Reactions to the Terror Statistics

Here is a round-up of the reactions to the shocking figures supplied by MI5 last night.

The Conservatives called on the government to do more to tackle extremism. They called for a unified border police, allowing the use of phone-tap evidence in courts and said that we need "to be firm on Muslim radicals and Imams who preach hatred to the West".

The Lib Dems, called on the government to capitulate, and change both foreign and domestic policy to suit the radicals. Nick Clegg said, "The effect of our foreign and domestic policies on opinion in our Muslim communities, especially young men, now requires constant vigilance. New security measures alone will not win the battle of hearts and minds if they unwittingly push more and more people into an extremist direction."

The Muslim Council of Britain told the BBC that the problem of radicalisation wasn't a problem for one community but was a wider societal problem. Something which is demonstrably not true.

The Islamic Human Rights Commission, came out all lies blazing. They said that they were "absolutely astonished" by the news and declared the figures to be an "exaggeration". Of course, the IHRC are better placed to know the truth than the head of the body actually gathering the data. But they went further, stating that of the 1,000 people arrested since 9/11 only "Twenty-seven were found guilty – and only ten were Muslim. That is ten too many, but nevertheless, let us keep this in perspective".

This is simply not true. last month John Reid released figures stating that 214 people had been convicted of terrorism since 9/11. Unless of course the IHRC also knows those figures better than the Home Secretary.

Beckett Calls on Moderate Muslims

Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, is to make a speech later today to call on moderate Muslims in this country to help against extremism. She is expected to tell Muslims to "stand up and be counted" and that "they, the Muslim communities, have a special ability to make a difference in the struggle against extremism."

When John Reid said the same thing to Muslim parents he was condemned by Muslim groups, expect the same again; complaints about being singled out and threats that terror will only stop if we appease them by changing foreign policy.

Another interesting twist is the take the BBC has on this speech. The BBC headline reads, "Terror threat growing - Beckett". While Ms Beckett does slip that into her speech in one line saying the threat "remains serious and is increasing", even the BBC article admits that it isn't the point of her speech. Nevertheless, that one line is the message the BBC want to spread.

UPDATE: The Islamic Human Rights Commission has released a press statement exactly fulfilling the prediction. They claim:

Margaret Beckett’s comments today, in once again urging British Muslims to speak out against terrorism, falsely suggest that hitherto Muslims have not been doing so. This repeated habit of focussing on the Muslim community is nothing more than a diversionary tactic to deflect attention away from the role played by Britain’s domestic and foreign policies in the rise of terrorism.

There are the two parts; first complaining about Muslims being singled out and then telling us that it is foreign policy that must change to prevent terrorism. Completely predictable reaction from the extremists.

1,600 Terrorists in Britain - 230 Plots

The Director-General of MI5 has told the press of the level of threat from terrorism in Britain. The figures are shocking:

1,600 individuals are actively engaged in planning terror attacks

30 major plots are under investigation and 200 less serious ones are not being investigated because of lack of resources.

6 major terror attacks have been prevented in the last six years.

She added:

The threat is serious, growing and will, I believe, be with us for a generation. Today we see the use of home-made improvised explosive devices. Tomorrow’s threat may — and I suggest will — include the use of chemicals, bacteriological agents, radioactive materials and even nuclear technology

And there was a warning about grooming:

More and more people are moving from passive sympathy towards active terrorism through being radicalised or indoctrinated by friends, families, in organised training events here and overseas, by images on TV, through internet chatrooms and websites....

It is the youth who are being actively targeted, groomed, radicalised and set on a path that frighteningly quickly could end in their involvement in mass murder of their fellow UK citizens — or their early death in a suicide attack or on a foreign battlefield.

Frightening stuff. This is the kind of threat that the country needs to unite to stand against. When we fought the Nazis the enemy was clear and the cause was clear. Unfortunately, in our time, the enemy is hidden and they do their best to confuse their cause leading to disunity amongst their targets.

Sacked Muslim PC Wants Police Protection

The Muslim PC who was sacked from his post in the Diplomatic Protection Group because he failed a counter-terrorism check, is asking for police protection. He decided to sue the Metropolitan Police for discrimination and as a result had his name, photo and details splashed across the papers. Now he feels that he might be in danger and needs police protection.

His lawyer wrote to the Met saying:

We have tried to protect the identity of our client but were concerned to discover today he had been photographed and his picture appeared in the Daily Mail and Daily Express....

Although most of the press comments have been balanced, the article in today's Daily Mail was inflammatory and caused our client to feel harassed. The article, 'the Al-Qaeda factor' appears to link our client to that organisation rather than the former imam at his former mosque. We believe the article may lead to our client being targeted by far-right groups

It is difficult to comprehend the complaint in this case. He is suing the police for unfair dismissal because he claims not to be connected to terrorism. It is inevitable that the media will investigate his background and shine a massive spotlight on any possible connections. If he didn't want any media attention he should not have gone ahead with his case.

British Woman Charged With Terrorism

A British Muslim woman is due to appear in court today to face charges of possessing information likely to be useful to someone preparing acts of terrorism. Despite the relatively innocuous charge she is alleged to have a whole host of terrorism manuals. These include the Al-Qaeda Manual, the Terrorists Handbook and the Mujahideen Poisons Handbook; not to mention books about the use of weapons.

She is being tried as part of the same investigation which caught a man, Sohail Anjum, trying to smuggle money and equipment into Pakistan for terrorist activities.

Veil Allowed in Court

Mr Justice Hodge has ruled that full face veils may be worn in courts as long as they do not interfere with communication. He said:

The presumption is that if a representative before an asylum immigration tribunal wishes to wear a veil, has the agreement of his or her client and can be heard reasonably clearly by all parties to the proceedings, then the representative should be allowed to do so.

However, he added that if the judge cannot hear the lawyer, as was the case with Ms Mughal that sparked this decision, then "the interests of justice are not served" and the judge may ask for the veil to be removed.

Criticism has come from Conservative MP David Davies who said:

If we were in a Muslim court we would be expected to abide by their rules on dress. So why is it that this lady can work in a British court and wear whatever she likes?”

The answer, Mr Davies, is that we are better than they are. We have liberties and they do not. We shouldn't sink to their level. Another Tory MP complained that the judge in the original case was not backed. This is also wrong, because, under the new guidelines, he was right to ask her to remove her veil.

While the wearing of a veil may be culturally abhorrent, it is more abhorrent to pass legislation banning a particular item of clothing for purely cultural reasons. On the other hand, it is important that the practical problems are addressed and so they have been.

Elite Anti-Terror Unit Planned for Manchester

A group of 300 elite anti-terrorism officers is to be established in Manchester to create a "hostile environment" for terrorists across the North-West. Two other groups are being planned for Yorkshire and the West Midlands; areas where the terror threat is greatest.

Greater Manchester Police had established their own anti-terror branch containing about 20 officers; they have been involved in many raids. This new force will be all the more effective; necessary when the scale of the problem has been revealed (see today's other story).

Galloway Snubs School

George Galloway has cancelled an appearance at a school in Edgware because he didn't want to be forced to keep to the topic. He was invited to speak at North London Collegiate School in Barnet on the topic of the future of the Labour Party. However, some Jewish parents were worried that he may spout his usual anti-Semitic tirade against Israel and give his support for Palestinian terrorism. This is a perfectly understandable request; his incitement could easily make life uncomfortable for the Jewish students of the school.

The headteacher reassured parents that he would be told to keep to the point. He had said:

If he were to touch on areas that we didn't feel appropriate, we would redirect the discussion, but at the end of the day he isn't coming in to speak about Israel.

Seems perfectly sensible from the school too. But Mr Galloway couldn't bear to be told to stick to the point, so he cancelled his appearance, saying:

I cancelled it because of their discourtesy. I read on a Jewish web site that they intended to read me a lesson in what I might speak about and what I must not speak about. Well, Tony Blair hasn't been able to gag me and the North London Collegiate School would not be allowed to.

If Mr Galloway wanted to talk about Israel why would he accept an offer to talk about the Labour Party? And if he isn't interested in talking about Israel then what is the problem? Two possibilities spring to mind. 1) He wants any platform he can find to spread his unique form of hate or 2) being told to keep to the topic at hand would be such an ego bashing for him he can't stand the thought that it might happen.

Terrorists Hiding in Wales

A lecturer in international politics and terrorism, based in Swansea, told a local paper that terrorists are increasingly using Wales to cover their activities. He told the paper:

If a terrorist cell carries out all its emailing and internet work from one location they are virtually waving a big flag over their heads saying 'we are here'. So what they are doing increasingly is using motorways to get out of places like London and Birmingham and heading for the relative anonymity of places like Wales and Scotland.

However, he said that it really made little difference where they accessed the internet from because security services could track them just as well. One point, though, is that Wales isn't being used only for internet access but for other activities too. The 7/7 bombers spent some time in Wales for a bonding session. Clearly they felt that security in Wales was generally more lax than elsewhere.

Even if it isn't true, there shouldn't be such a feeling because it is important to keep those planning terrorism under pressure which makes it more likely that they will make mistakes and be caught.

More on the Muslim Firearms Officer

The Met has defended its decision to prevent a Muslim police officer from guarding diplomats because he failed to pass a counter-terrorism check. A statement says that the decision is, "entirely proportionate, defendable and justified" and, "The level of vetting increases according to the sensitivity of the roles that officers and staff have to perform."

The officer failed because he had sent his children to be taught at a mosque whose cleric has links to terrorism. That mosque is the Broad Street Mosque in Swindon. Today, Azim Khan, secretary of that Mosque, said that the Imam in question had left three years ago and niether he nor the mosque had any connections to terrorism. He also mentioned that the officer had been on the committee of the mosque and declared:

We made a policy about six years ago not to allow anybody into our community who stands for inter-community hatred and we have no association or affiliation with any groups around the country.

Not quite true, his mosque is a member of the Swindon Stop the War Coalition. Furthermore, neither he nor his mosque are entirely moderate either. In regards to the Pope's recent comments, Mr Khan said that his comments were certainly in reference to terrorism and therefore the Pope should say "that he wants forgiveness for what he said."

During a meeting with the local MP discussing extremism he declared, "What we want is for justice for the third world, for the Palestinians and Iraqis. The UK needs to distance itself from the imperialism of the Americans."

Finally, his mosque organised a lesson for the local council on the true meaning of jihad. AT that meeting they said, "The people who bombed London and the Twin Towers are not Muslims."

And presumably if Islamic terrorists aren't Muslims then no Muslims need to tackle extremism and certainly don't need to take any responsibility for their actions.

If this is the kind of company that this police officer actively seeks out, it is little wonder that he doesn't pass a counter-terrorism check. While they may not be advocating murder they do not seem to be totally moderate and harmless.

UPDATE: More details are emerging and those involved are backtracking. The group that the Imam had links with is called Sipah-e-Sahaba, a Pakistani group believed to be a formal member of Al Qaeda. The Imam is associated with the group and held meetings with its members in Pakistan.

Yesterday, Azim Khan denied that the Imam had any connections with terror. Then a source from the mosque confirmed he did:

There was an imam here who was forced to step down because the other imams did not approve of his association with Sipah-e-Sahaba, which is a movement in Pakistan meaning Army of Companions. The imam went to madrassas in Pakistan in the 1980s and met this group, which is banned there. If Pakistan has banned a group, you know it's bad.

And then Mr Khan himself had to change his story somewhat, admitting that there had been problems in the Mosque but claiming that they had nothing to do with terrorism. It certainly seems that there is much more to this than was first revealed.