Hello, welcome back to Conversations with
Stephen Kamugasa. Today's guest is Emeritus
Professor Susan Edwards of the University
of Buckingham. Susan Edwards is a researcher
and campaigner holding degrees in both law
and social sciences and a barrister. She
campaigned for many years in the areas of
women's international human rights, including
lecturing in the United States of America,
the Middle East, Australia, and Europe. An
author of five books, plus co-writing a book,
she has edited numerous journals and is an
opinion writer for several leading newspapers,
The Times, The Guardian, and The Age in Australia.
Her latest work, The Political Appropriation
of the Muslim Body, Islamophobia, Counterterrorism
Law and Gender, is the subject of this podcast
interview. In this episode, we discuss Professor
Edward's thesis that values and principles
of democracy, the rule of law, freedom of
speech, and gender equality have been appropriated
by politicians as a clock to advance Western
power, territorial, and military ambitions
against the Middle East, and in effect, Muslims.
Susan, welcome.
Thank you Stephen, I'm delighted to be here
and joining you in your podcast series.
Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, after reviewing
your book Susan, wrote the following, and
I quote, this is a serious and important
book. We only have to review the human rights
abuses domestically and globally to see that
Muslims are facing targeted crimes, cruel
discrimination, and vicious ill treatment
on an alarming scale. In some places, it's
surmounting to genocide. Susan, please tell
us about a specific instance that touched
your heart so powerfully that made you say,
that's it, enough is enough, I must write
this book.
Thank you, Stephen. I'm going to just perhaps
respond to that, first of all, to tell you
how I came to write this book, and then I'll
say a little bit about what I think Helena
Baroness Kennedy was referring to when she
made that commendation of the book. Enough
is enough, you've put it like this. Well,
actually, Stephen, there was no eureka moment.
It was really incremental. I've been writing,
for example, about women, as you've said,
for 40 years. And so, of course, the dress
issue, the dress wars, the dress laws that
were developing, particularly in Europe and
France, prohibiting the headscarf, regulating
the headscarf in particular contexts, and
then of course the niqab in 2010, that issue
became a very important moment in building
this kind of incremental position that I
came to where I felt it was impossible not
to speak. So there was the head scoff. Of
course, there's been the whole question of
the war on terror right from the early 2000s,
the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion
of Iraq. that's been another moment. There's
also been Shamima Begum, who in fact in this
country, even today there's a report in the
Daily Mail about her. She was the woman who
left the United Kingdom when she was 15 in
2015 and went to Syria to join ISIS. And
My interest in that was the way in which
she had been failed as a child, as far as
our laws are concerned. She was 15 years
of age. She has been failed as a child. And
I'll have the opportunity, I hope, to say
a little bit more about that. So there was
Shamima Begum. And there were many other
instances. I mentioned the war on terror.
There was the rise in hate crime. There was
Brexit and Trump extremism. I mean, there
were so many forces that were converging.
that made it impossible for me to be silent.
And I had in my writing, in all those areas,
tried to contextualize women in dress. And
why was it that it was so stereotyped and
positioned in a particular way from state-sponsored
distortions, if you like? Why was it that
the state and politicians were silent about
any other narrative to do with Shebina Begum.
And why was it that they positioned the war
on terror, the US, the UK, in the way that
it did? And I wanted to contextualize it,
but I did in my writings, I did in my teaching,
I did in my lectures. And what I found was
that I was running against the grain of the
official narrative, which seemed to be fixed
in its meaning. and there wasn't sufficient
discourse that really looked at the way in
which the headscarf, for example, had polysemic
meanings, had a variety of meanings, and
as of course Stuart Hall said when he was
talking about Franz Fanon, And Franz Fanon,
in his work, Black Skin, White Mask, also
talked about, of course, Algeria, and he
talked about the headscarf in that context.
But I took from that his expression, no sign
is fixed in its meaning. And this was very
important to try and contextualize the whole
headscarf. So I tried to do that. I tried
to contextualize why was it that young people
were leaving to join ISIS? I tried to contextualize
why was it that Muslims were so vilified
collectively and those who were associated
or connected with Muslims. Why was it? And
again, I found I was going against the grain.
There was a refusal of many politicians in
the West to consider the impact of what they
called foreign policy, so-called. stripping,
of course, the language so cleverly has stripped
a lot of the meaning and the intention behind
it. Foreign policy doesn't sound very dangerous
when in fact it's being used to expand imperialistically
the territorial ambitions that you referred
to. So I then came to feeling that it was
impossible for me and I think it's important
to position myself as I've tried to do in
the book. Why should I speak about this?
What place do I have to speak about counter-terrorism
laws, war on terror, Islamophobia? And I
make clear in the introduction that I don't
want to take the place of anybody to speak.
I don't want to steal that platform because
that's the whole problem that I'm trying
to look at in my book, that the other platforms,
the alternative narratives have been silenced
or stolen. I didn't wish to do that but the
other reason which has driven me for many
years to have a particular view on this and
perhaps it's a view which is on both sides
of the argument that I have the privilege
to see because through marriage and my own
family connections for 40 years I have been
very much connected with a Muslim family.
And so for that reason as well, the personal
is the political, and I felt, and the political
is very personal, and I felt that I should
speak. But just moving on to addressing the
commendation, if you like, from Baroness
Kennedy QC, in her role as director of the
International Bar Association Human Rights
Institute, when she talks about genocide,
she's also today referring implicitly to
the treatment of the Rohingya Muslims in
Myanmar, 1.4 million of them, and she's also
referring to the 2 million Uyghurs in the
Xinjiang area in China, and their persecution
and their genocide. And of course, in China,
there is an objective of making them simply
disappear. So again, we're talking about
Muslims globally. So Islamophobia becomes
a very important way to look at this. And
not only a way to look at it, it has become
a way of defining a number of very diverse
people across the world. It is a systemic
racism, which is at the heart of my book
and its manifestations.
The Runnymede definition of Islamophobia
is as follows, and I quote, Islamophobia
is any distinction exclusion or restriction
towards or preference against Muslims or
those perceived to be Muslims that has the
purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing
the recognition, enjoyment or exercise on
an equal footing. of human rights and fundamental
freedoms in the political, economic, social,
cultural, or any other field of public life,"
end of quotation. Susan, please tell our
audience in layman's language, I think you've
dealt with it earlier, what Islamophobia
actually looks like on the streets of, say,
London.
Well, Islamophobia too, thank you Stephen
for that. Islamophobia is a very contested
construct and I think in the book to not
get too rooted in the debate about the meaning
of Islamophobia and why it is contested and
why it is resisted because that could be
a book in itself. I use the word anti-Muslim
prejudice, anti-Muslim discrimination, anti-Muslim
hatred in the same sense as Islamophobia.
I agree with the Runnymede definition which
in fact was a definition going back to 1997
Stephen and it was if you like resurrected
and reused in 2017 and it's been a definition
which has been agreed by the old party group
on Muslims, but not by the Conservative Party.
In fact, for two years, they have refused
to acknowledge that definition. I don't know
whether you want to remind everybody again
of what it is, in the sense of perhaps you
would just remind the audience of what it
is, because the Conservative government are
refusing to acknowledge that, and some others
which I will come back to. Perhaps could
you remind our audience?
The definition runs as follows, and I quote,
Islamophobia is any distinction, exclusion
or restriction towards or preference against
Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims
that has the purpose or effect of nullifying
or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or
exercise on an equal footing of human rights
and fundamental freedoms in the political,
economic, social, cultural or any other field
of public life."
Well, it's a bit difficult to see what exactly
is the problem with that or why there is
resistance to that definition. So let's just
have a look at the resistance. As I've said,
the Conservative government for two years
has not accepted it. The Police are concerned
about it, some on the left are concerned,
and some what I would call liberals are concerned.
So, I mean, you know, the government won't
accept it because, of course, if they introduce
and they do their counter-terrorist legislation
and their prevent policy, they feel that
it may have a limiting effect on some of
the legal framework that they have developed.
The police are concerned that it will impact
on policing operations and surveillance and
be seen as Islamophobic. Some on the left
are concerned, now this is important I think,
but some on the left are concerned that the
term will inhibit the proper criticism of
the conservative elements within the Muslim
community and the left, some on the left,
I'm talking and thinking primarily of some
women feminists on the left who are concerned
that a critique of the conservative elements
in some Islamic communities that will inhibit
any attempt to bring about a more equal treatment
of women within their communities. But there's
also the problem, I think, of the so-called
liberals as well, who argue, and for example,
if we think about Melanie Phillips, the journalist,
she has said that the concept of Islamophobia
is anti-Jew. And I actually deal with that
in the book. And what's important to also
refer to is that the Board of Deputies of
British Jews, for an example, do not agree
with Melanie Phillips that the term is anti-Jew
And why might it be so? It might be so because
some of those who argue that society is Islamophobic
may also be those who are concerned about
the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied
territories. And there we go off into another
debate. which I'm going to leave to one side
for the moment. You said on the streets.
Well, on the streets. I suppose on the streets
we could see that what are the streets now?
Well, the streets are online, social media,
the media. the streets, mosques, the streets
are places where in fact women, particularly
because of their visibility, experience hate
crime, assaults and insults, so on the streets.
But on the streets, as I say, is also the
media and its virulent depiction and obsessive
depiction of Muslims as a group to be feared.
So in a sense, that's on the streets, the
fake stories of Muslims. For example, the
Leveson inquiry in the United Kingdom revealed
many things, one of which was the Islamophobia
of particular newspapers especially, and
some testimonies actually revealed the fact
that some newspapers made up fake stories
to appeal to their readership. Hate speech
and, of course, hate speech and anti-Muslim
speech within political parties and the Conservative
Party. In recent times, we've seen that 57%
of the Conservative Party have been said
to have negative attitudes. invasion of other
streets? Well, we have, of course, Islamophobia
that manifests itself in the invasion of
Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries, and
we're seeing Islamophobia on the streets
absolutely now, today, across Europe, within
the European Union, within the United Kingdom
now, in its treatment of refugees who are
fleeing the crises that have been created
in the Middle East, in Iraq, in Syria, in
Afghanistan have been created by British
and American foreign policy. So that is part
of my response, I think, to that invitation.
In your book, you write extensively about
Orientalism Susan, is there a way of cultivating
a serious interest in prioritising justice
over short-term popularity than highlighting
the impact of Orientalism on the families
and friends who happen to be Muslims?
Is there a way forward? That's a huge question.
When we have a media and we have a whole
legal, media, political framework and architecture
that doesn't provide the other narrative
which I'm spoke about earlier that what I
call the counter narrative and just to say
something about the word Orientalism which
may be new to some of your audience. What
is it? Well Edward Said, the late Edward
Said wrote magnificently in many books and
articles on what he saw as Orientalism and
it was he said a whole perceptual universe,
if you like, of the way in which, whether
it was art, literature, politics, media,
the superstructures within society, how the
whole notion of the West being the civilized
and the Near East and Middle East being the
uncivilized was projected constantly and
continuously. And if we look at this perceptual
universe, so he talked about that historically,
but he brought it through to today, particularly
in one of his works called Covering Islam.
And if we look at that perceptual universe
today, we've only got to look at the stereotypes
within drama, within film, about the Muslim,
the Arab as dangerous. And he talked Edward
Said identified the way in which this persistent,
perpetual trope of the Muslim Arab man as
dangerous was promulgated. And he talked
about this as being Orientalism, Orientalism
being the whole of the framework that I've
described. And of course, that continues
today. Shakira Hussain, who's also recommended
my book. She has written a marvellous book
called From Victims to Suspects, looking
at Muslim women after 9-11. And I suppose
that's a link in a sense with of course what
Edward Said who sadly died in 2003. Professor
Saeed's work, of course, and his framework
has continued to influence and inform writers
and myself because that Orientalism continues
and the demonization, vilification, hatred
and insult of Muslims and Arabs continues
and it actually influences and supports,
it's a narrative, it's an ideology, it's
a belief system, an artificial belief system,
which has informed the war on terror. If
we look at Bush and Blair, the language,
we, they were going to civilize and bring
human rights to Afghanistan and to Iraq and
to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein. And of course,
save women. Save women, that rather sticks
in my throat because these were not countries
that were particularly treating women in
their countries as equal. And all of a sudden,
with the help of Mrs. Bush as well, they
were going to save women, save Arab women,
Muslim women from the Arab and Muslim male.
And so Orientalism as a whole perceptual
universe went on to inform and support and
condone foreign policy. And of course it
had an impact as well on hate crime and it
had an impact on supporting the anti-Muslim
prejudice and discrimination. Have I answered
that question?
I think you've answered it quite exhaustively.
How far has the right-wing populism influenced
politicians with special reference to Muslims?
Well, I'm sure you would agree that just
looking back as a social commentator on Europe
in the last couple of decades and the last
decade and the last few years especially,
there has been a lurch to the right and right-wing
popularism has become more normalized and
more mainstream. And we could go through
each of the countries and exactly what's
happened with fusing a notion of nationalism
and nationalistic pride with really what
xenophobia and that tendency has been happening
and it's been talked about by many writers
and part of that right-wing populism has
been almost putting up the anti-migrant immigrant
card as the number one agenda and within
that Muslims have of course borne very much
the brunt of that right-wing populism and
we could think of Goethe-Wilders in Holland,
and I do write in my book on refugees and,
if you like, put up as one of the main protagonists
of this right-wing populism, Hungary and
its building of the defence in Hungary. and
how shocking that was to not just deter Muslims
or immigrants, migrants, refugees as other
countries were with their welfare, with their
lack of housing provision, with their lack
of care, with all of this. to deter migrants
actually putting up this physical, I mean,
it was unconscionable, it was unimaginable.
And it must still remain unimaginable because
what we're having now in the last few weeks
is not only Hungary, we're having Poland
and we've seen those terrible scenes. And
again, what is the narrative? The narrative
of these refugees, very much like the Syrian
refugees till the death of Elan, who was
washed up on the shore on a beach. Before
that happened, we saw that the narrative
was about people being demonized and vilified
and the language which was used. There was
no language being used to identify these
people as victims of Western foreign policy
and Western invasion that not only killed
many of their peoples, but also decimated
the whole superstructure, the economy, education,
housing, everything in the superstructure
was totally decimated for these people, so
there was nothing. And right-wing populism,
of course, has been blazing to shore up the
possibility of these things being normalized.
And if we think of the Refugee Convention,
we have a Refugee Convention in 1951 that
says those who fear persecution in their
countries, who are living in fear, and the
Statue of Liberty, it's an irony, the base
of the Statue of Liberty says something like,
bring me your tired, huddled, poor, struggling
to be free, et cetera, et cetera. Bring them
tempest-tossed to me. And where has all that
gone? Where are those principles, those human
rights being honoured? It's an irony, of
course, that right-wing popularism has very
much characterised the White House under
Trump. and we've seen executive orders there
excluding Muslims from a number of countries,
breaking up families. Biden of course has
now renounced those executive orders, but
right-wing popularism has had its impact
and particularly on Muslims and actually
condoned provided a climate by which Islamophobia
or anti-Muslim prejudice, discrimination
and hate can be normalized.
You've touched upon the British woman Shamima
Begum, as you clearly stated she, when she
was 15 years old, left her English home to
join the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant,
ISIL, in Syria. Her attempted return to the
UK in 2019 resulted in litigation which led
to a Supreme Court decision and a public
debate on whether extremists should be allowed
to come back home. On 26 February 2021, the
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom unanimously
ruled against her return. Now, As you mentioned
earlier, this is an extremely complex case.
But Susan, in Lehmann's language, is Ms.
Begum's situation an example of Orientalism
at work that you speak of? And if yes, how
would you present this young woman's case
to the court of public opinion?
Well, I think her lawyers have attempted
to do that at various stages. And some of
the truth of what happened to Shamima Begum
in the early stages was disclosed in a House
of Commons counterterrorism committee. some
years ago and if anybody wants to have a
look at that I suggest they do indeed because
there you see some of the background and
so here was a 15 year old school girl at
Bethnal Green Academy and 15 years of age
so perhaps we ought to just think about that
if we could put aside the media who thirstily
a couple of years ago reported in every newspaper
and for several days on end that Shamima
Begum had said to the Times journalist, severed
heads did not faze me, or words to that effect.
That became the strap line for Shamima Begum.
and I suppose a trope from which she could
not and may not now or in the future be able
to escape. But the truth is here was a 15
year old school girl at school who left her
school with two of her friends and travelled
to Syria via Turkey. her parents reported
her missing immediately at the end of that
particular school day in February in 2015
and what should have happened and did not
was that The Police who had been alerted
should have then implemented their procedure
and given some of the background of a concern
that The Police had with some of the girls
in that school should have reported it to
and alerted the border police. they did not.
In fact for two days as the Home Office Committee
that I've just referred to discovered, they
didn't do report it. The man or officer in
charge of this action was in fact on holiday
so it was not reported and so in those two
days and we know the story we saw photographs
from CCTV of three girls going through airport
checks and we saw them at standing at a bus
station in Syria. So this was the 15-year-old
girl who went with two 16-year-old friends.
As far as UK law is concerned, she is considered
to be a child until she is 18 years of age.
The local authority have a duty to protect
her, The Police have a duty and so do the
schools. So she goes to Syria and we know
the rest of the story. The other story or
the other element of the story for public
opinion is at the very same time that she
went in 2015, the UK was passing a law which
was protecting those who were online groomed,
sexually groomed online. So the UK government,
parliament, were very concerned about grooming
of young women online, so new legislation
was put in place. But if we turn to Shamima
Begum, there was no consideration that she
had been groomed online, which indeed she
had, or that she was a victim, or that we
should protect her. So it was seen very differently.
I mentioned the media demonization and it
continued. So it continued and it continued
in recent times with many people writing
columns saying we don't want her back, she's
a terrorist, she's a danger etc. Actually
as per newspaper reports today, the 23rd
November, she is wanting to return and as
you've said the Supreme Court finally after
a number of appeals has ruled that in fact
the law and executive power is something
that, or rather the role of the executive,
is something that must be respected and so
there's no possibility to interfere. That
was what the Supreme Court concluded We have
legislation in place which places the responsibility
on the Secretary of State to determine whether
those who have gone to join ISIS should be
permitted to return. and they have made a
decision and that is the decision that the
Supreme Court is bound to follow. Shamima
Begum today says apparently in the press
articles that her only crime is being dumb
enough to join ISIS, being dumb enough to
join ISIS, but that won't get very much traction.
So at the moment she's in the Al-Rouj refugee
camp in Syria, It's a terrible place and
I don't know whether there's any further
stages in terms of litigation for Shamima
Begum. But my view, as I've said, is here
was a child, she should have been protected,
she was groomed and we should be looking
at that. And in terms of repatriation, there's
certainly sufficient within legislation that
would allow her to be policed, policed in
the sense it would allow her to come back,
the public to feel protected and various
things could be put in place to ensure that
the public would be protected if indeed they
needed to be protected from her. So that
would be in short what I would say in response
to Shamima Begum.
An obituary in the Associated Press dated
19 October 2021 caught my eye the other day.
It went something like this, and I quote,
the trailblazing soldier and diplomat whose
sterling reputation of service to Republican
and Democratic presidents was stained by
his faulty claims to justify the 2003 U.S.
war in Iraq. You write disturbingly about
traumatic events in American-run prisons
in Iraq, Susan. most specifically Abu Ghraib.
Why was writing about Abu Ghraib so important
to you?
Well you start off with mentioning the faulty
claims and of course the Chilcot Inquiry
and 2016 was of the view and that there was
no evidence of weapons of mass destruction
and there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein
or Iraq was a threat. Abu Ghraib of course
in Iraq was a pinnacle of what perhaps Philippe
Sands would call lawlessness and his splendid
book, what Geoffrey Robertson QC would call
lawlessness. And in Abu Ghraib, as we know,
there's no one that is not aware of Abu Ghraib.
The photographs on the web for all to see
in perpetuity, the torture, the humiliation,
the sexual sadism that took torture to a
particular perverse place. Although I have
to say, if anybody's read Jonathan Glover,
humanity, a moral history of the 20th century.
He talks about festivals of cruelty and this
certainly was a festival of sexual sadism
and what men were forced to perform sexual
acts upon one another and it was photographed.
And if you look at those who commented on
it, the late wonderful Susan Sontag actually
talked about the camera as a weapon, and
indeed the atrocities at Abergrave live on
forever. There seems to be no property in
the image, there seems to be no property
either in the dead, and one cannot fail to
be eternally sickened by what was happening
in Abu Ghraib and wonder as well when one
looks at the military tribunals that tried
Grainer and England and others at the derisory
sentences that were passed. So Abu Ghraib
is something that actually lives on because
we've seen it in many of our minds
In chapter 6 of your book, Susan, entitled
Chronicles of Torture, you quote Martha Nussbaum,
an American philosopher, thus, and I quote
here, I believe that this emphasis on patriotic
pride is both morally dangerous and Ultimately,
subversive of those worthy goals of patriotism
set out to serve, for example, the goal of
national unity in devotion to worthy moral
ideals of justice and equality." End of quotation.
Please talk to us about the American Patriot
Acts of 2001, 2006, and 2011. We have special
reference to their impact on Muslims as a
corporal body.
What a wonderful word, the Patriot Acts.
Just, you know, hold on to that for a moment.
It's wonderful, isn't it? The Patriot Acts.
Let's say nobody knows what these acts are.
And we could ask a group of schoolchildren
or we could ask a group of university students.
Now, what do you think the Patriot Acts would
be about? they would talk about respect.
They talk about the positive notion of patriotism,
respect, love of one's community, loyalty,
love of one's country. And in some ways,
this very emotionalism around patriotism
became fused in a way that justified a legal
architecture that actually stripped away
all those things. and the Patriot Act were
erected to allow the flouting of legal rules.
Detention without trial was made possible.
Forcible renditions bringing people from
other countries who'd been tortured to Guantanamo
Bay. was permitted. A war on Muslims, actually
a war on Muslims was declared and the whole
notion of military tribunals rather than
criminal law tribunals, because if you were
going to try those who were suspected of
terrorist activity, that should correctly
be within the domain of criminal law, international
criminal law. But no, these Patriot Acts
permitted the setting up of military tribunals
and of course, Guantanamo Bay. And here we
should say that in January of 2022, it will
be 20 years that Guantanamo Bay has opened.
We must shut it down. There are still 39
people in there. And in terms of Guantanamo
Bay, people were kept and are kept and have
been kept there, detention without trial
and of course the whole of the the torture
that we we know about. So the Patriot Acts
appealed to some emotional notion of loyalty
which allowed and facilitated this fusion
of patriotism with Islamophobia
This leads on to the next question, wonderfully.
Lord Stein's lecture in 2003, entitled Guantanamo
Bay, The Legal Black Hole, said thus, and
I quote, the most powerful democracy is detaining
hundreds of suspected foot soldiers of the
Taliban in a legal black hole at the United
States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. where
they await trial on capital charges by military
tribunals. Judicial branches of government,
although charged with the duty of standing
between the government and individuals, are
often too deferential to the executive in
time of peace. How would the same judges
act in time of crisis? End of quotation.
Now, It is a well-known fact that a barking
dog is often more useful than a sleeping
lion. Susan, what is the role of a judge,
both in time of peace and in time of war,
with special reference to torture?
Well, I think, you know, I would suggest
that everybody looks at Tom Bingham, the
rule of law. And, of course, the role of
the judge is to, we know, and these are here
the hallowed principles, to apply the law,
to be impartial, to uphold human rights maxims,
to be just, etc. And, I think, to halt executive
power because that's what we've seen. It
hasn't been so much the corrosion of the
judiciary although there is a question there,
or the corrosion of lawyers, and there's
a question there, or the corrosion of doctors,
and there's a question there with respect
in each way to Guantanamo Bay, but it has
been the corrosion of executive power. And
of course, some judges in the US did challenge
the executive. Some did not. And Judges,
of course, were upholding, in some cases,
the rule of law, the international human
rights conventions, the fought after human
rights for centuries, that there should be
no detention without trial. But the US executive
introduced a new parallel system, if you
like, of its own legal language. The combatant,
what is an unlawful combatant, and introducing
a whole new scene and scenario of what they
thought was possible. What happened in Guantanamo,
as we know, was a whole array of torture,
detention, dehumanization, humiliation, a
distortion of the word torture, the words
that were used was its interrogation, the
ideologies that were promulgated were that
it's necessary, the arguments put forward
by some US politicians and the US government
was that it's necessary to torture, we get
information. Of course it's true that after
the senate papers were released and of course
only some of the pages of the senate papers,
it was seen that in fact torture has absolutely
no relationship between ensuring that truth
will be spoken by the subject so tortured.
That's well known, even though Trump, before
he left office, again bleated the mantra
that torture will get us important information.
And so there were a number, of course, American
cases where judges did apply the law, they
did stand up to the executive. There was
the case of Hamdi, the case of Hamdan, case
of Boumediene. There were a number of cases
from 2004 onwards, but a little word about
the UK as well. The UK in Belmarsh prison
after 2001, detained without trial, well
it didn't torture, unless you think detention
without trial is torture and that's another
point when we come to think about Julian
Assange's situation for speaking truth, for
speaking the counter-narrative. for exposing
the lies on what had happened in the war
on terror and the lies about other countries,
who is still in Belmarsh at this present
time, and we wait for the judgment of the
court on whether he should be extradited
to the United Kingdom. in the United States.
But back to the Belmarsh cases in 2004, from
2001 to 2004, there were a number of detainees
in Belmarsh. We didn't call them unlawful
combatants. They were detained unlawfully
without trial, again, under a particular
UK executive order that had been introduced
in earlier legislation. But on December the
17th, 2004, Thankfully, the House of Lords,
including Lord Scott, Lord Steyn, a number
of other lordships, declared that their detention
was contrary to Article 5 of the European
Convention, contrary to Article 6, and they
were released. Unfortunately, that wasn't
the end of the story because the government
came back and introduced another piece of
legislation which meant, although they were
not returned to prison, they were kept under,
if you like, house arrest for so many hours
per day, under what was then called control
orders. But that's another huge story. But
importantly, the UK were not then totally
immune from breaching some of the international
human rights maxims of which I've spoken.
The purpose of the rule of law in the United
States of America, you write that the symbol
of Lady Justice Justicia is now, and I quote,
an image of a man hooded, covered in a shroud,
standing on a box with electrical cords attached
to his fingers, a torture to which Ali Shalal
al-Qa'isi and others were subjected to, end
of quotation. Please tell us why this is
so.
I was particularly impressed by the writings
of the late Susan Sontag, who I have referred
to a little bit earlier in our discussion.
And Susan Sontag, when she spoke of the photographs,
and this particular photograph, said the
photographs are us. and she was vilified
for saying so and anybody who spoke to a
counter-narrative was vilified and Chomsky,
Noam Chomsky and his writings was also referred
to as an apologist for terrorism. So Susan
Sontag, of course, was verified and paid
an enormous price in terms of being criticized
in this way for actually saying the photographs
are us. But if you look at those photographs
and you think of the symbols that the US
so much promulgates and projects, the land
of the free, I mentioned the Statue of Liberty,
bring me your tired and huddled masses, struggling
to be free, bring them tempest tossed to
me. And yet the reality is very much those
indelible photographs that live on forever.
And in terms of the photographs, I just want
to refer the audience to the work of Chris
Bartlett, who, since the camera was such
a predatory weapon in Abu Ghraib, Chris Bartlett,
the photographer, went back to Iraq in about
2016 and he went and he met with some of
those men that were imprisoned in Abu Ghraib
and who had been the victims of this torture,
kind of torture. and he took an amazing set
of the most beautiful photographs where the
men that were photographed could be restored
through the camera, no longer a predator,
be restored to their pride and their self-worth
and their identity and their dignity, that
could all be restored to them. And so I ask
those who were interested to have a look
at Chris Barton's photographs that are on
the World Wide Web as well, but it doesn't
remove the damage and the image of US justice
and US rule of law.
You write eloquently that war on terror has
harmed Muslim men and I quote you here, Muslim
detainees, their families, friends, and communities.
The psychological impact on the Muslim prisoners
is powerfully summed up by the Al Jazeera
journalist, Saleh Al-Jaili, who said, it
never really left me, end of quotations.
Susan, based on your research and personal
experience, What do you think is the long-term
effect of war on terror on the mental health
of Muslims, generally speaking?
Well, let me just say something about the
journalists, because, you know, the effect
on the journalists, it's important for people
to know that in Guantanamo Bay, I mean, he
was in Guantanamo Bay, a journalist for Al
Jazeera, and it's important to know that
those in Guantanamo Bay very, very few were
ever convicted of any crime whatsoever. They
were shepherds, they were bakers, they were
farmers, they were journalists, they were
humanitarian aid workers. And so the effect
on all of these people, on all of these communities,
of course, individually, post-traumatic stress
disorder, The effects, within the first months
of Guantanamo Bay, as I write, many of the
inmates committed suicide. The effects, actually,
some of the perpetrators who did the waterboarding,
who were responsible for the body-to-body,
flesh-to-flesh torture that was inflicted,
they were not pressing a button. They were
not making the order to do it. They were
actually, doing that, as I say, face-to-face,
flesh-to-flesh, they also, some of them,
committed suicide. And I reflected at that
point on what Franz Fanon had said about
Algeria, where he, in the 50s and 60s, was
a psychiatrist. And he went to work in Algeria
and he talked about the impact also on those
who perpetrated the atrocities on Algerians.
So the effects are wide, are very wide. Of
course, for the individual Muslims, Arabs,
their families were broken, their countries
are broken, there's no infrastructure. And
so there are wider effects on the whole of
the community. And as I've said, we now see
that in the humanitarian crisis which is
currently on the borders of Poland as we
speak today. Those are the effects and there
will be long-term effects that will go on
throughout the decades.
You write forcefully about the seeming hypocrisy
of the Western powers avowed and principled
aim in prosecuting various wars in the Middle
East. which is to save women, as you mentioned
earlier, from barbaric Muslim men. Are you
saying, Susan, that the West is happy to
ignore systemic and structural abuse of women
and their rights if it is an ally of theirs,
such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, but call out
the same practices in relation to perceived
enemies or non-allies? And if the answer
is yes, could you kindly explain?
Well, there's absolutely no doubt that Islamic
terrorism is a terrible scourge that we are
in the grip of, either perpetrated from those
outside the UK or even perpetrated from those
within the UK. And nobody would ever deny
the terrible atrocity of 9-11 and various
other terrorist acts that have happened throughout
the world in the UK and in Europe. And even
last Sunday, Sunday before Remembrance Sunday,
where we suspect, still alleged, we don't
have sufficient information, but that there
was a suicide bombing that killed actually
the person who'd made the bomb and the taxi
driver who was in the taxi with the man escaped
fortunately without too much harm. So we
don't doubt that. But what the concern is
here is that the West is very keen, and I'll
just give one example, and I'm thinking of
Saudi Arabia. When we come to look at 9-11,
who were the people who actually committed
that terrible, terrible atrocity? Were they
Iraqis? Were they Afghanis? Were they Syrians?
No, they were not. They were Saudis and they
were Yemenis. So, one has to ask the question,
that's the question. Also, the question is,
why is it that the United Kingdom, and I'll
just stay with the United Kingdom for this
moment, has been, if you like, happy to continue
to engage with Saudi Arabia and not be critical
of the Saudi regime, whereas it's critical
of Iran, it's critical of other regimes,
but not Saudi Arabia, and one has to look
at the whole interest around oil. And it's
not only oil, but we look at the supplying
of arms, the arms that the British government
has authorized licenses to the sale of arms
to Saudi Arabia. And we know that these arms
have been killing Yemeni civilians. and of
course there's a whole discussion we could
be having about Maqtoum and horses and all
the rest of it in terms of the way in which
in the UK Saudi royalty is entertained and
so keeping the diplomatic ties are very important
to us. What is the price of keeping those
diplomatic ties? And again, of course, the
killing of Khashoggi, that dreadful murderous
killing of the journalist who was critical
of the Saudi regime, Jamal Khashoggi. I wish
people could pronounce it correctly. That
is the correct pronunciation of Jamal Khashoggi,
who was murdered so brutally. What is said
of that? So we choose our friends in brackets,
we choose our enemies, and we're very much,
in brackets, we're very much informed by
looking after ourselves and what they can
do for us. So oil and the petrodollar and
the sale of arms, which really, I say this
with sarcasm, you can't see my face here,
I don't think, but is supporting so much
British industry? Is this what British workers
want? Is this the industries that they want
to support?
We turn our focus now on the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. On
15th October, Sir David Amess was killed
by an alleged terrorist during a constituency
meeting, doing something he absolutely loved,
making contact with his constituencies. Physically
present and attentive with an intimacy that
is the hallmark of a British constituency
MP. Clearly, getting in touch, connecting
democratic institutions and the people who
are represented by members of parliament
is a precious jewel in British democracy.
Susan, considering this death and several
other terrorist attacks in the UK, would
you say that the British policy of prevent
is a waste of time?
Well, first of all, of course, today is the
memorial service of Sir David Amess, and
it is an absolute tragedy that those who
want to reach out to their communities, politicians
especially, are involved in reaching out
in this way, face this kind of risk of attack
from anybody, not only suspect Islamic terrorists
but far right and we've seen the far right
in the tragic killing of Joe Cox MP. So that's
the first thing but prevent doesn't prevent
and prevent has demonstrated that it's a
huge problem in terms of the kind of stereotypes
that it is based on, in terms of the detection
or the indicators of suspicion. What are
the indicators? I mean, that's the whole
point. Can we identify who is likely to be
a terrorist threat? Scenarios have been built
up around who is likely to be radicalised.
One of the problems, and I will just mention
only this one, is that until 2019, the definition
of radicalisation, which the PREVENT programme
operated with, included a notion of radicalisation
which involved saw extremism as active opposition
to fundamental British values. Now what does
active opposition mean to fundamental British
values? It might be criticism of British
foreign policy in Afghanistan. It might be
support for Palestinians. It might be critical
of particular governments. In the case of
Butt, B-U-T-T, just for clarity's sake here,
if anybody wants to look at this, the court
ruled that that was unlawful and it would
limit freedom of speech, you see, and that's
what it was doing, limiting active opposition
to fundamental British values, some British
values. And of course, there's lots of organizations
that would be opposing. I mean, the campaign
against arms trade is opposing Britain's
sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, stop the war
coalition, opposed the wars on Afghanistan,
on Iraq, and opposed any attempt later to
thinking about invading Iran, and so on.
So this was a problem. And Prevent, of course,
this is one of its problems, that it draws
in so many people into that web. And we've
heard so many stories of children being investigated
because of radicalization. A child who had
written, I live in a terrorist house. Poor
child, couldn't spell. And the child meant,
I live in a terrorist house. And another
child from a school near Luton collecting
money for the children in Palestine again
came under suspicion of radicalization and
we know that in fact some families, some
children have been removed from parents who
are particularly critical of British foreign
policy and those matters I've suggested.
So prevent cannot necessarily prevent these
atrocities. However, having said that, I'm
sure that there are cases where of course
various acts of terrorism have been successfully
intercepted, but the net has been thrown
far too widely based on particular assumptions
and stereotypes.
There are growing concerns following the
recent appointment of Dominic Raab as the
new Justice Secretary that one of the things
that Mr Raab will do as Justice Secretary
is to oversee the repeal of the Human Rights
Act. If this were ever to come to pass, what
do you think this action will mean to British
Muslims specifically?
Well, you know, there's nothing new about
Dominic Raab and the attempts to dismantle,
curtail or even get rid of the Human Rights
Act, which means that the Human Rights Act
would mean that we would not need or be required
to follow the European Convention on Human
Rights. Actually, leaving Europe doesn't
mean that we're not still bound by the European
Convention of Human Rights, which, of course,
is about the right to life, the right to
be free from torture, the right to liberty,
the right to a fair trial, the right to freedom
of speech, and so on. But, you know, we can
look at Theresa May, we can look at Boris
Johnson, I mean, particularly Boris very
recently, he, in the Queen's speech, I think,
was it last year, you know, he promised he
was going to get rid of the Human Rights
Act, but, you know, there are some very fundamental
matters in there that would have an impact
not just on, of course, Muslim communities,
on all of our freedoms if we were to dilute
that in any way. And of course, I think some
of their concern comes about in terms of
the way in which the European Convention
on Human Rights and the articles I've mentioned
in the Convention and the Human Rights Act,
which then brings rights home into our law,
can still sort of challenge, is able to challenge
some of the counter-terrorist policies, provisions
and legislation that we have. I've mentioned
that the latest tranche of legislation was
the right to exclude citizens to come back
into the United Kingdom, but there are so
many other aspects of the legislation that
could be challenged. It's about challenging
executive power and of course legislation
has given so much power to the executive
also in terms of I mentioned control orders
earlier which have now got another name and
that is the ability of the Secretary of State
to decide on information that they have which
they cannot share which is kept secret that
certain people should be under a control
order now called a T-PINs order or, for example,
the executive power under counter-terrorism
legislation, which allows the Secretary of
State to proscribe particular organizations.
Again, obviously, proscribe al-Qaeda. prescribe
ISIS etc. But a number of organizations have
been prescribed which have been queryable.
Freedom fighters in particular countries
that are not democratic have been prescribed.
So there are issues around the power of the
government, without the government, those
who are in power, and the erosion of the
Human Rights Act would then allow them to
have much more executive power, executive
exceptionalism, which is talked about in
the US. And that's part of the problem, not
only for Muslims, but for everybody.
The Conservative election bill will give
ministers powers over what has, until now,
been an independent electoral commission.
If the bill were to become law, ministers
would be able to deploy the commission as
they see fit. That is, they would be able
to define what counts as election campaign.
Is this a good thing for democracy and the
rule of law in light of your thesis of Western
politicians' institutional racism towards
Muslim peoples?
Well, I think your question perceives a problem
and a perniciousness that perhaps may not
be seen by people looking at this. I mean,
we're probably thinking um it's about integrity
in public life um you and we've had lots
of discussions and revelations in the last
few weeks about how much various MPs are
earning in their second jobs and have they
declared them and should they declare them
and how much money should Boris Johnson or
anybody spend on his wallpaper or or whatever
else you know and how much of course money
should uh political parties be allowed to
accept openly, secretly, etc. All those rules
about public life. But, of course, at the
end of the day, it's not just about that.
It's about the unchecked power. It's about
the whole question and the importance of
the ballot box and being able to actually
vote. And the concern is that in that respect,
in getting your voice heard, in that respect
that some organizations might be prohibited
from participating. So we're just saying,
let's say, left-wing perceived institutions,
organizations might be prohibited. The rules
might be put in such a way. So it's about
public life in a much wider sense. And it
does go, as you're saying, very worryingly,
I think, to the root of democracy.
The same bill also provides for a new requirement
for voters to show a photo ID before being
handed a ballot, a remedy allegedly for voter
fraud. Susan, what is your opinion about
voter IDs? I guess the background of the
much contested issue of Muslim women's clothing
in public places.
Well, the whole objective, I mean, if we
look at the parliamentary debates on this,
the whole objective is to increase voter
participation. So how are we going to increase
voter participation? The young, marginalized
groups who feel they don't have a stake in
the community, who feel that they're not
heard, how are we going to increase that?
And the feeling is that IDs, getting an ID,
so it's not just about the notion of fraud,
I mean it sounds like this is part of the
objective and let's really have a look at
the facts that when we come to voter fraud
there are very very few cases of voter fraud,
so let's dismiss that, let's look at voter
participation. Is actually having to declare
yourself with an identity card going to increase
this? It's going to create this massive problem
of actually identity cards, who's going to
manage that whole operation? And anyway,
is it necessary and is it going to turn people
away? And of course, with the whole question
of face coverings, although very few women
actually in the United Kingdom, I don't know
the numbers, actually wear a face covering,
although you wouldn't think it if you read
some of the newspapers, it's nevertheless
is an infringement on the privacy of somebody
who wants to wear a face covering. In my
view it's totally unnecessary, it's a red
herring and we don't need this kind of policing.
I think it will fuel further feelings of
alienation amongst those even who don't wear
face covering. And I don't think it's anything
that we need. I'm not really sure why it's
part of the, I can't see why it should be
part of the latest proposals.
What impact, if any, has Brexit had on UK's
ability to tackle the twin problems of Islamic
terrorism and Muslim integration in British
society?
Well, we all know how very divisive Brexit
has been. Very divisive. And Brexit has fuelled
much, not only Islamophobia, but the whole
treatment, the anti, not just anti-Muslim,
but the racism in respect of various other
communities. I mean, after Brexit had been
won or lost, depending on which side of the
fence you're on, in my local community my
local Polish shops were defaced. So we're
not just talking about anti-Muslim feeling.
It has actually emboldened, it has emboldened
a feeling of us and them, of a difference
between, and again, going back to nationalism,
patriotism that I spoke about earlier, that
has been further shored up and emboldened.
We know that post Brexit we have the evidence
whether it's the Equality and Human Rights
Commission in the UK or whether it's the
European Human Rights Commission. We see
that actual race hatred and hate crimes have
very much risen exponentially since Brexit
and particular groups. I'm not going to name
any of them. I don't want to give them a
further platform but we know who they are.
We've moved into an era where hate speech
is tolerated much more than it ever was.
So I think it has had a damaging impact.
To deal with the twin problems of Islamic
terrorism, I think it's probably fueled a
feeling of exclusion, of alienation, of anger,
of disappointment, all these emotions within
those communities, not just the Muslim community
within the UK. um so i don't think it's it's
tackled it may have actually exacerbated
a feeling of outsiderness um and it has actually
allowed and given permission for those who
are islamophobic who who are anti-muslim
and anti other groups um to to have a greater
voice finally susan
What is your best tip for making the world
a better place?
Well, I thought of Desert Island Discs, you
know, when you say this. And I think of,
you know, what would be my books? And, you
know, there's no one message. So I'm going
to just refer to somebody else, Timothy Snyder.
You'll be very pleased. It's the New York
Times bestseller. It's called On Tyranny.
20 lessons from the 20th century. And I do
say in my book that we must stand up, speak
out, and brave the tide to turn it. The tide,
that's the tide of the dominant lying narrative
and let the counter-narrative speak. But
this is what Timothy Snyder says. Stand out.
Someone has to. It's easy to follow along.
It can feel strange to do or say something
different, but without that unease, there
is no freedom. Remember Rosa Parks, the moment
you set an example, the spell of the status
quo is broken and others will follow. I do
hope so. Thank you, Stephen.
At which point I must say, Professor Susan
Edwards, thank you so much for giving us
your time. It really has been enlightening.
Thank you so much, Stephen. Thank you.
This podcast was brought to you by the Kamgasa
Challenge blog website. Thank you very much
indeed for taking the time to listen to this
podcast. If you enjoyed the podcast, please
subscribe to us. Until next time, Goodbye.