Britain lays out new deportation rules
Polls show public support, but Muslim and civil liberties groups say new criteria go too far.
British Home Secretary Charles Clarke has set out the government's
final criteria for excluding and deporting foreign extremists who foment hatred.
After the July 7 attacks in London, which killed 52 people, "the rules of the game" changed, according to Mr. Clarke, echoing comments by Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Individuals who seek to create fear, distrust and division in order to stir up terrorist activity will not be tolerated by the government or by our communities.
By publishing the list today, I make it absolutely clear that these are unacceptable behaviours, and will be the grounds for deporting and excluding such individuals from the UK.
The Home Office said the list was "indicative rather than exhaustive."
As laid out by the
Daily Telegraph, the
list covers the expression of views which:
- Foment, justify, or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs
- Seek to provoke others to terrorist acts
- Foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts
- Foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK
The actions it covers include:
- Writing, producing, publishing, or distributing material
- Public speaking, including preaching
- Running a website
- Using a position of responsibility such as teacher, community or youth leader
The new measures will apply to any non-British citizen residing in Britain or abroad.
"A database of those deemed to have breached the behavior code anywhere around the world will be
circulated to immigration officials at UK entry points, allowing them to bar admission to the UK to those on the list," reports
The Guardian.
Clarke said: "These powers are not intended to stifle free speech or legitimate debate about religions or other issues."
Yet some civil liberties groups and Muslim organizations don't seem persuaded.
The Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) said it was "
alarmed" at the the list and warned that the new grounds for deportation amounted to the "criminalization of thought, conscience and belief". IHRC chairman Massoud Shadjareh said: "The fact that Mr. Clarke's final list is almost identical to his initial proposals, despite numerous objections from interested parties, makes a total mockery of the consultation process."
Some human rights groups are worried about whether the government's new policy will result in what's been termed "extraordinary rendition" - the practice of sending terror suspects to countries with a known record of torturing detainees. The
Telegraph quotes James Welch, the legal director of the human rights group Liberty, as saying:
What has always separated us from the terrorists is that we do not torture people or send them to be tortured - that is the standard we need to maintain.
We believe it is better for terrorist suspects to be tried than shuffled around the world. If they have to be deported, then at the very least there
must be corroboration and robust involvement from international human rights monitors.
As
The Guardian points out, "the European convention on human rights - incorporated into UK law - forbids such deportations, something the government hopes to circumvent by bilateral 'memorandums of understanding' with such states."
These diplomatic assurances are not sufficient, according to Manfred Nowak, the UN special rapporteur on torture. He said that Britain has
not done enough to reduce the risk that deportees will be tortured when they return to their home countries, reports the
Times Online. The fact that such assurances are sought shows in itself that the sending country perceives a serious risk of the deportee being subjected to torture or ill treatment upon arrival in the receiving country. ... Diplomatic assurances are not an appropriate tool to eradicate this risk.
Despite the above objections to the new deportation criteria, some say the British government has not gone far enough in it's battle to eliminate dangerous incitement from extremists.
"Almost three-quarters of the public believe that it is
right to give up civil liberties to improve our security against terrorist attacks," reports the
Guardian.
A Guardian/ICM poll published [Tuesday] shows that 73% of respondents back the trade-off, with only 17% rejecting it outright. ...
Asked for their view on the deportation of foreign nationals who spread radical Islamist views, even if they were returned to countries which use torture, 62% of respondents were in favor. Only 19% were opposed.
"A
new wave of deportations - in addition to those already announced and the refusal to readmit the cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed to the UK - are expected to follow shortly," according to the
Guardian.
Also...
•
Thai MPs debate decree for south (
BBC)
•
In Iraq jail, resistance goes underground (
The Washington Post)
•
Suicide bombs breakthrough gives police vital clues (
The Guardian)
•
Controversial imams (
The Telegraph)
•
Playing hardball (
The Economist)
•
Ask Ayatollah Sistani! (
Slate)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Matthew Clark
.
|
RSS feed