'Mental Patient Sentenced under Anti-Terror Law'

Muhammed Azam aged 33, diagnosed as being a paranoid schizophrenic, became the first person to be arrested under the controversial Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA). His psychiatric history stretches back to 1999 when he had been sectioned and detained in a mental hospital for six months. Indeed, at the time of his arrest in September 2002 he was an outpatient at Farringdon Wing, Luton & Dunstable Hospital.

Upon reading news reports of his arrest, be it CNN, FOX, CBS or our very own BBC. They all described him as a computer programmer possessing information "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or had in his possession documents or records containing information of that kind." (Section 58 of ATCSA). On first impression, I for one thought that sounded like the capture of a ‘Terrorist Mastermind’

On sentencing at Southwark Crown Court, the judge pointed out, "There is no evidence that you have ever been a member of any terrorist or extremist organisation."
Despite all the best endeavour of his defence team, Azam still received a one year sentence.

Following America’s declaration of its War on Terror, the U.K. passed (ATCSA), a measure which Labour MP Brian Sedgemore described as a result of “panic and hysteria”. He compared it to the reaction within the British Establishment “In the aftermath of the French Revolution” (1789)
A notion that the government has used 9/11 as a pretext for implementing a series of measures that have previously been blocked.

Amnesty International alludes to the view that the Act may promote a world in which arbitrary, unchallengeable detention becomes acceptable. Civil libertarians go further by showing deep concern about what they describe as serious human rights violations occurring as a consequence of the UK (and US) authorities’ response to the events of 9/11.

The Observer on 04/01/04 notes that, “even against the menace of terrorism, we have to be vigilant that, in protecting its citizens, the state does not give too much unaccountable power to itself. Already it is clear that the politics of the first decade of the twenty-first century will be about tracing the difficult-to-negotiate boundary between individual freedom and safeguarding our security”.

Furthermore, Amnesty International records US State Secretary Powell as saying, "States which demonstrate a high degree of respect for human rights are likeliest to contribute to international security and well being".

Let us look at events on the ground - The majority of suspects detained under (ATCSA) have been young Muslims.........We are yet to see a terror act committed in this country that can be attributed to someone belonging to that category....Let us pray that there will never be one....Bear in mind that terror acts by the IRA have actually occurred (Not just a threat) but in the 1980's there was no concerted affront to civil liberty on the scale that we see today. A case in point maybe that of the late Sulayman Balal Zainulabidin, a revert to Islam, who was arrested 3 weeks after 9/11 and held for 10 months in a maximum security prison. A British jury acquitted him in July 2002.

Getting back to the Observer, “If the state is to act, to regulate and to enable in this environment, then it has to become better trusted and be seen as more legitimate. This month, the Hutton report will expose, just as other government inquiries such as the Phillips inquiry into BSE have done, how poor the political process and structure of government decision-making actually is. Action is deferred or postponed; information is manipulated; the prejudices of individual civil servants or Ministers, rather than considered appraisal, too often determine policy.

New Labour, before it took office, was an enthusiastic advocate of transparency and accountability. In office, it has converted to the caricature of the British state - that its vocation is to govern the great unwashed as it deems fit.”

Despite the above, this country has many contributions to be proud of :
When one thinks of free speech who can forget Tony Benn's moral tirade in the Commons questioning Britain's motives for engaging in Gulf War 1?
-This country has given asylum to thousands of people enabling them to escape torture and worse.
-Consumer and property rights have enabled citizens to conduct business fairly.
-The National Health Service has in the past benefited many people coming to this country.
-People from all over the world have taken advantage of British Institutions and the Education system in general.
-Many people abroad have used the British Justice System to fight civil lawsuits.
...and the list goes on.
However, all the above could be in jeopardy........How far this government is responsible is a moot point.

There is little doubt that terrorism is a nightmare and that it raises legitimate security concerns. It is self evident that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations must be addressed robustly. A common line that we are all familiar with, is the need to address the root cause. However, I would add that it is imperative for a broad based range of groups representing media, the legal fraternity, human rights, social welfare and academics to engage constructively with the government.

If the distinction between those who are contemptuous of rule of law and commit terrorism and those who espouse the rule of law is blurred, nothing can stop us from descending to barbarism.

Meanwhile, coming back to Muhammed Azam………he has been through a lot in the past few years, medical sedatives have conspicuously slurred his speech and movement, but many in the community feel that he is a harmless albeit troubled individual who is battling to regain his health…..In talking to me, he appears determined to make a positive contribution to society as a responsible citizen.