure’ to ’safeguard the nations health’. This time the State is going to ban the display of cigarettes in shops in England in order to “stop children from taking up smoking” [1], so soon fags will become ‘under the counter’ goods with all the accompanying sleazy connotations. This follows on from a similar recently-announced ban in Scotland [2].

The State and politicians should have the courage to state openly that their intention is to stop smoking altogether, rather than lie that these measures are taken to benefit non-smokers or to save the children (shades of South Park and “think of the children!”). The ban on smoking in public places was always about public health and NHS expenditure, and it was a blatant and shameless lie that it was intended to protect non-smokers from passive smoking – had that been the real issue, then it would have been simple enough to work out ways, such as airlocked rooms, to allow people to smoke indoors.

The forthcoming ban on cigs being on display such that smokers have to ask for them to be brought out from under the counter is plainly aimed at stigmatising them and has nothing at all to do with children picking up the habit – under-18s can’t buy fags legally anyway, and the idea that an adolescent would be subject to hypnotic allure simply by seeing cig packets in the newsagents is the stuff of absurdist satire.

People who smoke have been subject to a systematic (quite literally) long-term project to demonise and dehumanise them, such that they’re not only seen as prey to a ‘filthy habit’ but, worse, are portrayed as threatening other’s health through exposure to cigarette smoke and imposing a “burden” on the NHS. It’s a matter of time before smoking parents with children are forced to smoke outside their houses, for fear of child abuse. Another inevitable measure is smokers being forced to pay for health treatment, or threatened with the withholding of treatment until they give up smoking (though that has its own ramifications – see Physician, heal thyself) . You can even see pet owners who smoke being investigated by the RSPCA for animal abuse. Ludicrous? No, just a logical extension of current policies and principles.

Many would say “serves them right”, and would support any measure, however draconian, to eradicate smoking and smokers. That such an attitude is gaining ground in society, and that smokers are seen by many as being on a par with child abusers, is an indication of the success of the stigmatisation project.

It would be far more honest for the State to ban smoking altogether. it would fail, of course, and would lead to the criminalisation of millions of people, but that doesn’t stop it banning other recreational drugs, such as cannabis  and E, which turns millions of citizens who just want to chill out into criminals who can be locked up.

Oh, and you non-smoking drinkers who raised a glass to the pub smoking ban? You’re next, you smug gits. Already the regime is making noises about “binge drinking”, banning outdoor drinking, ‘alcohol awareness’ advertising campaigns (such as are appearing on TV already), and raising taxes to punitive levels, and with good reason as the arguments used to stigmatise smoking – the damage to society and public health – apply in Spades to alcohol, which is demonstrably more damaging to personal (liver failure, heart disease) and societal (violence, alcoholism, work absenteeism) health than smoking. Now that the anti-smoking argument has been enthusiastically accepted by the State and its cheerleaders, the chattering classes, anti-drinking will follow as surely as night follows day.

[1] Cigarette ban proposals welcomed. BBC News Scotland, 25/5/08

[2] Tobacco display ban plan unveiled. BBC News Scotland, 21/5/08

[3] The last gasp: Health Secretary signals new smoking curbs. Independent, 26/5/08