I spoke at a fantastic public meeting on civil liberties in Dundee on Monday. It was called in light of the recent activities of special branch in Dundee (see letter that was written to them detailing the concerns - Download SBCCU3.pdf).
Fellow panellists Aamer Anwar and Tommy Sheridan pulled out at the last moment. No matter, because they would have had a tough job being as good as their stand ins. Richard Haley from SACC was tub-thumping and witty, while in Esther Sassaman, Dundee have acquired a sassy fresh activist from the US. Shona Robison MSP also spoke and showed some much needed leadership on the issue, while Carlo Morelli from the University and Colleges Union spoke against the monitoring of "Asian looking" students.
The room was packed out, people standing at the back and sitting in the aisles. During the Q&A members of the public also narrated their own experiences of police intrusion. One of them wanted to know who the Courier staff reporter there was. He identified himself and stood up like he was going to take a bow, only for the questioner to berate him about another story the paper did. I felt sorry for him and Sumiya, who was chairing the event, intervened. Now I wish she had let him continue.
Because after the event, the Courier has tried to create division by claiming on their front page headline that I urged "non-cooperation" with the police. However, they pointedly failed to bring forward a single statement where I did any such thing (the next day they did eventually get around to including my opinions on cooperation with the police).
Confusion amongst Muslims abounded as a result, with some community leaders apparently coming out and condemning me (ignoring the Quranic commandment of verifying info). All the mosques in Dundee have now though signed a letter denouncing the Dundee Courier's journalism and backing the public meeting on Monday - Download Courierletterofcomplaint1.pdf
Tayside Police joined in to express their "disappointment" at my supposed comments. The smokescreen diverts us away from the main issue. The police know that I don't back non-cooperation - I had a meeting with them that very afternoon. We said relations have to be strengthened, particularly as no force in Scotland has as bad relations with their Muslim community as Tayside Police do with theirs. A number of proposals were made, and we said we'd review the situation in three months.
The background to this is that last year, Tayside Police set up the "Special Branch Community Contact Unit" which was to reach into the Muslim community. One of the things it has been criticised for is randomly approaching and questioning people, even at their homes, because they happen to be Muslim.
One of the concerns that the police said to us that they had was of isolated Muslims being vulnerable to brainwashing by extremists. The police's actions have however been creating the very isolation they fear. Muslims are afraid to go to the mosque in case they are questioned and membership of the Dundee Islamic Society has fallen lest students fall under the radar of special branch.
The tactics are isolating Muslims, fostering bad relations between them and the police, and will not foil terrorism if it exists in Dundee – all three being the exact opposite of their stated aims. The fight against terrorism must be intelligence led, not led by the creed of members of the public. Their approach is like finding a needle in the haystack, but it assumes that Muslims are just one big haystack and indeed that there is a needle to find in the first place.
I was shocked to hear that Ann Alexander, an activist who highlights the plight of the men detained under the Terorrism Acts, was due to speak at a Muslim event in the city, only to be cancelled at the last minute in favour of a special branch speaker.
Given the strength of feeling and purpose at and after Monday's meeting, and the hysterical reaction of the press, its clear the protests have hit a nerve and we'll be returning to a position of normality soon.
Osama, in your speech you made severe criticisms of the unit, said their tactics were bullying and wrong and that people, particularly Muslims, should resist the police when their investigations breached civil rights. Even now you say their activities should cease.
Maybe you don't consider that giving advice about co-operation but if you object so strongly to how people interpret what you say when on a public platform then you should be a lot more careful with what language you use.
I just don't get how you can say the reports the next day were wrong. Hiding behind the specific word co-operation just seems like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin if you ask me.
And you've still not answered my question about when it this entire brouhaha became about co-operation with the police in general.
Posted by: johmellor77 | 11 November 2006 at 11:23 AM
People will twist want they want to twist, and your last question is answered simply by the moment the Courier decided to frame it like that on their front page.
Posted by: Osama | 11 November 2006 at 11:46 AM
Que? Where is it framed like that in the courier story?
Posted by: johmellor77 | 11 November 2006 at 12:25 PM
OK John I see where you're coming from now. I'm going to say read their article. You're going to say that it only refers to SBCCU, but I said the police in the comment above. The word "unit" should have been added afterwards for clarity. I'm glad you brought this to light.
Posted by: Osama | 11 November 2006 at 12:41 PM
Osama, I think you're what the Americans call a flip-flopper! You say one thing and then say you mean another. No wonder your comments are always being taken out of context.
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 12 November 2006 at 03:07 PM
John, "always being taken out of context"? Really? I dont' think I've even said that about this case never mind any other. Perhaps you'd like to back that up.
I've also not changed anything I've said from the speech on Monday. You were there - there were no questions about cooperation. Even you didn't raise it. I got called from just about every press source in the country after the Courier report looking for further comment about non-cooperation, because they couldn't see what the Courier were on about. They didn't run with the story, because there wasn't one. The Courier were then forced the day after to print my actual views on the issue, which you will say is me backtracking. Repeat - I have not taken back anything that I have said.
The fact is that the Courier opened up a can of worms with this issue of cooperation. It's a word which blows out of the water the nuance of the situation. It suggests that all ties have been cut off, which is not a fair conclusion to draw from anything that I've said.
You're not bringing any serious analysis into the discussion here John - just telling me how you're taking it, which was uninteresting to begin with and has continued to be ever more so.
Posted by: Osama | 12 November 2006 at 03:38 PM
"It suggests that all ties have been cut off, which is not a fair conclusion to draw from anything that I've said."
No it doesn't and it was fair conclusion from what you said. I know you won't believe me, but Richard Haley arrived at the same view independently so perhaps there's something in it.
The meeting was called Taking Liberties and was about how the SBCCU is threatening civil liberties.
You said that when civil liberties were threatened people should follow the Prophet Mohammed's example and resist them.
What conclusion should people arrive at from that?
Incidentally, you say you condemn "some" of the unit's acitons? It was set up with the sole purpose of monitoring Muslims for signs of extremism and the Scottish spokesman for the MAB only condemns some of what it does? Scary.
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 12 November 2006 at 04:21 PM
And are you now saying your comments weren't taken out of context? I give up - you make no sense.
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 12 November 2006 at 04:24 PM
I'm going to be my usual perky, Pollyana-ish self now and ignore this circular discussion!
The more important thing is whether the Muslim community and non-Muslims should unite in criticism of the SBCCU's intimidatory tactics - and the answer seems to be yes! This is a quiet, positive process of organisation and debate going on at the university, mosques and in Dundee as a whole, not in the newspapers any more. We can nip this negative approach to 'community policing' in the bud here in Dundee before it spreads across Scotland.
Posted by: Esther | 12 November 2006 at 05:52 PM
Actually John, Richard has his own opinions and expressed them. He didn't interpret what I said. And while you're on that subject fellow panel members did make far more explicit comments than me on how people should interact with the unit. Interesting how the Courier decided to ignore them and twist what the Muslim said instead.
As for the SBCCU very existence, I frankly don't care how the police decide to structure themselves. How they practically carry out their activities and how it impacts communities is far more important.
And are you now saying your comments weren't taken out of context? I give up - you make no sense.
John, I repeat again, I never said my comments were taken out of context. You ascribe things to me that I simply did not say. Please produce your evidence, as you have fast run out of any credibility the longer this has gone on.
Posted by: Osama | 12 November 2006 at 06:24 PM
Richard clearly stated in his defense of you: "For all these reasons, SACC is grateful to Osama Saeed for the assistance he has given to our campaign. Speaking after Richard Haley, of SACC, at last night’s meeting he gave broad support to Richard Haley’s call for people of all communities to "say no" to Special Branch officers seeking intelligence."
Is he twisting your words because you're Muslim? Has he not interpreted what you said?
Let me guess, the answer is "No" and "No" although the only reason for this is sheer bloody-mindedness in light of the complaints you've made about the way your speech has been reported (in the sun and scotsman as well as the dundee press).
As for the issue of context you said: "John, "always being taken out of context"? Really? I dont' think I've even said that about this case never mind any other. Perhaps you'd like to back that up."
First up, if you don't think your words were taken out of context then doesn't that make the courier report accurate in the first place?
Let me guess, the answer is "no" because your words have been twisted. Although they were not taken out of context, let's be clear on that!
This. Does. Not. Make. Sense. My computer has crashed three times in protest at such obviously illogical nonsense.
How is possible for you ever to be a spokesman when you both mean and don't mean what you say at the same time?
It's all in the nuance and Mr Haley, the courier reporter and myself all seem to agree on the tone and subtext of your speech. And, fair enough,you have the absolute right to say what you did and everyone in the hall agreed with you.
So I don't see any evidence of anti-Muslim bias. In fact, I suspect as a prominent Muslim on the panel who made a direct call to other Muslims regarding a unit essentially spying on Muslims your speech was a little more credible than others, more essential even, and therefore more newsworthy. I also suspect if you forewarned the courier that you refuse to stand behind anything you say for more than an hour at a time they would not have been interested in a thing you said. Hell, you wouldn't have been invited to speak at the meeting in the first place.
And, surely the MAB was created to speak for Muslims and raise awareness of issues affecting the Muslim community in the UK? How can you then complain when your speeches are reported? Are you now calling for the media to ignore you? That is the talk of an insane man. Isn't this blog about you wanting to be heard?
Finally, you seem to confuse evidence with the use of the specific word "co-operate" or, as this has dragged interminably on, even the phrase "taken out of context." Just for your own record, here is evidence of you claiming your words were taken out of context: "Interesting how the Courier decided to ignore them and twist what the Muslim said instead." And that's just from your last post.
As I said earlier, you should perhaps be more careful in what you say as it seems you get in a muddle every time you're asked a question.
As for my credibility, I'm not a spokesman for anything but I know my own mind and know nothing you have said has made any sense at all except maybe your original speech. I was just asking a question or two hoping for some sensible answers. All you've done is contradict yourself and get a bit tetchy.
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 12 November 2006 at 07:31 PM
John just admit I didn't say I was taken out of context. It doesn't do you any good to persist with that one. The Courier saying I said something when I did not is not the same as taking out of context, just the same as opposing the excesses of the police is not the same as not cooperating with them.
Posted by: Osama | 12 November 2006 at 08:04 PM
Osama, ok, you never said you were taken out of context, just that your words had been twisted. It's the same thing but if you want to keep arguing the toss, go ahead.
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 12 November 2006 at 08:11 PM
My, this is fun...
Posted by: Martin | 13 November 2006 at 02:11 PM
John if you say you love dogs, and as a result I say that you've admitted you engage in bestiality, I've not taken you out of context, I've twisted what you said.
I'm surprised you don't know the difference.
Posted by: Osama | 13 November 2006 at 03:50 PM
"But my message to the Muslim community as well is that we need to be stronger in our defiance of this.
"We need to stop, and many people have come to me and complained about police at their door or police at their Islamic society meetings, but it is also very clear that there aren’t people having the guts to stand up within Dundee itself and say, ‘no, you can’t do this.’ ''
Osama, what does this mean other than people need to have the courage to refuse to speak to police when they turn up at their door?
As for the dog thing, what an unusual example to come up with! Very odd.
Posted by: johnmellor77 | 13 November 2006 at 04:18 PM
John, I'm glad you now agree with me on the context and twisting thing.
Given your lack of ability in defining words, I'm loath to put forward the centre of our dispute actually rests on what we mean by "cooperate". I gave you my take earlier, you poopooed it, but did not proffer a definition yourself.
Posted by: Osama | 13 November 2006 at 05:17 PM
Osama,
The reason this is dragging on is that every counter-argument to your statements was in your speech.
What is your definition of co-operation with the police unit? Resistance and stronger defiance, isn't it?
Why don't you explain what you meant when you said Muslims had to be stronger in their defiance of the unit and tell me how that can possibly be interpreted as "Hey! Let's co-operate with the SBCCU. The police are our friends."
There was nothing about co-operation in your speech only the fiery rhetoric that has been extensively quoted in the press, which was either twisted beyond recognition or made up according to you.
Curiously, you've never come out and actually said people should co-operate with the unit either, because if you did you know you would be going back entirely on what you said on Monday night and any shred of credibility you had would be instantly vapourised.
And by the way, taking words out of context and twisting them would both be done for the same purpose - to alter the speaker's original meaning.
It's impossible to do that with your speech on Monday because of the emotive language you used. Defiance and resistance are pretty immovable concepts.
“But my message to the Muslim community as well is that we need to be stronger in our defiance of this."
You spoke out and then got slapped down because of it. Deal with it and move on.
Posted by: johmellor77 | 13 November 2006 at 06:47 PM
If it's any comfort, johmellor77, I agree with your take on Osamma's stance . The word "defiance" has quite a precise meaning and that meaning is quite the opposite of "cooperation".
Posted by: John Palubiski | 13 November 2006 at 08:10 PM
What is your definition of co-operation with the police unit? Resistance and stronger defiance, isn't it?
You say you don't have sex with dogs John, but you say you love them. Not exactly keeping your distance are you?
John P, they're not really antonyms are they? You can defy and resist the practices of your boss at work - lower pay, bad conditions etc - but at the same time keep working and thus cooperating.
But in the absence of any meaningful definition of the latter, it's hard to say I suppose. I asked John M for one, but he didn't want to give one. In any case, I think this exchange has drawn to a close.
John M, I'll keep concentrating on working with the police to correct their practices when it comes to infringing the rights of individuals in Dundee. You keep focused on the reaction of those that have their rights infringed.
Arrabest.
Posted by: Osama | 14 November 2006 at 10:41 AM
Ossie,
I worry for you and your obsession with our four-legged friends. Are you well? Incidentally, bestiality is a crime in this country. Do you urge defiance of that law? Or should we co-operate with the police on that one. By your logic we can do both.
Your arguments are getting weirder by the minute.
How do you defy being poorly paid or being forced to work in bad conditions? Steal from the till and move into the bosses office? I think that'll get you fired.
Co-operation: to work together towards a common goal.
Defiance: the fearless refusal to obey.
Not antonyms no, but certainly not synonyms either.
Osama Saeed: defiantly co-operating until the end!
Posted by: johmellor77 | 14 November 2006 at 11:10 AM
Osama Saeed: defiantly co-operating until the end!
Kinda says it all. One asks a straightforward question and is greeted with incoherance.
Once more: will you or will you not aid the police in fluching out those members of your community, Osamma, who would harm people?
If your answers go something like; "yes I would, BUT" or "what do you mean by *people*, exactly?".... then don't even bother.
It is an amazing feat for irony tone-deaf when an individual battling "islamophoia" provides, through his actions, his weak evasions, his detours into semantics in an effort to avoid honest questions, the very fuel stoking the islamophobia.
If one can't answer with a clear "yes" to such a simple question, then what does it reveal about that individual's true agenda?
Posted by: John Palubiski | 14 November 2006 at 02:04 PM
John M: How do you defy being poorly paid or being forced to work in bad conditions?
Ask the trade unions, they have a fine tradition of it.
I think finally we're got somewhere. You say cooperation is "working together towards a common goal". Couldn't agree more, which is why when John P asks whether we would aid the police in flushing out anyone who would cause harm to others, we hit upon why this issue of cooperation was such a major one. Of course Muslims, as anyone else, have a duty to report any wrongdoing. It would be murderous not to. That stands regardless of how oppresive the police's tactics get. The issue of defying specific practices is mutually exclusise from the "common goal" of community safety and peace.
Posted by: Osama | 18 November 2006 at 06:11 PM
Osama,
I'm afraid you walked into that one. Why do unions and employers work together?
What's the big stick trade unions threaten employers with?
That's right, a strike or to put it another way, complete non-co-operation.
Now, instead of trying to avoid the subject again, why not explain what you meant when you told people to defy and resist those specific practices of the police, especially when you believe it is murderous not to flush out extremists? How do you know what is important to a police enquiry and what isn't?
Incidentally, why did you not mention that it would be "murderous" not to help the police at the meeting in Dundee?
That would have made a better headline!
Posted by: johmellor77 | 19 November 2006 at 11:30 AM
John, I actually had a meeting with the STUC last week. You seem to be under a major misunderstanding of their work. Everything does not boil down to having a strike, and indeed negotiations between employers and unions take place every day of the week without such a threat being made. You have a tendency to blow things out of proportion.
If the police are having an "enquiry", as you put it, into something then they are following an specific line of questioning, not standing at the doors of people asking random questions because they are Muslims. As I said at the meeting, people should speak out against this, and the public meeting was an important first step in this. That doesn't mean we don't all have the "common goal" of community security at heart.
Your assertion is predicated on the assumption that every Muslim has something to report. Tell us John, do you think it's right that the police should turn up at someone's door to ask random questions, including about their politics, because they are Muslim?
Posted by: Osama | 19 November 2006 at 12:36 PM