Interface – Call for papers, Issue 2: Civil Society vs. Social Movements

Interface is a new journal produced twice yearly by activists and academics around the world in response to the development and increased visibility of social movements in the last few years – and the immense amount of knowledge generated in this process. This knowledge is created across the globe, and in many contexts and a variety of ways, and it constitutes an incredibly valuable resource for the further development of social movements. Interface responds to this need, as a tool to help our movements learn from each other’s struggles.

Interface is a forum bringing together activists from different movements and different countries, researchers working with movements, and progressive academics from various countries to contribute to the production of knowledge that can help us gain insights across movements and issues, across continents and cultures, and across theoretical and disciplinary traditions. To this end, Interface seeks to develop analysis and knowledge that allow lessons to be learned from specific movement processes and experiences and translated into a form useful for other movements.

We invite both formal research (qualitative and quantitative) and practically-grounded work on all aspects of social movements. In doing so, we welcome contributions by movement participants and academics who are developing movement-relevant theory and research. Our goal is to include material that can be used in a range of ways by movements – in terms of its content, its language, its purpose and its form.

We are seeking work in a range of different formats, such as conventional articles, review essays, facilitated discussions and interviews, action notes, teaching notes, key documents and analysis, book reviews – and beyond (see details in the guidelines for contributors). Research contributions are reviewed by both activist and academic peers, other material is sympathetically edited by peers, and the editorial process generally will be geared towards assisting authors to find ways of expressing their understanding, so that we all can be heard across geographical, social and political distances.

Our first issue, published in January 2009, focussed on the theme of “movement knowledge”: what we know, how we create knowledge, what we do with it and how it can make a difference either in movement struggles or in creating a different and better world.

Our second issue, to be published in September 2009, will have space for general articles on all aspects of understanding social movements, as well as a special themed section on “civil society versus social movements”. By this we mean the increasing tension between officially-approved versions of popular participation in politics geared towards the mobilisation of consent for neo-liberalism – the world of consultation and participation, NGOs and partnership – and the less polite and polished world of people’s attempts to participate in politics on their own terms, in their own forms and for their own purposes – social movements, popular protest, direct action, and so on. In drawing this distinction, we realise that civil society organisations and social movements often have complex and contradictory practices and relationships which do not fit into two clearly distinguished categories. One of the objectives of this edition is not therefore to impose a straightjacket on reflections and analysis of these different types of participation but rather to open up discussion and strategic thinking between activists, movement participants and researchers working in different contexts and with different experiences.

The types of questions and experiences we are interested in exploring include (but are not limited to):

- To what extent do social movements and civil society organisations exist in an antagonistic and conflictual relationship?

- Are there examples in which this relationship can become constructive for the struggle for popular democracy and social justice?

- What can particular experiences of these types of participation tell us about the possibilities and limitations for the development and strengthening of popular resistance to neoliberalism?

- How can we develop theory and practice that overcomes the often idealistic notion that NGOs are always actors that foster social justice?

- How can we overcome the often simplistic critique of NGOs as the ‘trojan horses of neoliberalism’?

- What can the experiences of workers and participants in civil society organisations tell us about the nature of domination and resistance?

The deadline for contributions for the second issue is May 15th, 2009. Please contact the appropriate editor if you are thinking of submitting an article. You can access the journal and get further details at http://www.interfacejournal.net/ .

Interface is programmatically multilingual: at present we can accept and review submissions in Catalan, Danish, English, French, German, Italian, Maltese, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish. We are also willing to try and find suitable referees for submissions in other languages, but cannot guarantee that at this point.

We are also very much looking for activists or academics interested in becoming part of Interface, particularly with the African, South Asian, Spanish-speaking Latin American, East and Central European, Mediterranean, Oceanian and North American groups.

Nottingham Students Occupy Lecture Theatre in Support of Palestine

Students at Nottingham University have occupied a lecture theatre in support of Palestine – in doing so, they join the ever-widening ranks of students across the UK protesting the Israeli attacks on and occupation of Palestine by Israel … nice one, folks

http://occupationnottingham.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/breaking-news-nottingham-university-occupied-for-gaza/

Sally Hunt on the state of academic freedom at Nottingham and Beyond

Hicham’s article was shortly followed by a piece by Sally Hunt, general secretary of the UCU, in response to Colin Campbell’s statements on the wrongful terror arrests at Nottingham University — the text is reproduced below …

 

Research on terrorism is invaluable – but we do it under fear of arrest

The current situation regarding the study of violent extremism needs to be clarified, says Sally Hunt

* The Guardian,
* Tuesday August 26 2008

The fact that terrorists do not all look the same and that “MI5 has concluded that there is no easy way to identify those who become involved in terrorism in Britain” (Terror: secret MI5 report challenges views on extremists, August 21) is no doubt a setback to those who deal only in lazy stereotypes. It also makes knowing thy enemy a bit trickier, but must act as a catalyst for clarification of the legal situation regarding research on terrorism and violent extremism.

If we really want to tackle violent extremism and terrorism, then we need to be safe to explore the issues and get a better understanding. Your report describes the MI5 briefing note as providing “a unique insight into current thinking within the security service about how a modern-day terrorist is made”. No doubt MI5 and the government would welcome greater intelligence in this area, but one stumbling block might be that it remains an area where staff and students who conduct research can find themselves arrested and held without charge.

The arrest of a student and a staff member at Nottingham University under the Terrorism Act in May highlighted the levels of confusion in our universities around academic freedom, sensitive research areas and violent extremism. Hicham Yezza and Rizwaan Sabir were arrested because Sabir had emailed Yezza a declassified open-source document, called the al-Qaida Training Manual, available on a US government website.

The MI5 analysis, said the Guardian, is “based on hundreds of case studies of those involved in or closely associated with terrorism”. But if university staff or students had that sort of close contact with “those associated with terrorism”, they might find themselves locked up. Guidelines for universities in dealing with violent extremism say “we should never overstate the menace we face from violent extremism”, and the higher education minister, Bill Rammell, has said that the academic study of terrorism must extend to the “furthest limit of inquiry” and that it is “entirely acceptable and indeed necessary for academics to seek to understand and explain what motivates violent extremists”.

All this would lead one to believe that we have a sensible and reasoned approach to the problem, but in reality we had a man locked up for a week for possessing a document downloaded from a US government website. Reading Yezza’s account of how he doodled in Mills and Boon novellas and compiled lists in his mind to stay sane in his cell (Britain’s terror laws have left me and my family shattered, August 18) really brought home the need to get the situation resolved.

Last month I spoke to a UCU member who is an expert on terrorism. He told me that we have learned the most from in-depth studies of the written materials of terrorist groups, and in-depth interviews with their members. The government has to clarify the current legal situation regarding research on terrorism and violent extremism and clearly articulate that to universities, staff and students. Research in difficult and dangerous areas must continue – without the fear of arrest for students or staff.

Sally Hunt is general secretary of the University and College Union press@ucu.org.uk

Hicham on his case

On August 18, the Guardian published the following piece by Hicham Yezza, depicting his experience of wrongful arrest under UK anti-terror and immigration laws – I reproduce the text below …

Britain’s terror laws have left me and my family shattered

I am innocent yet was detained without charge in solitary confinement for days on end. It was a devastating experience

Hicham Yezza
Monday August 18 2008

The UN’s committee on human rights has just published a report criticising Britain’s anti-terror laws and the resulting curbs on civil liberties. For many commentators the issues raised are mostly a matter of academic abstractions and speculative meanderings. For me, it is anything but. These laws have destroyed my life.

On May 14 I was arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act – on suspicion of the “instigation, preparation and commission of acts of terrorism”: an absurdly nebulous formulation that told me nothing about the sin I had apparently committed. Once in custody, almost 48 hours passed before it was confirmed that the entire operation (involving dozens of officers, police cars, vans, and scientific support agents) was triggered by the presence on my University of Nottingham office computer of an equally absurd document called the “al-Qaida Training Manual”, a declassified open-source document that I had never read and had completely forgotten about since it had been sent to me months before.

Rizwaan Sabir, a politics student friend of mine (who was also arrested), had downloaded the file from the US justice department website while conducting research on terrorism for his upcoming PhD. An extended version of the same document (which figures on the politics department’s official reading list) was also available on Amazon. I edit a political magazine; Rizwaan regularly sent me copies of research materials he was using, and this document was one.

Within hours of my incarceration I had lost track of time. I often awoke thinking I had been asleep for days only to discover it wasn’t midnight yet. My confidence in the competence (and motives) of the police ebbed away. I found myself shifting my energies from remaining cheerful to remaining sane. In the early hours, I was often startled by the metallic toilet seat, crouched in the corner like some sinister beast.

For days on end, I drew cartoons and wrote diary entries in the margins of Mills and Boon novellas. I spent hours reciting things to myself: names of Saul Bellow characters, physics Nobel prize winners, John Coltrane albums, anything to keep the numbness away.

I’m constantly coming across efforts being made to give detention without charge the Walt Disney treatment: the crushing weight of solitary confinement is painted as a non-issue; the soul-sapping nothingness of the claustrophobic, cold cell is portrayed as a mild inconvenience. Make no mistake: the feeling that one’s fate is in the hands of the very people who are apparently trying to convict you is, without doubt, one of the most devastating horrors a human being can ever be subjected to. It is (to misquote Carl von Clausewitz) the continuation of torture by other means.

“Those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear,” goes the tautological reasoning of the paranoia merchants calling for harsher, ever more draconian “security” measures – as we saw throughout the 42-days debate. They should read Kafka: nothing is more terrifying than being arrested for something you know you haven’t done. Indeed, it is the innocent who suffers the most because it is the innocent who is tormented the most. The guilty calculates, triangulates, anticipates. The innocent doesn’t know where to start. The answers and the questions are absolute, unbreachable, towering conundrums.

I underwent 20 hours of vigorous interrogation while entire days were being completely wasted by the police micro-examining every detail of my life: my political activism, my writings, my work in theatre and dance, my love life, my photography, my cartooning, my magazine subscriptions, my bus tickets.

Aspects of my life that would have been seen as commendable in others were suddenly viewed as suspect in my case for no apparent reason other than my religious and ethnic background. I was guilty of being that strangest of creatures: a Muslim who reads; who studied engineering yet writes about Bob Dylan; was a vocal opponent of the Iraq war yet owns all of Christopher Hitchens’ writings; admires Terry Eagleton yet defends Martin Amis; interviews Kazuo Ishiguro, listens to Leonard Cohen, goes to Radiohead concerts, all of which became the subject of rather bizarre questioning.

This is not all: outside, lives are shattered, jobs are lost, marriages are destroyed, minds are damaged, friends and families are traumatised – often irrevocably so. My parents, whom I wasn’t allowed to call, could barely get any sleep throughout the ordeal. Many of my Muslim university friends were, and still are, worried about being targeted themselves. For most of my loved ones, despite my innocence, nothing will ever be the same again. I’m now jobless, facing destitution and threatened with deportation from the country I’ve called home for nearly half my life.

Immense pressure is exerted on law enforcement agencies by their political mandarins to produce “results”: pressure to produce a higher number of arrests but also the corollary, more dangerous, impulse to justify them at any cost. Naturally, through a perverted but pervasive circularity in the logic, lack of evidence becomes the very justification for requesting “more time”. The government claims that checks and balances will ensure extensions to detention periods are based on verifiable and compelling arguments. I beg to differ: in my case, the judge was simply bullied by streams of technospeak until she had no option but to grant extra time.

Fighting terrorism is a serious matter and needs to be tackled in a serious way – not through empty gimmicks sustained by fear-mongering and alarmist rhetoric. The real danger is that we are witnessing a slide from the essential purity of habeas corpus into a Britain where the innocent are detained until proven guilty.

· Hicham Yezza, an activist and writer, was released without charge after six days in custody, immediately rearrested on immigration charges and issued with a removal order to Algeria, after which he was held for a further 27 days; he is still awaiting a conclusion to his deportation case

See No Evil, Hear No Evil?

Below I reproduce an opinion piece penned by myself and my colleagues Bettina Renz and Vanessa Pupavac in response to the unjustified terror arrests at the University of Nottingham … 

[originally published in Times Higher Education, June 5 2008]

NB! This opinion piece prompted a response from the Vice Chancellor of the University of Nottingham, Sir Colin Campbell, in which he (quite predictably) claimed that academic freedom was not under threat at Nottingham, and furthermore labelling me and my two colleagues as liars by claiming that our statements in the opinion piece were “entirely false” (Sir Colin, however, did not bother to provide evidence of this claim). This has prompted a debate in THE which you can read here http://freehichamyezza.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/times-higher-education-supplement-letters-pages/

See no Evil, Hear no Evil?

  

“I will suggest that in academic freedom lies one of the most powerful means at our disposal to refute violent extremist views on campus. And further, I believe that unless it is used actively to challenge those views, then academic freedom will find itself undermined by violent extremism”, thus spoke Bill Rammell, Minister of State, Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education on 27 November 2007. Yet, recent events at the University of Nottingham have left academics and students in doubt as to the security of their civil liberties and human rights in relation to research into controversial political and social phenomena. The question that many of us ask today is whether UK universities will stand up and defend academic and intellectual freedom in the face of the potentially draconian ramifications of anti-terror legislation.

 

On May 14, Nottingham University student Rizwaan Sabir and an administrative member of staff, Hicham Yezza, were arrested and held without charge for nearly a week for downloading an edited version of the Al Qaeda training manual. The arrest followed the discovery of the printed document by university staff, who reported this to the police. It should be noted in this context that the document is from an open source widely available via respectable web sites like the US Department of Justice, the Federation of American Scientists, or the RAND Corporation which we put on our reading lists. No doubt there a dozens of students or academics around the country who download similarly sensitive open source documents. The two men were finally released without charges on May 20. Hicham Yezza was subsequently re-arrested under immigration charges, and now faces deportation to Algeria on June 1,  thus severing the deep ties he has developed with his community, the university and civil society in Nottingham over the past 13 years.

 

The response of Nottingham University seems to have conflated having a document with holding extremist views and planning to act upon them. But if you are looking into unpleasant subjects, then the chances are you will need to review unpleasant material in the course of your work. Whatever happened to the maxim nothing human is alien to me? Moreover, the University seems reluctant to accept that the downloading of such material for political studies is unexceptionable and necessary. Have they not checked out on-line reading lists on terrorism? Have they not seen that the Nottingham branch of Waterstones sells the collected speeches, interviews and statements of Osama Bin Laden?

 

The Nottingham arrests set a dangerous precedent for intellectual freedom and the scope of academic and journalistic research.  How can we follow the scholar Hedley Bull’s injunction to ‘pursue the question’ if we are only to examine squeaky clean sources?  Where does Nottingham’s response leave terrorism studies in the UK? We cannot combat terrorism by adopting an approach in which we see no evil or hear no evil. A panicky response can only undermine vital research on terrorism and developing public understanding to address the problem. What about our PhD student researching Arabic language sources on the Iraq War? What about those researching or studying Al Qaeda propaganda at Leeds University? What about those wanting to research the recruitment to terrorist organisations? What about those who want to go beyond internet sources and venture into the messier world of field work?

 

Where do the Nottingham arrests leave the much-hyped citizen journalist or blogger? University managers are narrowly interpreting intellectual freedom to authorised academics and registered students. Indeed, university managers appear reluctant to concede that a non-academic might legitimately possess sensitive open source documents, here someone writing regularly for student papers on current affairs. Citizen journalists and blogger beware! 

 

Academic and intellectual freedom is one of the values we should be defending in the war on terror.  And we are doing the terrorists’ work if we submit to a climate of fear and suspicion. The way for society to defeat obnoxious ideas is not to bury our heads in the sand, but to have more engaged and informed citizens. Not least individuals are more likely to become susceptible to obnoxious ideas if we let them fester or glamorise them through censorship rather than exposing them to the light of critical analysis. 

 

The problem of terrorism cannot be defeated militarily, it must be defeated politically. The more informed and open public debate we have, the more we as a society can address obnoxious ideas and expose their weaknesses. Yet, if universities choose to run to the police when confronted with documents expressing extremist views, instead of tackling these ideas head on, they are ducking their intellectual and moral responsibilities. Panicking in the face of extremist ideas might be an expected response from shocked maiden aunts, but it will not combat terrorism or political threats. A vibrant intellectual climate fostering an engaged and informed public might.

The War on Terror Comes to Campus – Reflections on the Nottingham Terror Arrests

On May 14, the war on terror came to my workplace, the University of Nottingham, with the arrests of an MA student and a member of staff who had downloaded a widely available Al Qaeda document for research purposes. The unjustified arrests have attracted global attention and have kicked off a virulent campaign for academic freedom and civil liberties in and around the university, involving both academics and students. Below I reproduce an article by Kemo Sabe which provides an introduction and an initial commentary on the incident and the issue …

(also published on freehichamyezza.wordpress.com)

 

THE WAR ON TERROR COMES TO CAMPUS

 

BY KEMO SABE 

 

What happened at Nottingham University?

On May 14 an MA student at the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Nottingham, Rizwaan Sabir, and an administrator at the School of Modern Languages, Hicham Yezza, were arrested under the Terrorism Act of 2000. The arrests followed the discovery by one of Hicham Yezza’s co-workers of an Al Qaeda training manual on that had been saved on his computer – the document had been sent to him by Rizwaan Sabir for printing. When university authorities learnt of this, they in turn contacted the police, which resulted in the high profile action on May 14 by the Nottinghamshire Constabulary and the West Midlands Counter-Terrorism Unit.

The two men were detained for six days, until they were finally released without charge on May 20. Hicham Yezza was immediately rearrested on immigration charges and taken to a detention centre in Manchester. On Friday May 23, he was put on fast track deportation to his home country Algeria. Scheduled for deportation on June 1, he was first shuttled to Colnbrooke detention centre in London, then shifted to Oxford, and then back again to Colnbrooke. On Friday May 30, the Home Office imposed a stay of execution on his deportation after his lawyer filed for a judicial review of his case. At the time of writing, he is in the process of being shifted to The Citadel detention facility in Dover; the threat of deportation still hangs over his head.

So why were Rizwaan and Hicham in possession of an Al Qaeda training manual? For the simple reason that Rizwaan Sabir was going to use it as data material for his MA dissertation on radical Islam and the strategies of Islamist terror networks. Not being able to print the document himself, he sent it to his friend Hicham Yezza who had access to a printer through his job as an administrator at the School of Modern Languages. And where had Rizwaan gotten hold of the document in the first place? Through a US government website, where it is openly available for downloading. Of course, he could also have obtained the document through other sources had he wanted to – for example the website of the Federation of American Scientists, or the website of the FBI, or indeed through Amazon.co.uk, which offers the document for sale for £16.

And what is the nature of the document? Well – having gone through the document, “boring” is the first word that comes to mind. By and large, the document contains starch dry information on how to avoid having a telephone bugged, how to undertake surveillance by car, and how to recruit new agents – indeed, the material in the document is certainly of a far less inflammatory character than, say, the collected speeches and writings of Osama Bin Laden, which are widely available in the shelves of the high street bookseller Waterstones.

Of course, the University of Nottingham could have found out all this for themselves if they had chosen to adopt the cool, calm and rational response that one might expect from an institution of higher learning and research when faced with materials of this sort. A quick word with Hicham Yezza and Rizwaan Sabir about their reasons for having the document, a phone call to Rizwaan’s supervisor and personal tutor, or indeed a quick Google search would have made it possible to settle the matter internally within the university without any police involvement, and without any unjustified arrests. The police’s handling of the matter was equally inept – in spite of the fact that they were informed by Rizwaan Sabir’s supervisor as well as his personal tutor that the document in question was perfectly legitimate and highly relevant data material for his MA dissertation two days after the arrest, the police chose to hold both him and Hicham for four more days. A Google search seems to have been beyond the investigative capabilities of the West Midlands Counter-Terrorism Unit. Instead, they preferred to subject Rizwaan and Hicham to excruciating interrogations, covering amongst other things their political convictions, and to raid the homes of the two men and impounding their computers and other personal belongings – it goes without saying that Rizwaan’s family and Hicham’s partner were deeply upset and terrified in the process.

What can we make of the re-arrest of Hicham Yezza? In answering this question, let us observe a few facts about Hicham first. Having lived in the UK for 13 years, Hicham has developed deep bonds in Nottingham. He carried out his undergraduate and graduate studies at the University of Nottingham, and had also started his PhD studies there. Moreover, he was a very active in the student union, a prominent peace activist and editor of Ceasefire magazine, and a central member of various cultural troupes seeking to advance intercultural understanding through dance and music. Moreover, Hicham was not a person trying to stay below the radar of the immigration authorities. In fact, he had been consistently trying to clarify confusions around his visa and work permit, and was scheduled for a hearing of his case in July. However, the Home Office with its decision to put him on fast track deportation brushed this process, aside, and Hicham has effectively been denied his right to a fair hearing. In light of these facts, it is very difficult to not agree with Labour MP Alan Simpson, who in a letter to the Home Office argues that there is “no reason for an emergency deportation of Mr. Hicham Yezza other than to cover the embarrassment of Police and Intelligence services”. In other words, Hicham Yezza is paying the heavy price for the police authorities’ perceived need to save face in this shameful affair.

 

Academic Freedom Under Attack

The Nottingham terror arrests constitute nothing less than a grave attack on academic freedom – and tragically, it was the University of Nottingham itself that initiated this attack.

It goes without saying that it is the job of academic researchers, be they staff or students, to probe controversial, objectionable, distasteful, deplorable and even criminal aspects of social and political life. And in doing so, we also have to consult primary data material that may be controversial, objectionable, distasteful, deplorable and even criminal. This work yields crucial inputs to open, rational and informed debate about issues of public concern. A central aspect of this process is that of questioning and testing received wisdoms, of pushing the boundaries of what we already know, and doing so by putting forward opinions about and interpretations of social and political phenomena that may be controversial and unpopular. The very hallmark and basic criterion of academic freedom is in turn that researchers can feel free to carry out this task without having to fear disciplinary action, dismissal, or worse – infringements upon our civil liberties.

It is precisely this hallmark of academic freedom that has been undermined by the terror arrests at the University of Nottingham. As a result of doing precisely what he is supposed to do as a researcher – consulting primary sources in order to produce critical knowledge – Rizwaan Sabir was subjected to a gross violation of his civil liberties and human rights. Hicham Yezza suffered an equally grave violation of his civil liberties and human rights as a result of wanting to help his friend in doing this – and worse still, he faces unjustified deportation in a thinly veiled attempt by police and intelligence authorities to deflect attention from their disgraceful handling of the initial arrests.

The responses of the University of Nottingham to critical claims from academics, students and citizens worldwide that its actions in this case have in effect trampled all over the basic principles of academic freedom have been puzzling to say the least. Initially, a university spokesperson stated categorically to the media and to the public that the document in question was “not legitimate research material”– in other words, an open source document widely available in the public domain, and acutely relevant to Rizwaan Sabir’s MA dissertation – was not considered as relevant research material. This statement was subsequently withdrawn, and the university changed tack to argue that academics and registered students have “very good cause to access whatever material [their] scholarship requires”. However, the university spokesperson also added that it is expected that scholars act “sensibly within current UK law” and refrain from sending their materials to “any Tom, Dick or Harry”.This statement of course leapfrogs over the fact that the document in question is in fact available to any Tom, Dick and Harry – or Tom, Hicham and Harriet – in the public domain; they can even purchase it from Amazon. Are we to understand then that the University of Nottingham believes that members of the public should be prepared for the ominous prospect of a quiet knock on the door at night as a consequence of their most recent Amazon purchase?

Furthermore, the university’s statement raises the broader question of intellectual freedom – and indeed the university’s attitude to intellectual freedom as such. Is the university of the opinion that only academics are entitled to access controversial documents that are available in the public domain? If so, on what grounds do they hold this opinion? And if they truly hold this opinion – whatever happened to the right of citizens to inform themselves about matters of great concern to the public? Fuelled by the informational flows of the World Wide Web, ours are the halcyon days of the political blogger, the citizen journalist and the critical autodidact – and democracy is being broadened and deepened as a result of this. Shouldn’t the university, itself arguably a model for open debate, critique and dissent in wider society, welcome and strengthen this development, rather than implicitly label it as illegitimate and suspect? Shouldn’t we all welcome the concerned, curious, informed citizen who makes up her or his mind about current affairs on the basis of her or his own examination of the available evidence?

In a recent comment to BBC East Midlands in connection with the demonstration on the campus of Nottingham University on May 28, which saw 500 or so academics, students and supporters gather in defence of academic freedom and in protest of the deportation of Hicham Yezza, a university spokesperson stated that the University of Nottingham takes the issue of academic freedom seriously, but that it also “comes with responsibility and it needs to be handled thoughtfully and sensitively”. It is hard to imagine that scholars and researchers of various descriptions do not take the responsibility which accompany their intellectual labour very seriously, but in relation to the recent terror arrests it is quite clear that there is only one party that has not accepted and respected the responsibilities that attach to academic freedom, and handled this responsibility thoughtfully and sensitively, and that is the University of Nottingham itself. The conduct of the University of the Nottingham in this case and the resultant arrests set a worrying precedent for the future and raises a host of unsettling questions for scholars in the UK academy. Who of our staff and students will be next to be arrested and detained for a long period of time without charge? And which controversial or objectionable subject area will be targeted next time? Research on human trafficking? Research on the sex industry? Research on political protest? Research on illegal immigration? And what will be the outcome of the possible constraints upon research signalled by the terror arrests? Most likely a sanitized and censored research culture in which controversial, distasteful and objectionable research areas have faded from view – a research culture in which we see no evil and hear no evil, and therefore also a research culture which is ill-equipped to contribute to combating evil. Society will be the poorer for it.

 

Casualties of War

What happened at the University of Nottingham on May 14 brings home a simple but chilling insight: the so-called “war on terror” does not only have destructive ramifications in faraway places and for distant strangers; it also impacts upon our own societies, our communities, us and our friends and loved ones, and indeed our campuses. This is of course not the impact of bombs, tanks and troops that is all too familiar to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Rather it is the impact of the intersection of, on the one hand, a culture of fear that turns our neighbours into suspects and criminalizes whole communities on the basis of ethnic origin and religious beliefs, and, on the other hand, increasingly draconian anti-terror legislation which turns amateur poets into terrorists, leads authorities to encourage teachers to spy on Asian-looking and Muslim students, and allows the repressive arm of the state to snatch away and detain without charge individuals whose only “crime” is their pursuit of intellectual curiosity, academic interests and political ideals in what is supposed to be a free and open society.

The impacts of “the war on terror” at home tear away at the very fabric of our communities, eroding the mutual bonds of trust, support and solidarity that sustain us in our everyday lives; the impacts of “the war on terror” at home wreak havoc on the lives of individuals, threatening to sever them from their communities and their loved ones and deport them to an uncertain future as and when police authorities feel the need to save face in the wake of unjustified terror arrests; the impacts of “the war on terror” at home undermines those hard-won rights and liberties that are supposed to protect us as citizens and individuals from random acts of power from above; the impacts of the “war on terror” at home constrains the intellectual space available to us to question the given order of things and circumscribe the political space that is at our disposal for expressing our reasonable doubts about the legitimacy of “the war on terror” itself.

In doing this, “the war on terror” has become the enemy of that which it claims to protect – freedom, democracy and human rights – and the architect of that which it claims to vanquish – tyranny, fear and totalitarianism. And that poses the challenge to us: it is only by coming together as we have done, as academics, students, citizens, community members and friends, over the past two weeks – not just in Nottingham, but indeed country- and worldwide – that we stand a chance of reclaiming the ground we have lost to “the war on terror” and the climate of fear and undemocratic legislation it has created. In doing so, I believe we follow the fine example set by Rizwaan Sabir and Hicham Yezza both as scholars and as activists.

 

FOOTNOTES

---

Both the University of Nottingham and the police have repeatedly claimed that the arrest and investigation of Rizwaan Sabir and Hicham Yezza were conducted in a “low-key” manner and “sensitively handled” (see for example the statement by the Registrar, Dr. Paul Greatrix, in Times Higher Education supplement, May 29, 2008, and statement by a Nottinghamshire police spokeswoman in The Guardian, May 24, 2008). Leaving out for now the question as to whether police involvement was at all necessary, this claim hardly stands up to scrutiny. Rizwaan Sabir and Hicham Yezza were arrested and held from Wednesday May 14 until Tuesday, May 20 without charge, in spite of the fact that Rizwaan Sabir’s supervisor and personal tutor both confirmed to the police that the document they had downloaded and printed was legitimate research material on Friday, May 16. The homes of the two men were raided; they had their computers impounded and they have still not been returned (as at the afternoon of Tuesday 27 May); Rizwaan Sabir’s family members were ejected from their home during the police’s search; several colleagues in the School of politics were interviewed for hours by the police. The day after the arrests, students had their bags searched by uniformed police before entering the Trent Building the day after the arrests, and Black Maria’s were parked very visibly on the university campus.

Hicham Yezza stated the following about the relocation to Dover, which occurred very much against his wishes: “This would be the fifth movement in 9 days and is therefore unacceptable … I am not a piece of luggage but a human being and deserve to be treated as such” (Press Release, 31.05.08; www.freehichamyezza.wordpress.com).

In several of its public statements on the matter, the University of Nottingham has claimed that it had no choice but to involve the police in the matter (see, for example, statement on the University of Nottingham intranet portal, posted on May 27, 2008). This, however, does not dovetail with guidelines issued by the Department of Education and Skills on how to handle extremism on campus, which clearly argue that “[t]here are a number of intervention options available to HE providers that may be more appropriate than direct police enforcement action” and that its is only on “rare occasions” that law enforcement action “may be required”. Had the University of Nottingham followed these guidelines, rather than making the police the first port of call, it would first of all had discovered that the document in question was in any way related to extremist activities, but also have avoided instigating a chain of events which in sum violated the very duty of care to staff and students that university spokespersons tend to refer to when they seek to justify the fact that they contacted the police (see for example statement on the University of Nottingham intranet portal, posted on May 27, 2008). Moreover, the argument that police was contacted due to “reasonable anxiety and concern” is also an odd one, given that the document was found in the setting of a university where the School of Politics and International Relations specializes in research on international security and terrorism. Indeed, university authorities could in all likelihood easily have obtained an assessment of the document from one of the experts in international security and terrorism at the School of Politics and International Relations.    

In an interview in The Guardian, May 31, 2008, Hicham Yezza states: “Someone could be forgiven, in this current climate, for panicking at this type of document. But I would have appreciated had I been given five minutes simply to answer the questions relevant to the document”. Similarly, in a statement to The Guardian, May 24, Rizwaan Sabir’s lawyer, Tayab Ali, argued that the matter “could have been handled sensibly if the university had discussed the issue with Rizwaan and his tutors”.

Rizwaan Sabir’s lawyer, Mr. Tayab Ali through this into relief in the following statement: “The two members of the university were treated as though they were part of an al-Qaeda cell … Why did it take so long for the police to reach the conclusions that they did? … These are not unqualified police, they are the top counterterrorism command for the region” (Times Higher Education supplement, 22 May, 2008).

Rizwaan Sabir commented to Times Higher Education supplement on May 29, about the interrogations that: “It was sheer psychological torture – particularly in the last 24 hours when they were umming and ahhhing about whether to charge me”.

Whereas the Home Office refuses to comment on Hicham Yezza’s case, its zealous pursuit of deportations is evidenced by a statement made to Nottingham Evening Post on May 31: “We will seek to remove those who no longer have any right to be here, we are already removing one person every eight minute and we are committed to removing more”.

Letter from MP Alan Simpson to MP Liam Byrne, Minister of State (Borders and Immigration), 23 May 2008.

The University of Nottingham has received between 40 and 50 e-mails from scholars across as well as beyond the UK expressing their concern over the unjustified arrests and their ramifications on academic freedom. Some 100 academics from the University of Nottingham, as well as several other UK universities have also signed a petition asking the university – among other things – to guarantee the academic freedom and civil liberties of all its student and staff, irrespective of ethnic and religious background. A demonstration for academic freedom and against the deportation of Hicham Yezza on May 28 gathered about 500 academics, students and supporters at the campus of the University of Nottingham, and Labour MP Alan Simpson addressed the demonstrators in support of their demands.

The Guardian, Saturday, 24 May, 2008. See also Times Higher Education supplement, 22 May.

The Guardian, Saturday, 24 May, 2008.

“Students protest deportation plan”, BBC East Midlands, 28.05.08.

The university’s statements on its future actions related to the terror arrests and its implications for academic freedom have been nebulous and unsatisfactory at best. For example, the Registrar, Dr. Paul Greatrix, points to the University Research Committee “considering the enhancement of our research ethics network” and also argues that an issue that arises is “the level of discussion and guidance on the rights and responsibilities of staff and students in terms of research and freedom of speech” (Times Higher Education supplement, 29 May, 2008). In its current Intranet portal statement, the university states that it is “already addressing issues raised by these events through the ongoing work of the Research Committee”. What is unsatisfactory about this statement is of course that it reflects the university’s persistent unwillingness to enter into dialogue with concerned staff and students on the issue of academic freedom raised by the unjustified arrests – an unwillingness that was recently manifested in the university’s refusal to participate in a roundtable discussion on the issues of academic freedom raised by the terror arrests. Moreover, the statements seem to indicate that the university wants to issue guidelines on research materials, which in all likelihood will amount to an institutionalization of constraints on academic freedom. What is not forthcoming from the university is of course an unconditional guarantee of the academic freedom and civil liberties of its staff and students, which is hugely disappointing.  

In 2007, Samina Malik was found guilty under the Terrorism Act of owning terrorist materials – the material was her own amateur poetry on Osama Bin Laden and martyrdom.

In 2006, lecturers and university staff across Britain were approached by the government and asked to watch the activities of Asian and Muslim students, and report suspicions of extremist activities to a specialist police unit.