 |
|
"Hizb ut-Tahrir is a non-violent political party," Waheed
said.
|
LONDON,
August 6, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – Hizb ut-Tahrir
in Britain has slammed Prime Minister Tony Blair's pledge to ban the
Islamic group in the country as a part of anti-terror measures that also
drew immediate criticism from rights groups and individual lawyers.
"Hizb
ut-Tahrir is a non-violent political party," spokesman Imran Waheed
told Agence France-Presse (AFP) Friday, August 5.
"Our
members are all for political expression, not for violence," he
said, calling Blair’s remarks "most unjust" and pledged the
group would battle any ban via the courts.
"It
has had a history of non-violence for the last 50 years and these
measures are like what we have seen in Uzbekistan where President
(Islam) Karimov has been burning his political opponents alive."
He
appeared to be referring to a military crackdown that claimed several
hundred lives in eastern Uzbekistan in May, which the Uzbek government
said was a response to a plot by Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Blair
unveiled Friday new sweeping anti-terror powers that include deporting
and excluding foreigners who are accused of "condoning and inciting
violence" and closing worship places used for "fomenting
terrorism."
Blair
said the government will "proscribe Hizb ut-Tahrir and the
successor organisation of Al Muhajiroun."
"We
will also examine the grounds for proscription to widen them and put
forward proposals in the new legislation," he added.
Hizb
ut-Tahrir, or the party of liberation, is a movement founded in the
Middle East in the 1953, according to the group’s Web site.
It
established itself in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia 10
years ago and reportedly wants to create an Islamic state in the region.
It
defines itself as a "political party whose ideology is Islam, so
politics is its work and Islam is its ideology. It works within the
Ummah (Muslim nation) and together with her, so that she adopts Islam as
her cause and is led to restore the Khilafah (Islamic Caliphate)."
Unwise
 |
|
Hizb ut-Tahrir defines itself as a "political party whose ideology is Islam, so politics is its work and Islam is its ideology".
|
Britain’s
The Guardian newspaper further called the ban "unwise"
in an editorial Saturday, August 6.
"Hizb
ut-Tahrir has some deeply objectionable views, not least on Palestine
and Israel. Yet it appears committed to non-violence in the UK and seems
far more interested in politics than direct action," it said.
"Banning
it is likely to force it further underground and radicalize its
remaining members, as well as advertising it as a suitable rallying
point for potential extremists. The outcome could indeed be the opposite
of what Mr. Blair hopes to achieve."
The
Muslim Council of Britain, the main Muslim body in the country, has also
said the ban would be "counter productive".
"Banning
Hizb ut-Tahrir is certainly not the solution and may well prove to be
counterproductive," it said in an online statement Friday.
"We
understand that Hizb ut-Tahrir in the United Kingdom is an avowedly
non-violent group."
Dangerous
Human
rights groups and individual lawyers also called Blair’s new measures
as "dangerous" and "unacceptable."
The
main concern stems from possible deportations to countries notorious for
torturing prisoners and Blair’s veiled threat to amend the Human
Rights Act if the courts get in the way, The Guardian said.
"A
British court would never accept a diplomatic assurance from a country
that tortures its own citizens. Any attempt to amend the Human Rights
Act to force courts to do otherwise is doomed to failure. A free society
doesn't fight terrorists by exporting them to other countries. It
prosecutes them here in the UK," said Roger Smith, director of
rights group Justice.
Alex
Bailin, a barrister specializing in human rights law, said article 3 of
the European convention on human rights was an absolute prohibition
against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
"The
only legal option, theoretically, would be for the UK to de-ratify the
whole convention. That would involve us legally withdrawing from Europe
as respect for the convention is a condition of membership of the
Council of Europe," he said.
Human
rights lawyer Louise Christian, who has defended high-profile terror
suspects, warned about alienating young Muslims and criticized the
proposal to proscribe Hizb ut-Tahrir.
"History
shows that compulsion and legislation is not the way to eradicate
religious extremism. Deporting long-term residents to countries which
practise torture is also likely to outrage and upset Muslims," she
said.
Tony
Bunyon of Statewatch, the civil liberties group, also highlighted the
problems with deporting people if they were associated with
"extremist" Web sites, bookshops or organizations.
"Does
this mean that anyone seeking to understand - without condoning - the
use of violence will be classed as 'justifying or validating' it? If so,
it would constitute a major threat to the freedom of expression and the
freedom of the press."
