5 August 2005
The Prime Minister has outlined new security measures at his monthly media briefing.
Mr Blair said the measures were either being taken now, immediately, or under urgent examination.
Read the text of the briefing below:
Prime Minister:
Good morning and welcome to the August press conference. I’m going to read something to you and talk about certain measures where we are going to propose, and if you’ll bear with me, the statement’s a little longer than normal, but I hope you’ll find it’s got the necessary substance for you.
Since the 7th of July the response of the British people has been unified and dignified and remarkable. Of course there is anxiety and worry, but the country knows the purpose of terrorism is to intimidate, and it’s not inclined to be intimidated. Of course too, there have been isolated and unacceptable acts of racial or religious hatred. But they have been isolated, by and large Britain knows it is a tolerant and good natured nation, it’s rather proud of it, and it’s responded to this terrorism with tolerance and good nature in a way that’s won the admiration of people and nations the world over. However, I’m acutely aware that alongside these feelings is also a determination that this very tolerance and good nature should not be abused by a small but fanatical minority, and an anger that it has been.
Time and again over the past few weeks I’ve been asked to deal firmly with those prepared to engage in such extremism, and most particularly with those who incite it or proselytise for it. The Muslim community, I should emphasise, have been and are our partners in this endeavour. Much of the insistence on strong action to weed out extremism is coming most vigorously from Muslims themselves, deeply concerned lest the activities of the fanatical fringe contaminate the good reputation of the mainstream Muslim community in this country. The action I am talking about has in the past been controversial, each tightening of the law has met fierce opposition, regularly we have a defeat in parliament or in the courts. The anti-terrorism legislation of course passed in 2002 after September 11th was declared partially invalid, the successor legislation hotly contested. But for obvious reasons, the mood now is different, people do not talk of scare-mongering, and to be fair the Conservative leadership has responded with a genuine desire to work together for the good of the country, as have the Liberal Democrats.
Over the past two weeks there have been intensive meetings and discussions across government to set a comprehensive framework for action in dealing with the terrorist threat in Britain, and today I want to give our preliminary assessment of the measures we need urgently to examine. In the meantime, in so far as administrative measures not requiring legislation can be taken, we will act with immediate effect.
In looking both at the law and administrative measures we have surveyed extensively practice in other countries, including in particular other European countries, and to assist this process there will be a series of consultation papers over the coming weeks starting with a research paper that will detail experience in other countries. There will also be a cross government unit staffed by senior hand-picked officials to drive this forward under the guidance of Bill Jeffrey the Intelligence and Security Co-ordinator, and the Cabinet Committee on Counter Terrorism, which I chair. The Home Secretary, with whom I’ve been talking closely in the past week will have the Cabinet responsibility for co-ordinating this.
Here are the measures either being taken now, immediately, or under urgent examination.
First, the Home Secretary today publishes new grounds for deportation and exclusion. Deportation is a decision taken by the Home Secretary under statute. The new grounds will include fostering hatred, advocating violence to further a person’s beliefs, or justifying or validating such violence. These grounds will be subject to a short consultation period which will finish this month. Even under existing grounds, however, we are today signalling a new approach to deportation orders. Let no-one be in any doubt, the rules of the game are changing. These issues will of course be tested in the courts, up to now the concern has been that orders for deportation will be struck down as contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted by the European Court in the Chahal case in 1996, and indeed we have had such cases struck down.
However, the circumstances of our national security have self evidently changed, and we believe we can get the necessary assurances from the countries to which we will return the deportees, against their being subject to torture or ill treatment contrary to Article 3. We have now concluded a Memorandum of Understanding with Jordan, and we are close to getting necessary assurances from other relevant countries. For example, just yesterday I had very constructive conversations with the leaders of Algeria and Lebanon. There are around 10 such countries with whom we are seeking such assurances. France and Spain, to name just two other European countries, do deport by administrative decision. The effect is often immediate and in some cases the appeal is non-suspensive, in other words it takes place outside of their country. The assurances given by the receiving nation are adequate for their courts, and these countries are also of course subject to the European Convention on Human Rights and apply it directly in their own law. So it is important to test this anew now in view of the changed conditions in Britain. Should legal obstacles arise, we will legislate further including, if necessary, amending the Human Rights Act in respect of the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. In any event we will consult on legislating specifically for a non-suspensive appeal process in respect of deportations. One other point on deportations, once the new grounds take effect, there will be a list drawn up of specific extremist websites, bookshops, networks, centres and particular organisations of concern. Active engagement with any of these will be a trigger for the Home Secretary to consider the deportation of any foreign national.
Secondly, as has already been stated, there will be new anti-terrorism legislation in the Autumn. This will include an offence of condoning or glorifying terrorism. The sort of remarks made in recent days should be covered by such laws. But this will also be applied to justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere, not just in the United Kingdom.
Thirdly, anyone who has participated in terrorism, or has anything to do with it anywhere will be automatically refused asylum in our country.
Fourth, we already have powers to strip citizenship from those individuals with British or dual nationality who act in a way that is contrary to the interests of this country. We will now consult on extending these powers, applying them to naturalised citizens engaged in extremism, and making the procedures simpler and more effective.
Fifth, cases such as Rashid Ramda, wanted for the Paris Metro bombings ten years ago, and who is still in the UK whilst France seeks extradition are completely unacceptable. We will begin consultation on setting a maximum time limit for all future extradition cases involving terrorism.
Sixth, we are already examining a new court procedure which would allow a pretrial process. We will also examine whether the necessary procedure can be brought about to give us a way of meeting the police and security service request that detention, pre-charge of terrorist suspects, be significantly extended.
Seventh, for those who are British nationals and cannot be deported, we will extend the use of control orders, any breach of which can mean imprisonment.
Eight, to expand the court capacity necessary to deal with this and other related issues. The Lord Chancellor will increase the number of special judges hearing such cases.
Nine, we will proscribe Hizb-ut-Tahira and the successor organisation of Al Mujahiroun. We will also examine the grounds for proscription to widen them and put forward proposals in the new legislation.
Ten, it is now necessary in order to acquire British citizenship that people attend a citizenship ceremony, swear allegiance to this country, and have a rudimentary grasp of the English language. We will review the threshold for this to make sure it is adequate, and we will establish with the Muslim community a commission to advise on how, consistent with peoples complete freedom to worship in the way they want and to follow their own religion and culture, there is better integration of those parts of the community presently inadequately integrated. I have asked Hazel Blears to make this part of the work she is currently undertaking.
Eleven, we will consult on a new power to order closure of a place of worship which is used as a centre for fomenting extremism, and will consult with Muslim leaders in respect of those clerics who are not British citizens to draw up a list of those not suitable to preach and who will be excluded from our country in future.
Twelve, we will bring forward the proposed measures on the security of our borders with a series of countries specifically designated for biometric visas over the next year. Meanwhile the Home Office and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office are compiling an international database of those individuals whose activities or views pose a threat to Britain’s security. Anyone on the database will be excluded from entry with any appeal only taking place outside the country.
We will consult widely on these measures, including with the other political parties of course. It is evidently a heavy agenda to take forward, but it’s necessary, and let me also again repeat and make it clear, if legislation can be made ready in time, and the right consensus is achieved, we are ready to recall parliament in September, at least to begin the debate over these measures.
I want to make it clear yet again that this is not in any way whatever aimed at the decent law-abiding Muslim community of Great Britain. We know that this fringe of extremism does not truly represent Islam. We know British Muslims, in general, abhor the actions of the extremists. We acknowledge once again Muslim contribution to our country and welcome it. We welcome those who visit our country from abroad in peace, welcome those who know that in this country the respect and tolerance towards others which we believe in, is the surest guarantee of freedom and progress for people of all religious faiths.
But coming to Britain is not a right, and even when people have come here, staying here carries with it a duty. That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life. Those that break that duty and try to incite hatred or engage in violence against our country and it’s people have no place here. Over the coming months in the courts, in Parliament, in debate and engagement with all parts of our communities, we will work to turn these sentiments into reality, and that is my duty as Prime Minister.
Question and answer session:
Question:
Sir Ian Blair said this morning that he would have preferred that these powers or extension of power had been brought in earlier. You and other ministers have warned of possible attacks in Britain, and some would say why didn’t you act before the bombings happened here?
Prime Minister:
One of the reasons why I set out some of the history of this, just to indicate, we have been acting over a long period of time, and indeed if I can just read out to you some of the things that have been done. We’ve had the Terrorism Act of 2000, the Anti-terrorism and Security Act 2001, the most recent Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 which you will remember occurred just before the election, and I think you will also remember was fiercely, fiercely opposed in both Houses of Parliament. We have also modernised our extradition laws, the Extradition Act 2003 should mean that we can meet the time limit on extradition that we have been talking about. There of course is the doubling of the capacity of MI5, the introduction for the first time of the Britishness test for citizenship, and the changing of the law to allow terrorist suspects to be detained for up to 14 days. Now, I think to be frank, what has changed in the past four weeks since the attacks on 7th July, is that people now understand that when we warn of the terrorist threat this is not scare-mongering, it’s real and what we are going to do, and this is obviously the reason for the gap of time now is that we’ve got to get these, we’ve got to consult, we’ve got to get the law in proper shape. If we can do that it will obviously be sensible for Parliament to begin this process as soon as possible.
Question:
Prime Minister, there was a lot of talk after the initial attacks about how important it was not to alienate the Muslim community by cracking down with new legislation. Isn’t this exactly the danger you are running now, you are talking about closing down websites, you are talking about closing down places of worship, you are talking about expelling Imams. Aren’t you exactly falling into the trap that people believe Al Qaida are setting for western governments?
Prime Minister:
Well I think that’s a very good question because this is the balance you’ve got to strike. You see, I think what is interesting is that underlying you’ve got the majority of British society here, and the Muslim community there, and I don’t think that’s true. I think you’ve got the majority of British society including the majority of the Muslin community, and the fanatics here. And I think people are well able to see the difference between tough measures to drive out extremists, and measures aimed at the Muslim community as a whole. Now of course there will be those who try and exploit it and say this is designed to get at Muslims and so on. I think the Muslim community in this country is far more sensible than that, I think that they know perfectly well that these people are a menace to their own community, never mind to the rest of us, and I believe with the right discussion and consultation, and there has to be that, that’s what I’ve promised here, it will be supported and I have to say too that in the Muslim countries that I visit or speak to, they are absolutely up for or indeed already take measures to ensure they are protected against this extremism.
Right John, you’ve prepared the question, it had better be a good one…..
Question:
I’m not sure it’s worth the wait……
Just back on Vicky’s point, we hear what you say about the change of mood. I wonder though, it seems like this is a classic example of closing a stable door after a horse has bolted. We have been warned for years about the operation of Londonistan. Do you therefore concede that London would be a safer place now if the government had been more determined and acted earlier, and just a second point, when you talked about making it an offence to justify suicide bombing not just in Britain, but abroad, isn’t that a very very wide catch-all, I mean you could in theory be talking about views expressed by particular members of the UK Parliament for example?
Prime Minister:
Well I don’t believe suicide bombing is acceptable anywhere, terrorist attacks anywhere, and I think we should be very clear about that. Obviously it’s a matter for the courts to decide whether people are guilty of particular offences or not, but just to return to the earlier point, I think if you look back on what I’ve been saying over the past four years, I’ve been constantly saying we need to take these measures. I mean I know that people want to gloss over what happened in the months leading up to the election, but I do remind you that we were being fiercely opposed in the measures we had taken and the actual legislation that we had was being struck down. Anyway, you can go back over this many times but I think you have a different situation now and what is interesting to me is, when I talk to the French Prime Minister or the Spanish Prime Minister, it was actions of terrorism in their countries, the Paris Metro bombing, the Madrid terrorist attacks which then created the climate, if you like, in which people were prepared to take these measures. And what’s interesting, and I think I’m right in saying, is that Italy within the past few days has just proposed a whole series of fresh measures partly arising out of the London attacks and their own concerns obviously. I think Holland is doing the same, all over Europe there is this gearing up and I think it’s right to do so, but I think to be frank if I had come forward with these measures 3 or 4 months ago, I think it would have been a little bit more difficult.
Question:
Prime Minister, do you intend to screen or vet Imams working in British mosques?
Prime Minister:
What I want to do, and this is something that has to be discussed very closely with the Muslim community obviously, is to be in a position where if someone is a foreign national coming to preach in this country, they are not going to be preaching this type of extremism, and if they do, they’ve just got to understand they’re not going to come in. What I’m trying to do here is, and this will be followed up with the action in the next few weeks as I think you will see, is to send a clear signal out that the rules of the game have changed. We welcome people here who are peaceful and law abiding. People who want to be British citizens should share our values and our way of life. But if you come to our country from abroad, don’t meddle in extremism. If you meddle in it or engage in it, then you’re going to go back out again. Let me just say this to people very very clearly, this is the beginning of, and there will be lots of battles in the months ahead on this, let’s be quite clear because of the way that the law has been interpreted over a long period of time, and I am prepared for those battles in the months ahead. I am also absolutely and completely determined to make sure that this happens.
Question:
You have said repeatedly that you don’t think there’s any link between Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war and what happened in London. What do you make then of the linkage of the two yesterday in that video from Ayman Al Zawahiri.
Prime Minister:
Well let me first of all correct, I keep being asked this and I keep correcting it but it doesn’t seem to make any difference but there it is. I mean I’ve never said that those people who are engaged in extremism won’t use Iraq as a way to recruit or motivate people as they do Afghanistan, as they do the issue of Palestine, as they do, as the video made clear yesterday, what they call the presence of western countries in Islamic countries. They use all these things. I think the British people know how to deal with the type of comments that were made yesterday in that video. But I think the other thing that is important to point out worldwide is that these very self same people who are making those remarks yesterday are the people supporting the killing of wholly innocent people in Iraq, wholly innocent people in Afghanistan, innocent people anywhere in the world who want to live by the rules of democracy, and that’s why when they try to use Iraq or use Afghanistan, or use the Palestinian cause as a means of saying we have justification for what we do, it is a complete obscenity, because what they are actually doing in countries like Iraq or Afghanistan when the people have voted for democracy, is to try and stop them getting it.
Question:
You said, Prime Minister, that there had been isolated cases of religious and racial attacks, but the Independent found in it’s own survey that there were cases right across the country right up to West Yorkshire. What do you say to both sides of the community about the need to stop these sorts of acts, and also is any administrative action being planned about asylum seekers who have overstayed, or who are still in this country illegally?
Prime Minister:
Such attacks or abuse, racial abuse of any sort are completely and totally unacceptable. The only thing I’d say and I know there was discussion of the increase of such attacks, is that I really don’t believe that they represent the mainstream British community of whatever ethnic background. I think this country knows that part of the purpose of this terrorism is to get Muslims against Christians, people of one race or religion against another, and they are resistant to it because they don’t like it and they don’t believe in it. I’m not in any way diminishing the importance of tackling anybody who engages in this type of activity, but I really do think it does not represent where the majority of the country is. On asylum, well of course, I think that people often don’t understand what the problem is of removing failed asylum seekers. The problem is different from the problem of removing foreign nationals who are a threat to our security. The problem in relation to failed asylum seekers is this, and it’s why even though Britain, and people don’t often understand this, Britain actually removes proportionally and I think in absolute terms more failed asylum seekers than any other country in Europe, but the problem with removing failed asylum seekers is that in order to remove somebody you need to have a country that is prepared to accept them as one of their nationals and document them as such, and the problem in asylum has always been, although we’re trying to rectify this, which is why we are acting both on our own account and within Europe, is that countries will often refuse to accept that someone is one of their nationals, and one of the abuses I’m afraid that has happened with the asylum process which is why it’s so important to reduce radically the numbers applying for asylum, which we’ve done, is that people will come in for example claiming they are an Iranian, and they’re not Iranian, or claiming they’re from Zimbabwe and not being a Zimbabwean, which is why it’s important that we continue with a pretty tough series of messages on it.
Question:
Prime Minster, can you give us an idea of how many people you expect to be excluded or deported under these new powers, are we just talking about a handful of people or will it run into dozens or even hundreds?
Prime Minister:
Well we’re certainly not talking about a handful, but I think it’s for the Home Secretary and the police and the immigration services to decide that, but in my view anyone who is a foreign national who is inciting or engaged in extremism in this country should be out.
Question:
Prime Minister, George Galloway launched an extremely personal attack on you this morning suggesting that you had more blood on your hands than the London bombers and comparing you to a terrorist. What would you say to him and to people from whatever community they come from who feel like him, and would some of the comments he has made particularly referring to suicide bombers as martyrs, in theory be covered in your plans to exclude or deport people whether they are British nationals or otherwise?
Prime Minister:
Well you can’t deport people who are British nationals, but I’m not going to enter into a shouting match with that particular person because I’m sure that’s what he wants and I don’t think I should give it to him.
Question:
Can I just get a bit clearer on how these new powers would work. Would it be an offence for example for a broadcaster to broadcast a video such as the Al Qaida one, because you could say that was inciting terrorism, would it be also given the breadth of this definition, mean that Palestinian leaders would be excluded from coming to the UK, those that tacitly support suicide bombings. How wide do you think the remit will be in the new powers?
Prime Minister:
It’s obviously not going to include broadcasters who broadcast those comments because they are not, in broadcasting it, inciting it, and it’s for the courts to decide but you know this idea of justifying or inciting, it’s not unknown to the law and we obviously have to draw the law up carefully, but let me just make it very clear to you, in my view anybody who is coming from abroad into our country and coming here to say suicide bombing is a good thing, these people are heroes, that they should do more of it and all the rest of the appalling rubbish that we’ve heard, they shouldn’t come into Britain, and if they are here, they should leave.
Question:
Ken Livingstone has said similar things?
Prime Minister:
Actually, I don’t think he has, to be fair.
Question:
He says he understands why Palestinians use their bodies as a last resort?
Prime Minister:
That may be a different thing if people are talking about understanding and so on, and I’m not here to curtail proper political debate, but there’s a great British characteristic which is common sense, and I think people understand that the common sense difference between people who have political views that I don’t agree with that you don’t agree with, and people who are actively engaged in trying to incite people to kill others or justifying it, and I personally don’t believe anything I’ve read from that particular quarter would possibly qualify for that.
Question:
Prime Minister, since these measures do not require acts of parliament, will they be retrospective in the sense that they will apply to people already on the record as using inflammatory and proselytising language, and secondly would you accept that those people who have indeed listened to you saying over the last four years that attacks like we have seen in London over the last few weeks were inevitable, that they may be bewildered to discover that these measures were available for the Home Secretary without an act of parliament throughout all this time, and some may even wonder had they been in operation we might not have had those attacks.
Prime Minister:
The answer to your first question is yes in so far as they are measures to do with deportation, and the administrative changes, the answer to that is yes. the legislative changes of course do require legislation, and in any event some of these measures require detailed consultation, but whether measures are there administratively or legislatively, I think most people recognise that the climate in which these measures are being taken is somewhat different today.
Question:
Prime Minister, I was struck by earlier where you said people who come to this country and want to share our way of life, many people feel that some of the immigrant communities come here of actually having a separate way of life, I mean they want very separate distinctive dress, separate schools, and David Davis the Opposition Home Affairs spokesman has said it’s time to end multiculturalism, it’s time to integrate these people far more into the main stream of British life, do you agree with that?
Prime Minister:
I never know, although I use the term myself occasionally, quite what people mean when they talk about multiculturalism. If they mean people living in their separate cultures and never integrating at any point together, I think that’s actually certainly not what I mean by the word and I don’t think it’s what most people would regard as sensible. So I think you can get hung up on the word, to be absolutely frank, and debating exactly what it means. Let me tell you what I think about this and part of the announcement that I made was that we would look with the Muslim community at how we establish a commission that specifically addresses the question of integration, to see whether there are in particular parts of the Muslin community real problems because I think that most of us understand that there is an issue here that needs to be dealt with and tackled, and I think, to use British common sense on it, most people understand that you can have your own religion and your own culture but still feel integrated into the main stream of a community. I think that most people understand that that’s the balance. I think that when people are isolated in their own communities, for example when you have people who have been here sometimes 20 years or more and who still don’t speak English, that worries me. It worries me because I think there’s a seperateness there that might be unhealthy, and I just think we need to look at that and look at it in an honest way and learn from the experience of other countries as well.
Question:
It seems to me that many of these leaders of terrorist groups like for example Heron Rashid who is going to, he wants to come and be dealt with here as he believe this is a just country even in dealing with terrorists. People like Abu Qatada and so on doesn’t want to be deported to Jordan because he believes that this is a just country, more just than any other European or western country. If you change, I’m not saying that all these people shouldn’t be dealt with strongly, but what I am saying, we have an image here of having a justice that is above all the rest in Europe and the western world. By these measures you are bringing us down to the level of the others, first. Second, today I heard on CNN that Lindsay Germaine the fourth bomber, they don’t know the link with the three other Pakistanis. The 7 July bombings, it’s not yet very clear whether they have a Muslim origin or any other incitement. They are still dealing with it, the police and so on, so you are coming with measures that will change the face of our culture, the face of our society and altogether at a time when we haven’t really decided whether that’s the right course to do. Why don’t you engage these people, you know, bring them here, put them in prisons and lets try to engage them and change their views. People like Abu Qatada and so on, some of them have residencies and British citizenships and things like this. By putting these laws you are inciting others.
Prime Minister:
Ok, I’ve got the point. We are very proud of our justice system here, and we are very proud of the British way of life, and we’re proud of the fact that we treat people fairly, that we welcome in people who are fleeing persecution. But I’m sorry, people can’t come here and abuse our good nature and our tolerance. They can’t come here and start inciting our young people in our communities to take up violence against British people here, and if they do that, they’re going to go back. I’m sorry, there’s no point in us kidding ourselves about the nature of this problem. It’s there, it’s in our communities and we’ve got to root it out. Now part of it is rooting it out internationally I agree, and we will go through a proper judicial process with proper assurances from countries to which they are going to be returned, but if people want to come here as refugees fleeing persecution, or as people seeking a different or better way of life, they come here and they play by our rules and our way of life. If they don’t then they are going to have to go because they are threatening people in our country and that’s not right either. The way to protect our way of life is to respond very clearly to that clear view of the British people, that yes we have responded to the 7th July attacks by saying that we want to keep our country together, and to respect all out communities, including the Muslim community, but we also want to deal with the extremists in our ranks because that is a way of protecting our way of life and that is honestly the only way you can deal with this.
Question:
What is needed from Syria because we hear all the time criticism of what Syria is doing with regard to insurgents etcetera. We didn’t find any sort of real communication or direct communication on behalf of the US or UK. We heard yesterday Mr Rumsfeld saying that Syria’s behaviour is unwise. Always hearing these things. An active engagement, a direct talk of how Syria could help and nothing has, Syria sent 10,000 soldiers to the borders and it was promised by the UK for technical staff for the borders, you know US cannot protect it’s border in Mexico, but a proof needs to be found without continuing this sort of criticism, an active engagement and dialogue with Syria is a necessity and we understand that Britain is the master of dialogue.
Prime Minister:
And we are happy to have that dialogue with Syria anytime, and indeed we have been in communication with Syria often, but if there is more active engagement that Syria wants on this issue of allowing these terrorists to cross the Syrian border into Iraq, we will have that dialogue and engagement. We do want to make it clear, it isn’t acceptable, they can’t be allowed to cross the border and come into Iraq and start killing people or try to kill our troops who are there with the UN mandate now, so I am very happy and please relay this message back, I am very happy to have that engagement and dialogue in any structured way that Syria wants, but they have to understand that there is a UN mandate for democratic government and for the presence of the multinational force now in Iraq, and it is the obligation of every country to give support for that mandate and not undermine it, and I hope people understand that.
Question:
Prime Minister would you comment on one of the Conservative leaders statement that British Muslims who don’t feel comfortable in this country can quit and go?
Prime Minister:
Look, I haven’t actually read the remarks myself but I just want to make one thing clear because it is very important in the light of the difficulty in trying to do something like this is that British Muslims should understand that they are our partners in getting this done. We need their help and assistance in getting this done, but in the conversations I have had, formally and informally with British Muslims, over the past few weeks, they are as desperate as anyone else, in some ways more desperate to make sure that this extremism is weeded out and dealt with because they don’t want it contaminating the reputation of Muslims. British Muslims make a great contribution to this country, they don’t want a gang of extremists affecting their good name.
Question :
Two things. One, there has been so much talk in the Press about a third real threat, a third cell ready to attack and Scotland Yard keeps denying that there has been such intelligence but it keeps resurfacing in various Media reports so I am just wondering if you have anything to say about that. Secondly, I have met with some Muslim leaders this week who have told me that even before the attacks the Government was very pro-active in trying to work on matters of integration so they seem pleased with that, but this whole issue of the internet world seems like it is going to be a much harder nut to crack and I am wondering how you even begin to go about that one?
Prime Minister:
I have got nothing really to add to what the Police have said. Look, I think the difficulty that we have, it is a statement of the obvious in a way, that given what has happened, we don’t know what else might be out there but we are trying to make damned sure that we can find out and in the meantime we obviously want to be very, very vigilant and alert but I can assure you we are working on it as hard as we possibly can. But what the Police and security services are basically saying is right. And in respect of the internet world, well I think this is something we have to look at Internationally as well. This is a real problem because these sort of extremist internet types are a very, very direct incitement and they are used extensively by people who want to foment this type of hatred and I think we are still, I hope, in the international summit that is taking place in September on some of this where the United Nations are trying to convene people to take firmer action on terrorism, I hope we can start looking at how we can, across borders, deal with some of these issues because it is a real problem. And I think that the more I think about this type of phenomenon which we are dealing with and it is why I see this as a global threat that has to be handled at a number of different levels, including the level of ideas and ideology, as well as security measures, is that I think it has got some of the same characteristics as revolutionary communism, you know, in the sense that it has got an ideology, it is very extreme, that it can be used to engage young people at a certain level and in a certain way, it has got often the cells of it of a loose association with one another, but on the other hand they have got this ideology that binds them together, they know the types of places that they can go to to get the information and to try and stimulate this type of extremism and we have got to deal with it in a way that recognises that its roots are very deep, very extensive around the world, and you need to pull them up at the same time as dealing with all the rest of it. That is why what happens in the Middle East is very important, what happens in the Middle East is a very important part of winning this battle here, what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan is an important part of winning this battle here, because it is a battle of ideas and what these people want to say is the purpose of Western policy, American policy in particular, is to suppress Islam. Now you may agree or disagree with American policy but that is not its purpose and if we can achieve democracy in certain countries that starts to send a very different signal and that is a very important part of winning this battle of ideas, so that people in the end become less attracted to this propaganda because it is so obviously countered by reality. It is also why I have also said it is important that we try and make progress in the Middle East.
Question:
Prime Minister, just taking further what George said, which was point 10, that you wanted British citizens to give citizenship at a ceremony and the question of integration is it actually your Labour policy of political correctness and pushing for this multi-culturalism and specifically on local government level which, at one point, stopped actually teachers teaching young children, children in the Midlands, the British way of life, and the values which actually attracted their parents to come and live in this country. Their parents came to live here out of choice, the way of life, so don’t you need actually to really look into this policy of political correctness and re-examine and allow schools to teach them British values, rather than the segregation under the name of multi-culturalism?
Prime Minister:
You have got to be careful of exaggerations because occasionally you read about this, but I have probably visited more schools than any other Prime Minister before me. I visited one the other day, a couple of weeks ago, that I think had something like 70 or 80 different languages spoken in the school, but that was a perfect example, there were those languages spoken, but people were actually trying to help the kids from those various backgrounds integrate and most schools, I am quite sure, do that and I am about the least politically correct person there is on this type of thing. So, we do need to look at how we do this, but I think it is a slightly wider problem, and that is why I think it is helpful to sit down with the community and say how is the best and most sensitive way of dealing with this because what you don’t want is a situation where people feel they can’t have their own culture and religion because people want that and there is absolutely no harm in that at all, and most people find no difficulty at all. If you talk to, as I say, the majority of the Muslim community here, or the Hindu community here, or the Sikh community here, or the Jewish community here, or the Chinese community here, any of those communities integrate very intensely but they still keep their own culture alive and their own identity alive, and I don’t think that’s a problem. I think it only becomes a problem where people, as it were, withdraw from the common culture and the mainstream, I think when they withdraw in a very deliberate way that is unhealthy in my view. Now I know that is not necessarily very easy, and I am sure my remarks tomorrow will be misinterpreted in a multitude of different ways, but I think most people know what I mean by that, which is to say not that Muslims shouldn’t carry on being Muslims, and Jews with Jewish practices and Christians with Christian practices but that we, in a certain common wheel, come together and that is the point.
Question :
You said that you want to have a dialogue with the Muslim community, you had one meeting after 7 July and so did your Home Secretary. In both those meetings the majority of the Muslim community leaders emphasised that they wanted an independent judiciary inquiry into the 7 July bombings. Now will you take this view of the Muslim community leaders seriously? I have talked to many others since then and they want to know exactly what happened, why did these kids go and do the bombings, so they want an independent judiciary inquiry. Would you take that on board?
Prime Minister:
I don’t think it is so much a sort of judicial inquiry we need into what happened because we can see that very easily, what we need to explore with the community is why these young people came to this extreme and fanatical view and did what they did. Look, the trouble is you will always find someone who makes a remark and it gets exaggerated in the way it is reported, and so on, from different parts of the community, and part of the difficulty is that, as with every other walk of life, the sort of silent, moderate majority often doesn’t get its voice heard because it is not saying anything sensational. But Muslims I have talked to in the past few weeks, as I say informally, which almost matters as much to me as talking to people around the Cabinet table, they know perfectly well that there is a problem that needs to be dealt with and they want to have it dealt with. What they do want, however, is to have it dealt with with them part of the solution, partnering the rest of the country, not having it done to them, and that is the important thing. And it is also likewise where you have got people say well, the people you have got around the Cabinet table, the people that Hazel meets or Charles meets, you know how do you get down to the young radicals and all the rest? Those are perfectly reasonable points and we have to look at how we get the right role models going into the community and the right people talking about how Muslims do integrate properly and how many people have, to be fair, that is what the majority do. We also will need to challenge though, that is my point, this extremism needs to be challenged as well as simply understood.
Question :
A couple of specifics from your earlier answers, if I may? You are going to deal with preachers who preach hatred and back terrorism, but I am still not clear whether there is going to be screening of Imams coming into the country and being appointed to mosques and, if so, is that screening going to be conducted by the Muslim community or by the Government? Secondly, the Police are asking for the powers to detain terrorist suspects up to three months instead of two weeks as at present, you seem to be talking of an extension, how much of an extension are you prepared to go for? You say the Police and the security services are right to warn of a continuing danger, just how specific is that danger in JTAC terms? Does that mean that they, and you, believe there is a group out there with the intention and the capability to inflict something as bad as July 7?
Prime Minister:
No, on that latter point I am saying no more than they are saying, which is obviously if we know something specific is about to happen we take action on it, but plainly we should be on our guard, and I think it is best that they talk to you about that and don’t let me cut across what they are saying because they will choose their words very carefully, and I want to choose my words on that carefully too. But I think really what they are saying is, look, it stands to reason, because of what has happened in the past few weeks, that we have got to be extremely vigilant. On your first point, yes, that is exactly what I am saying and we have got to work out the way to do this with the Muslim community, let me be very clear about that, but we need a situation where you don’t come in as a foreign cleric to come and preach in this country if you are one of these people who is going to come in and preach this type of extremism. And those who are foreign nationals, and are preaching this type of extremism, I am afraid they are going to have to go back because they shouldn’t be doing it here. In respect of the issue of suspects that is what the Police and security service have asked for, and what I am saying is, let’s examine whether this new procedure which we are already looking at which would allow some form of judicial oversight could be applied to their request. I want basically to give them the powers that they need, but obviously when you are talking about depriving people of their liberty there has to be a proper judicial process.
Question :
In your opening statement you said that, if necessary, you might consider amending the Human Rights Act to deal with issues of its interpretation. Are you not concerned by the warnings of lawyers, including one you know quite well, I think she’s called Cherie Booth, but at difficult times like this countries can be tempted into interfering with the independence of the Courts and taking action that would be regretted further down the line. If I may also ask, what do you say to critics who point out that while you were presiding at the G8 Summit, although of course that was overtaken by the awful attacks in London, but you were talking about Africa and dealing with the poverty there, Niger was already tipping into this awful catastrophe that it is now suffering and … nothing was done to stop it.
Prime Minister:
On the last point I am a bit mystified by this, quite apart from the fact that we are one of the third largest contributors to the relief effort in Niger, but what the G8 did was announce an action plan and we have got to then follow it through. The very fact of having a G8 meeting does not suddenly sort the problems of Niger or anywhere else in Africa, but if you implement what we agreed at the G8 it most certainly would, so that is why you have got to do it. And the fact is that if we had had the proposals in place from the G8 in respect of Sudan it would not have happened so you have simply got to follow it through. In respect of the first point, you see I don’t think that we should allow ourselves to be backed into an argument, and neither incidentally do I think this is remotely what was being said, but I don’t think we should allow ourselves to be backed into an argument where we say when you are protecting national security you are interfering with civil rights or civil liberties. Article 2 of the European Convention is the Right to Life. The European Convention specifically recognises that you have got to be able to protect your citizens and their right to be free from attack, or free from terrorism. So I think it is not so much a question, in fact, of saying we put national security above civil liberties, on the contrary it is more a question of saying, what is the right balance between the rights of people to say what they want, or do certain things, and the rights of other people to be free from attack, or free from fear, and that is the balance that has to be struck in any situation where you are debating rights. And I don’t, and never have accepted this idea that somehow there is a clash between the concept of human rights and the concept of protecting the country from terrorism. People have a right to be protected from terrorism, they also have a right to speak out, but the right to speak out carries with it a responsibility, and part of the responsibility is not to go and incite people to do something that interferes with the rights of the law abiding citizen, and that is the best way, I think, to look at it.
Question :
You spoke last month about the decisions of Courts on terrorism. Are you concerned that some of the measures you have unveiled today could be blocked or thrown out by the Judges? And, secondly, Jack Straw said this week that British troops in Iraq had become part of the problem. Do you agree with him?
Prime Minister:
Well I think on the latter point, actually what Jack was saying was this: that sometimes what is said, for example by extremists, is the purpose of the British and American forces is to "occupy Iraq". Actually that is not our purpose. Whatever the initial belief in the rights or wrongs of removing Saddam, for the last two years we have been there under a United Nations mandate, fully supported this time, incontestably in International Law, in order to help the country get democracy and to leave as soon as the security forces of Iraq are in the position with sufficient capability to look after their own security and I am sure that is really what he was saying too. As for your first point, well we will have to see, that is why I have cautioned that this is the beginning of a process here, but I think the country does rightly expect us to act, and this is why I said what I said at the beginning of my remarks. I think people have two almost quite separate currents of feeling about this. One is, we are not going to let these people intimidate us, destroy the tolerance and respect that is part of the British way of life for people of all races, religions, cultures. Second, we are angry about these extremists, we are angry about what they are doing to our country, we are angry about people abusing our good nature and our toleration, and those two currents have got to be satisfied together, and I think they can be actually, perfectly sensibly, but both exist in my view.
Question :
Can I just check on some of the specific points you have been raising earlier on. One was, you still haven’t said whether you are willing to derogate from clauses of the European Convention if necessary if you find the Judiciary won’t respond to your new memorandums of understanding which you say would make it possible to deport people. Secondly, I don’t understand what would happen to British nationals who remain involved in extremist websites from proscribed organisations. I don’t know what the penalties would be, and I think a lot of British Muslims would like to know that. And thirdly, in your commission on multi-culturalism, which Hazel Blears will chair, will that look at the role of not faith schools, but independent Islamic schools, of which there has been some criticism by OFSTED?
Prime Minister:
On the first point there are two separate things here, and it is very important that people understand this. The origin of the problem with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which every country not just in the European Union, every country as part of the Council of Europe is a signatory, it is not the European Union, it is the European Convention on Human Rights to which we have been a signatory for many, many years. The origin of the problem under Article 3 is the case called the Shallal Case (phon) which was actually decided in 1996 and what that Court decision said, by a majority incidentally of 12 to 7, was that even if someone was a threat to national security, if there was a substantial risk of them being subject to torture when returned to a country then that outweighed the national security consideration, and that was absolute, and in our Courts, following that, there has been this problem with deporting people who are a threat to our national security. Now in respect of British Courts we can retest it and, if necessary, we can amend the Human Rights Act and that covers the British Courts’ interpretation of the law. There is then, of course, the possibility that there is an appeal to the European Court. Now that is when we have also got to deal with that issue as well. The point that I’m making, however, is that in fact if you look at practice around Europe there are many countries who do deport people who are a threat to their security without these problems. So we have got to test it all the way through, but the bottom line is we have got to be in a position, provided we have got these assurances where we can return people to their own countries if they are here in this country getting involved in this type of extremism. What happens with British nationals, and again let me just make two points to you on this, one of the reasons why I think it is so important to deal with foreign nationals is that, though it is true, that there are British nationals as we know, and people indeed who are born and brought up in this country who have been involved in this extremism, a lot of what I might call the ideological drive and push comes from outside and that is why it is important some of the instigators and inciters of this, many of them are from outside. It is also important, frankly, that if we have to use the resource of our security forces and Police we should be using it as intensively on people who obviously can’t be deported, rather than not deporting those who we can and should. In respect, however, of British nationals there are the measures under the existing terrorism legislation and I have signalled today our desire to look at how we use those more extensively, and that is what we will do, and breach of those can involve someone in imprisonment so they will be subject to those laws.
Question:
(Inaudible)
Prime Minister:
As you know, the position on interrogating control orders is that if the Police and security services say they need them we can bring forward that to Parliament. But in any event, the rest of the control order powers, which are applied in certain cases at the moment, we are looking at how those can be used more extensively where necessary. In respect of the last point, I think that there is somewhat of a misunderstanding here about this issue to do with faith schools. We are actually looking to make sure that faith schools are very much incorporated and integrated into the mainstream, and that should apply to all categories of faith schools. And one of the things that we are looking at is how you make sure that there is a certain set of agreed rules and guidelines as to how any faith school should teach its own faith, and of course those that are part of the State Education system, there are those common rules there. What I have said I can’t do is either (1) get rid of all faith schools, because I think there would be an absolute outcry if I said to the Jewish community you can’t have Jewish schools, and the Catholic community can’t have Catholic schools, and the Church of England community can’t have Church of England schools, and I don’t agree with that, and in any event I can’t imagine anyone actually proposing it, certainly who was standing for elected office. But the second point is this: if that is true, you cannot justify the Muslim community being the only community that isn’t allowed to have faith school. That would be plainly discriminatory and wrong and that is why we permitted Muslim schools to be faith schools as well, the point is to encourage as much of that within the mainstream and to look carefully, and this is what obviously is part of the discussion on how we integrate as to how that operates. But I think I am right in saying that the Hindu community as well want to start some of their schools and there is nothing wrong with that, provided it is all done according to certain basic rules and tenets.
Question :
Ken Livingstone has called for British troops to be withdrawn from Iraq in order to prevent further terrorist attacks. Would you agree with that? And secondly, if I may, the Israeli Housing Ministry has issued a tender for 72 new homes on a settlement on the West Bank, and the PA describe this plan as a provocation to the Palestinian people. How can such a move really help build the kind of peace you are calling for? And may I also mention that Mr Straw, the Foreign Secretary, stated in a newspaper interview that the Palestinians can kiss goodbye to having a separate state if the Israeli disengagement plan from Gaza fails.
Prime Minister:
Well, in relation to the first point, look, I think the Mayor on the whole has handled the situation in London extremely well. We have a disagreement that we have always had over Iraq and we will continue to have it. In my view you don’t give these people, as I said, an inch anywhere. And what they are doing in Iraq is the same kind of terrorism, and what they want to do, let’s just be quite clear about this, what the man shown on the video last night wants to do is he wants to turn that into a Taliban terrorist state. Well, no thank you very much, the Iraqi people should be helped to have their own democracy. It is what millions of them voted for and they should have it, and they shouldn’t get their way there either. I don’t know about the particular settlement you are talking about, but I do want to say this thing very clearly. I am determined that we push forward this Peace process so that we get a proper agreed settlement, and what I want is this disengagement process to be the beginning, and not the end of that process, but it is important that it works properly, which is what I am sure is Jack was saying. But, look, at every single level, including recently the G8, I have raised the Palestinian issue. I know very well how deep the concern is, quite rightly, across the whole of the Arab and Muslim world about the situation there. But the only way of getting progress is through political dialogue. Now it is our job, meaning our in the sense of America, Britain, Europe and so on, to push that dialogue and to make it work. But whenever people engage in violence, from whatever quarter, all that does is hinder us. But provided it is done in the way that the President of the Palestinian Authority has set out, he is against terrorism, he is in favour of peaceful means, absolutely we should be helping him, full square behind him, to make sure there is a lasting settlement because I think that that would, I have always said this, and I say it again now, that would remove a lot of the charge of double standards that is used across the Arab and the Muslim world.
Question :
I would like to ask are you aware of the feelings of the Muslim community and would you like the Prime Minister to give any message to the Muslim community living in this country? Another part is, have you talked to President Musharraf about the problem after 7 July to control extremism and terrorism?
Prime Minister:
I have spoken to President Musharraf and we want to work on this together, and the message which I have been giving in respect of the Muslim community, is that we are with you, and you are with us, in defeating this terrorism because you want to defeat it just as much as we do. And let’s not let any voices from the community, who I don’t think represent its mainstream, suggest that when you are tackling extremism you are somehow attacking Muslims, because that is exactly what the extremists want. They want to say this extremism represents the Muslim world, well it doesn’t, or represents the religion of Islam, it doesn’t, it can’t by any means. It is a peaceful, decent religion and, therefore, there is a common cause, is what I am saying with the Muslim community in rooting out the extremists.
Question:
As a Latin American I must make my question, keeping respect for the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, because of course he is the big exception, but there is a multi-party of representatives from Mexico here to learn from the British model about public security and the implementation of that law. They take with them an expression of admiration of the British Police force the way that they co-ordinate with not only the Intelligence but also the people, the interests of the citizens to participate in the judicial process like magistrates and in the Courts as an example of the citizens to continue with life as normal as possible, and the division of 43 Municipal forces of the Police … and we take these examples for us, and also the way in which the threat of terrorism is being dealt with.
Prime Minister:
Well, thank you for that, and as we have made clear, and I made clear in my conversation with the President of Brazil, of course it was a desperate tragedy the loss of that young man’s life, but I hope people understand that it doesn’t in any way displace the very strong desire we have to keep all communities together and, as you rightly imply, we have been something of a model for that.
Question :
Just I suppose a simple question to wrap things up, George Bush has talked for a long time now about this idea of a ‘war on terror’ I suspect it is a phrase you are considerably less comfortable with. In a military, and a security sense, can any country, Britain, the United States, win a war on terror?
Prime Minister:
You can’t win this battle by security measures alone. Now it doesn’t follow from that that you don’t have to take security measures, you do. But I have constantly said this is a battle of ideology as well and you have got to defeat the ideas of these people. You have got to take them head on. You have got to take them head on in their perversion of the two doctrines in faith of Islam, you have got to take them head on in their assertions about America, about American Foreign policy, about what the West wants, or does not want. That is not to say, incidentally, that people can’t disagree with what American policy is. People may passionately disagree with it, but it is completely absurd to suggest someone like myself was engaged in military action in Afghanistan or Iraq, or takes the view that we do about the Middle East process because of religion, and it is important to divorce that from the politics of particular issues. And you have got to take them head on in the view that there can ever be anything acceptable about deliberately killing innocent people for the purpose of furthering a political cause. And I don’t mean to go into the rights or wrongs, even of revolutionary communism, but it is that type of battle that we are engaged in and the roots of this go very deep, they have arisen over many, many years and I am afraid that the way that we will beat it will be over many, many years.
Question:
You have come a long way in Northern Ireland. When you are with George Bush do you not say, look George, look at some of the questions we have learned there, security, military, it can only take us so far. There are other ways of dealing with this, and that is how you isolate people, and that is how you make progress.
Prime Minister:
Yes, I think the assumption is that the American Administration are in a different place on that. The whole purpose of their great Middle East initiative was to say we have got to encourage states in the Middle East to move towards democracy. I think they do recognise that. You know when I spoke to American Congress what, two years ago, I said, look, forget all the criticisms that people have of America, the one thing you have got to say about America when you go there is that you have people from a multiplicity of different races, religions, cultures, and yet they all believe in America and its way of life and that is actually, I think, a great rallying point for people, and I said to the Congress then what America can leave to the world, because it is the world’s only Super Power, that life changes, and you have got other powers that will be emerging in time, what it can leave to the world is this idea of liberty and democracy being human values ,not Western values. So I think people do understand that actually. And in relation to Northern Ireland I am not going to go, since the last time I spoke about this I think people took offence at some of the things I said, and I didn’t mean to cause offence at all, but my view is that that is really a different situation. You have got demands that people are making that you can fit into a normal political context. These demands, you only have to read the demands that come out from Al Queda to realise that there is no compromise with these people possible, you either get defeated by them or defeat them.
delicious
digg
facebook
