This is a space for productive dialogue, debate and discussion on the many issues surrounding Hich’s arrest, 33-day detention, and continued threat of deportation.
Below, we present the most recent official communications from the university on Hich and Riz’s arrests under the Terrorism Act. We welcome comment.
Update - July 9th 2008
Whilst little has changed since earlier statements by Management Board on this matter and the letter to the Times Higher Education from the Vice-Chancellor, colleagues may wish to note a few additional points which have emerged around this case.
One specific comment relates to the letter of advice issued to Rizwaan Sabir by the Police following his release in which it is made clear that there were no grounds for him to be in possession of the ‘Al Qaeda Training Manual’. The Police, in the conduct of their enquiries into this matter, interviewed a number of University Staff. It is understood that the Police drafted this letter having considered all of the statements made by a range of University staff and they also consulted their legal advisers on it.
It is clear that there is no ‘right’ to access and research terrorist materials. Those who do so run the risk of being investigated and prosecuted on terrorism charges. Equally, there is no ‘prohibition’ on accessing terrorist materials for the purpose of research. Those who do so are likely to be able to offer a defence to charges (although they may be held in custody for some time while the matter is investigated). This is the law and applies to all Universities, including this one.
In seeking clarification about the contents of this letter from the Police we also sought further information about the nature of the ‘Al Qaeda Training Manual’. We have been advised that the document in question was one which others have been arrested and prosecuted for possessing. Different versions of the ‘Al Qaeda Training Manual’ exist but in this case the document was an operational or tactical manual rather than a political or strategic document. The Police are clear that such a document, which included detailed instructions, is therefore likely to be useful to someone preparing an act of terrorism. Moreover, it is significantly different from documents with the same title which are listed by some online booksellers.
The University has received a number of emails and letters on this issue from individuals and groups in the past six weeks, some critical of the approach taken, some supportive and others simply asking straightforward questions about events. All of these have received a reply.
The response to these events has been discussed at meetings of Senate and Council. Both bodies have fully endorsed the actions taken by the University.
6 responses so far ↓
1 M Jones // Jul 16, 2008 at 12:48 pm
The notion of a document as constituting ‘terrorist materials’ is extremely worrying in its obvious vagueness. How do we know what are and what aren’t ‘terrorist materials’? Isn’t studying terrorism by definition going to involve the study of ‘terrorist materials’?
The document in question was publicly available on numerous governmental and non-governmental sources on the internet, and in published form. How, then, do the police and university consider it to be dangerous and are they planning to take the U.S. Department of Justice, who hosted the document and therefore disseminated the terrorist material, to court?
Will the university publish a list of public documents, possession of which it considers an arrestable offence? Could this list be updated daily, or hourly, will a full time staff searching the internet for ‘terrorist materials’? Should we stay away from all U.S. government websites from now on?
Should Muslim students take extra care not to draw attention to themselves by studying terrorism, or politics in general? Should students declare all the publicly-available material they have to the university to check if the university considers it acceptable?
2 Observant Student // Jul 16, 2008 at 11:21 pm
The statement of Tuesday June 3rd 2008 originally read:
“On Wednesday 28 May 2008 the Vice-Chancellor, on behalf of the University, wrote to the Home Office emphasising the importance of due process being followed. On Friday 30 May 2008, Hicham Yezza secured a Court Order under which a further hearing will be held. Accordingly, Hicham Yezza remains in detention until his hearing, scheduled for Wednesday 16 July 2008.”
It was somewhat hasty and preemptive for the University to suggest that Hicham would be remaining in detention. Clearly the Vice Chancellors’ letter (which he seems believe is the only reason Hicham is still in the country) didn’t mention anything about temporary release or bail to the Home Office. This statement was later changed to the current version, presumably after a successful bail application highlighted it’s inaccurate nature.
“On Friday 30 May 2008, Hicham Yezza secured a Court Order under which a further hearing will be held, currently scheduled for Wednesday 16 July 2008.”
It appears that University statements are subtly, quietly altered, from time to time. While the Uni point out the minor errors of others in an attempt to undermine them (the ‘armed police’ claim being a notable observation heavily focussed on and reiterated by early portal statements), it appears that their own errors, interestingly, are being erased from history on the sly.
3 Ali Klevnas // Jul 17, 2008 at 3:05 pm
The document which got Hicham arrested was downloaded from the website of the U.S. Department of Justice. For Nottingham University to claim that “such a document, which included detailed instructions, is therefore likely to be useful to someone preparing an act of terrorism” - making its possession a criminal offence - is disingenuous in the extreme.
4 Adam // Jul 18, 2008 at 9:48 am
There is an article in today’s Times Higher Education about the University’s statement.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=402844&c=2
Researchers have no ‘right’ to study terrorist materials
17 July 2008
By Melanie Newman
Nottingham v-c warns that academics may face prosecution. Melanie Newman reports
Academics have no “right” to research terrorist materials and they risk being prosecuted for doing so, the vice-chancellor of the University of Nottingham has told his staff.
In a statement issued to the university last week, Sir Colin Campbell
says: “There is no ‘right’ to access and research terrorist materials.
Those who do so run the risk of being investigated and prosecuted on terrorism charges. Equally, there is no ‘prohibition’ on accessing terrorist materials for the purpose of research. Those who do so are likely to be able to offer a defence to charges (although they may be held in custody for some time while the matter is investigated). This is the law and applies to all universities.”
Sir Colin issued the statement to advise staff to note “additional points” that have emerged since the arrest in May of a Nottingham masters student and a clerk on suspicion of possessing extremist material.
The student, Rizwaan Sabir, who is studying Islamic terrorism, said he had downloaded a copy of an al-Qaeda training manual for use in his MA dissertation and PhD application and had forwarded it to the administrator, Hicham Yezza, for printing. After six days in detention, neither was charged.
Sir Colin referred to a letter of advice issued to Mr Sabir by the police after his release.
The letter warned Mr Sabir that he risked re-arrest if found with the manual again and added: “The university authorities have now made clear that possession of this material is not required for the purpose of your course of study nor do they consider it legitimate for you to possess it for research purposes.”
Sir Colin says in his statement: “It is understood that the police drafted this letter having considered all of the statements made by a range of university staff and they also consulted their legal advisers on it.”
He adds: “We have been advised that the document in question was one which others have been arrested and prosecuted for possessing. Different versions of the ‘al-Qaeda Training Manual’ exist but in this case the document was an operational or tactical manual rather than a political or strategic document. The police are clear that such a document, which included detailed instructions, is therefore likely to be useful to someone preparing an act of terrorism.”
Mr Sabir’s personal tutor Bettina Renz, a lecturer in international security, and his MA supervisor, Rod Thornton, a terrorism specialist and former soldier, have both said they told police that Mr Sabir’s possession of the document was legitimate given his research interests.
Since his release without charge, Mr Sabir has been accepted to study for a PhD in radical Islam at Nottingham under Dr Thornton’s supervision. His doctorate application proposes an analysis of Islamic terrorists’ military and political strategy “based on primary documents, including reports published by think-tanks and research centres and documentation published or released by Islamist groups (strategic and political statements, military manuals, group manifestos and charters)”.
Mr Sabir insisted to Times Higher Education that he had downloaded his version of the al-Qaeda manual from a US government website and that it was still freely available on the internet.
He said he was now unclear what he could and could not legitimately research for his PhD, given the police and the university’s warning.
Vanessa Pupavac, lecturer in international relations at Nottingham,
said: “The university suggests it is illegitimate to study the operational or the tactical as opposed to the political or strategic dimension of al-Qaeda.” Scholars were interested in both dimensions, she argued. “A major theme of security studies is how the parties in the so-called war on terror lack clear political and strategic goals.
Contemporary terrorism emphasises the operational and tactical over the political. Consider the 9/11 or 7/7 or the Beslan terrorists - their violent tactics were starkly evident, but their political and strategic goals were vague.”
Nottingham’s MA in international security and terrorism includes a module on terrorism and counterterrorism. Essay titles for this academic year include: “Choose one terrorist group and analyse its motivations, techniques, tactics and procedures” and “How is today’s terrorism conducted?”
Sir Colin’s statement says the university’s response to the arrests and their aftermath “have been discussed at meetings of senate and council.
Both bodies have fully endorsed the actions taken by the university.”
Hicham Yezza, the clerk arrested with Rizwaan Sabir, was re-arrested on immigration-related grounds after his release and was due to be deported until proceedings were stayed pending judicial review.
melanie.newman@tsleducation.com
To stay out of jail, don’t download
Oliver Blunt QC, of the Anti-Terrorism team at Furnival Chambers in London, said that academics do have a “right” to “access” terrorist materials, whether for research or otherwise, as long as they do not “possess” them.
He said: “Once the researcher knowingly downloads or saves the materials that he is accessing, then he is in ‘possession’ of terrorist materials.
“There is no ‘right’ to ‘possess’ terrorist materials and, while a genuine researcher would be able to establish a defence, the evidential burden is on the researcher to do so.”
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
5 Bettina Renz // Jul 24, 2008 at 10:09 am
Another interesting comment in the Times Higher:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=402955&c=2
Feeding culture of fear won’t defend freedom 1
24 July 2008
Let it be noted: the vice-chancellor of a prominent university in Britain has caved in to the culture of fear (”Researchers have no ‘right’ to study terrorist materials”, 17 July).
The University of Nottingham should be celebrating the contributions of its staff and students to knowledge and analysis, which should be at the forefront of free thinking, discussion and debate. Instead, its officials sacrifice their scholars to a craven bending of the knee before government authorities who can no longer distinguish between threat and reflection, before those gatekeepers of “common sense” who show no sensibility to our ability to think without falling prey to extremism, and before those who have carried out acts of violence these past years not only to kill us but also to bully us into giving up those liberties and qualities that should have enabled us to rise above their intimidation.
This is not a question of “access (to) and research (of) terrorist materials”. No page or picture frame or moving image is “terrorist” in and of itself. It is how that material is used to fan the flames of division and hostility that can lead to acts of violence. The problem was never the typeset pages of Mein Kampf; rather, it was in the use of those pages to justify bigotry, racism, war, genocide. The problem was never Marx’s Das Kapital or Mao’s Little Red Book or Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations or the Koran or the Bible. It was, still is and always will be the manipulation of those texts to justify the taking of lives.
Vice-chancellor, do you think that, through your denial of texts to us, you make us safer? Do you think that, by denying us our ability to think, consider, criticise, you shelter us from harm? Do you think that you protect us from ourselves, prevent us from becoming extremists?
I am proud that, before and after 11 September 2001, I have worked in a British system in which my supervisors, my colleagues, my friends and my students have not only read these documents, essays and books but have used them to construct responses, critiques and publications that show that we are not enslaved either to the “terrorist” or to an ill-defined “War on Terror”.
“There is no ‘prohibition’ on accessing terrorist materials for the purpose of research. Those who do so are likely to be able to offer a defence to charges,” says the vice-chancellor. Thus we are allowed freedom of thought under the caution that we are guilty before being proven innocent. Perhaps, vice-chancellor, you know of other times and places where scholars, students and citizens have been advised that they may read their books and then, as those books are burnt, explain why they have not committed a crime. Perhaps you know of those not-so-distant times when people have been threatened, arrested, terrorised in the name of protecting them from “terror”. Perhaps you know the instances where those scholars, students, citizens fled to countries where they could read, think, speak without fear of detention.
One of those countries was (and still is) Britain. Perhaps you know that some of those individuals who escaped the restrictions on their freedoms came to British universities. The professor who opened the door to my career at Birmingham was a scholar who left Nazi Germany as a teenager to work as a groundsman at the University of Oxford. The British system not only saved his life but allowed him to build that life as one of our finest historians - he took up his first chair at Nottingham at the age of 39. He was proud of that. On the day I was offered my post at Birmingham, he set me two challenges. First, he said with a smile, beat 39. Then, he added, always be inquisitive, always realise what you do not know, always put yourself in the position of another (the President, the General, the infantryman, the groundskeeper and, yes, the “terrorist”). Then, and only then, I would have earned the right to put my thoughts and my work before others.
At the age of 37 I was able to give a professorial lecture at Birmingham. But, pondering your words, I realise that my false pride was in meeting my mentor’s first challenge. The real pride should be that, as I quoted both “American fundamentalists” and “Islamic fundamentalists” in that lecture, I was not giving way to either of those groups, laying down my ability to think and judge. I could not be reduced to the “us” following an injunction to avoid scandalous, dangerous texts. And, in reading those texts, I did not become part of “them”.
This is why I write. And why I will defend any of my colleagues, including colleagues at Nottingham with whom I have worked for 20 years, who continue to pursue their research at risk of your approbation or the prosecution of any misguided law. And why I hope that, one day, you will not feed the culture of fear with your proclamations, but challenge it (and the terrorists) in your defence of academic freedom.
Scott Lucas (in a personal capacity) Birmingham.
6 Adam // Jul 24, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I thought this article on The Guardian website might be of interest.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jul/23/chemistry.biosciences
Chemists condemn ‘terrorist’ ban
Anthea Lipsett
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday July 23 2008
A high court ruling that banned a “suspected terrorist” from studying chemistry and biology at AS-level has drawn fire from leading chemists.
Mr Justice Silber ruled that the Iraqi national, referred to as AE for legal reasons, had taken part in terrorist activities and knowledge from AS-level chemistry and biology could be used to make explosives.
AE argued he wanted to study the courses to continue his medical studies but the judge dismissed his appeal against the home secretary Jacqui Smith’s decision last September refusing him permission to take the courses in the 2008-09 academic year at a regional college.
The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) said the ruling made a “scapegoat” of chemistry and linking it to terrorist activity would undo work to make more pupils take up the subject.
In his ruling, Silber said: “There has been evidence that AE has links to Al Qaeda in Iraq and thus the security service could not rule out the possibility that AE might seek to acquire additional and up to date knowledge of the theory, techniques and practical elements including access to chemicals, facilities and equipment of chemistry and human biology for terrorism-related purposes.
“In my view this call for scientific information to be used in the holy war against the West is significant.
“A further and obvious factor in favour of concern about AE carrying out either or both the AS level courses is that the use by a terrorist of the practical experience learnt on those courses to produce explosives or pathogens could lead to a substantial loss of lives.
“It requires relatively small amounts of either to cause loss of life and damage to property. It will be recollected that the bombs which caused so much loss of life on 7 July 2005 were created by individuals in their own homes.
“There is no suggestion that AE was involved with those events but they show how much damage can be caused by such bombs by people who have the expertise and confidence to produce dangerous items.”
In March, Silber said that AE was a well-known figure in the Iraqi Kurdish community, had expressed extremist views and there were reasonable grounds for believing that he had received terrorist training and taken part in terrorist activities.
But the chief executive of the RSC, Dr Richard Pike, said the ruling made a scapegoat of chemistry.
“There’s a vitally important principle in this issue which must not be overlooked, which is the need to avoid depicting, wrongly, school chemistry as a starting point for attempts by potential young terrorists to produce explosives,” he said.
“There is nothing on the AS-level chemistry course that cannot be found easily on the web and through other means.
“I would stress emphatically that the Royal Society of Chemistry would never support any principle that we thought might threaten the British public; but not to object to the high court ruling would be to accept the misleading image of school chemistry being a subject of particular value to potential terrorists.
“That would be a dangerous precedent which would have the effect of making the public wary of a subject that is the central science essential to the research and development of medicines, foods, fuels and materials and addressing environmental issues.
“In effect the court is making a scapegoat of chemistry, which emerges from the judgement with an image that can only encourage people to see it as a threat to life and to public security,” he said.
Chemistry was not a “special tool” for terrorist activities, he added.
Leave a Comment