The motion stated that: “Conference believes that the attempt to deport ten Pakistani students under immigration laws, and other international students like Hicham Yezza, after government blunders, is immoral and unjustified … Conference resolves to:

1. Support students who have been unfairly targeted for deportation
2. Fully support the ‘Free Hicham’ campaign
3. Work with organisations like Liberty … “

Yezza has now been jailed for nine months for “securing avoidance of enforcement action by deceptive means”. As he was working and studying at Nottingham University under his own name, the deception is not apparent. But a formal jail sentence for an illegal immigrant in this country is extremely unusual. Yezza was not part of the criminal underworld and if he had applied properly his immigration status would in all probability have been able to be regularised. It is very hard to believe the judge was not motivated by the original slur of terrorism. This must go down as yet another striking example of Islamophobia in this country.

Full article:

In May 2008 Hicham Yezza, an IT technician at the University of Nottingham, was arrested, together with student Rizwaan Sabir, in a well-publicised anti-terrorist swoop. They had downloaded al-Qaida material from the US Department of Defense website as part of Sabir’s academic work on terrorism.

Disgracefully, they were reported to the police by Nottingham University. The abandonment by British universities of any idea of academic independence is one of the unsung tragedies of our recent history. Our universities have become factories for churning out ever increasing numbers of “vocationally trained” graduates into a market with far less graduate jobs than the supply. Such research as is undertaken is tightly targeted, measured and constrained in terms not of human knowledge but of such state concepts as economic and social impact.

In the panic to be seen as helpful to the government, Nottingham University turned in these two Muslims, presumably on the basis that if you were planning to commit terrorist offences, then openly studying terrorism at university would be a good cover.

Actually, as far as I can tell no recent terrorist has had a proper qualification in terrorism from a British university. Surely, given the government’s obsession with vocational training as the purpose of university education, that is something the government must seek to remedy?

The ludicrous nature of the arrests quickly became apparent even to Nottinghamshire Police, and after an unpleasant six days in cells and the permanent shredding of their reputations, the men were released. Disgracefully, there has been no public apology from Nottingham University.

Just as with the face saving alleged “discovery” of child porn on the computer of the innocent “terrorist suspect” the police shot in Leyton, lo and behold Nottinghamshire Police discovered that Yezza was a criminal after all. He was an illegal immigrant!

Yezza has now been jailed for nine months for “securing avoidance of enforcement action by deceptive means”. As he was working and studying at Nottingham University under his own name, the deception is not apparent. But a formal jail sentence for an illegal immigrant in this country is extremely unusual. Yezza was not part of the criminal underworld and if he had applied properly his immigration status would in all probability have been able to be regularised. It is very hard to believe the judge was not motivated by the original slur of terrorism. This must go down as yet another striking example of Islamophobia in this country.

The government refuses to put a figure on the number of illegal immigrants in the UK. Academic estimates tend to put the figure around 800,000. It is generally agreed that aound 1 in 25 Londoners is an illegal immigrant. Having much professional experience with immigration and close personal links to a number of immigrant communities, I would put the overall figure much higher, at around 1.5 million. But to take even the lower estimates, can you imagine the chaos if we started to jail illegal immigrants for nine months? The singling out of Yezza is appalling victimisation.

After living an exemplary life in the UK for 14 years, Nottingham University staff member Hicham Yezza was arrested on unfounded terrorism charges and now faces the prospect of being forcibly removed to his homeland of Algeria – terminating his successful, commendable life in the UK and tearing him from his dearest friends and loved ones.

Yezza is another innocent victim of the so-called “war on terror”. Critics fear that having failed to nail him as a terrorist, the Home Office now wants to get Yezza out of the country using immigration law, to shut down the adverse publicity about his mistreatment and thwart a possible future inquiry into official misconduct.
Much to the government’s embarrassment, his arrest and that of his co-accused, Rizwaan Sabir, received widespread media coverage, including on BBC television news and on Channel Four News. There have also been major reports in the Independent and the International Herald Tribune.

What has happened to Yezza is just the latest of many perversions of justice. In the name of fighting terrorism, the government is playing fast and loose with civil liberties. Innocent people, like Yezza, are being arrested on the flimsiest circumstantial evidence. This risks bringing the legal system into disrepute and damaging public confidence in British justice.

If an innocent man like Yezza can be arrested, how many others are being detained on baseless charges of terrorism? Yezza was lucky. He was eventually released without prosecution. Are others so fortunate?

We know that the IRA bombing campaign in the 1970s and 80s resulted in terrible miscarriages of justice, such as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. It is therefore very likely that the present “war on terror” also has its innocent victims. Already, hundreds of mere suspects have been detained for days without charge. A panicked parliament has successively extended the period of pre-charge detention. People who have committed no crime can, nowadays, be detained for up to 28 days without charge - the equivalent of a two-month prison sentence with parole.

These abuses are alienating the already victimised Muslim community and, in effect, acting as “recruiting sergeants” for Islamist radicalisation. They are totally counterproductive.

Yezza’s ordeal is not exceptional. Since 2000, more than 1,200 people have been arrested on suspicion of terrorist involvement. Of those arrested, less than 5% have been found guilty. In the same period, nearly 180,000 individuals were stopped and questioned by the police under the Terrorism Act 2000. I am one of them. Of those stopped, only 255 were subsequently detained for terrorist-related offences. The use of this law is clearly far too random and pretty useless when it comes to apprehending actual terror plotters. It is also alienating a lot of innocent people, and their friends and family.

Thirty-one year-old Yezza has nothing in common with Islamist terrorists. His politics are democratic and progressive. He was, at the time of his arrest, the principal school administrator of the school of modern languages at Nottingham University and was highly respected by university staff and students.

His Kafkaesque nightmare began on 14 May 2008, when he was arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 on suspicion of engaging in the commission, instigation and preparation of acts of terrorism.

Also arrested with him was his friend and university colleague, Rizwaan Sabir, a 22-year-old postgraduate student researching terrorism in the university’s politics and international relations department.

The reason for their arrests - which was only revealed two days after they were detained - was that Yezza had on his office computer an open source, declassified, edited version of The Al-Qaida Training Manual. This is publicly available and accessible on the US department of justice website, from which Sabir had downloaded a copy for his research on terrorism. Sabir emailed the downloaded document to Yezza, who was helping him draft his PhD proposal.

The same training manual is, incidentally, advertised and available to buy in book form on Amazon.com - now at the discounted sale price of only $11.96.

Neither man made any attempt to hide or disguise the training manual on their computers, as would have been expected if they were engaged in a terrorist plot. The manual was clearly identified and accessible by anyone who looked at their documents folder.

This openness enabled a university staff member to notice the al-Qaida manual on Yezza’s computer. The university authorities, without consulting Yezza to get his explanation, tipped off the police. Within three hours of the training manual being sighted, the university office was swamped with police officers who were convinced they had caught the ringleaders of a secret terrorist cell.

“Someone could be forgiven, in this current climate, for panicking at [seeing] this type of document,” Yezza declared last May. “But I would have appreciated had I been given five minutes simply to [explain and] answer the questions relevant to the document.”

At the time of their arrest, neither Yezza nor Sabir were advised of why they were being held. When they asked about what had prompted their arrest, the police refused to tell them. It was summary injustice.

Following their arrest, they were detained without charge for six days - the equivalent of a two-week prison sentence with parole. Even though Sabir’s tutors, Bettina Renz and Rod Thornton, explained to the police two days after his arrest that the al-Qaida document was relevant to his academic research, he and Yezza were held in custody for a further four days.

Their homes were searched, their property seized and their friends and family interrogated at length. During their detention, they had barely any contact with the outside world.

Yezza endured nearly 20 hours of interrogation in police custody, which included in-depth questioning about intimate details of his personal life and relationships. His friends were also questioned about everything from his politics to whether he had ever worn a beard. One of the police officers who went on campus to question Yezza’s colleagues allegedly admitted: “This would never have happened had these two chaps been blond and Swedish.”

Eventually, six days later, on 20 May, both Sabir and Yezza were released without charge, following a storm of publicity and protest over the deprivation of their liberty without just cause.

University staff and students were particularly incensed by the police infringement of academic freedom - the right to examine lawful, publicly available documents for research purposes. There was also anger over the failure of the senior university authorities to defend Sabir and Yezza and to protect the right to intellectual inquiry.

With their release from police custody, Sabir’s ordeal was over, but for Yezza it was just beginning. Although he was not charged under the Terrorism Act, Yezza was immediately re-arrested, this time on charges under immigration law. His supporters have speculated that the Home Office might want him out the country to squash the furore concerning his unjustified arrest on terrorism charges and to pre-empt any embarrassing inquiry into the behaviour of the police.

A few days ago, Yezza was found guilty of deliberately giving false information at an immigration interview in 2007, when he applied for permanent residence in the UK. He is adamant that he innocently and inadvertently - not intentionally - gave a statement that contained errors. Moreover, this misinformation gave him no material gain or benefit. He had no reason to deliberately make an inaccurate statement, as he already fulfilled all the requirements needed to qualify for permanent residence in the UK. He may now face a jail sentence, as well as deportation.

“It is hurtful to see myself being treated this way in a country I love, would protect and where I’ve done everything I can to engage with and be a good citizen,” said Yezza last year. “They tried to deport me after my arrest last May, but a campaign of support led by my MP, Alan Simpson and hundreds of friends, colleagues and supporters stopped it. Having waited a few months for the media coverage to cool down, it seems like the Home Office is trying to get rid of me again,” he said.

During his 14 years in the UK, Yezza has developed close friends and deep roots in Nottingham; having served as a member of the University of Nottingham Senate for two terms (2004-05). He was also co-founder and president of the Arabic Society, editor of the influential Voice magazine for international students, and is the current editor of the political and cultural journal Ceasefire.

Yezza is not a fundamentalist or jihadi. In fact, he’s the exact opposite - a passionate defender of civil liberties, democracy and human rights. During his 14 years in the UK, as a student, university employee, writer, artist and peace activist, he has been an asset to his community and to the country at large. What malice and madness motivates our government to treat a good person so badly?

Many thanks to each and every one of you for your continued support for this campaign: it is without a doubt the only reason Hicham has been able to fight for justice for so long.

On Friday 6 March, Hicham was sentenced to a nine-month custodial sentence after being convicted of ‘securing avoidance of enforcement action via deceptive means’. He is currently being held at HMP Woodhill in Milton Keynes. As Hicham’s legal team are launching an appeal against the conviction we cannot make any further comment yet but we promise we’ll get more details to you as soon as we can.

There are three important things you can do to help Hich:

1) Please write to Hich!
Letters been keeping Hicham’s spirits high. Please enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope with your letter so that Hich can reply. Try and write more than once if you can. Even if you don’t know Hich, a few words in a letter can make a big difference.

Write to: Hicham Yezza, XP9266, HMP Canterbury, 46 Longport, Canterbury, Kent United Kingdom, CT1 1PJ.

If you can’t post a letter, you can write to Hicham via: http://www.emailaprisoner.com/, which costs 25p per message. Bear in mind that this method is less reliable than post and messages can take longer to reach Hicham.

2) Do you know Hich personally and have you been involved in society/community activities with him?
You might be able to help Hich’s legal case. Please email musabz [at] gmail [dot] com for more details.

3) Donate to the legal fund.
There is still a backlog of legal funds which needs to be paid. Thanks to everyone for their help so far – Hicham has not been permitted to work since May 2008 and all donations have made a huge difference.

The best way to donate is via an online bank transfer to the campaign fund account.

Sort Code: 400205
Account Number: 81474715
IBAN number: gb44midl40020581474715
International Swift Code: midlgb2140c

If you can’t use online banking, you can transfer money via paypal. Just send your payments to the email address:
hich.yezza [at] gmail [dot] com

Best wishes and thank you for your support,

The Free Hicham Campaign

Thanks to everyone for the considerable and unstinting support they have given to the Free Hich campaign from the start. It is only due to the help and support of thousands of people that Hicham has been able to fight for justice for so long.

As many of you may know, Hich lost his case against the Home Office at Northampton Crown Court on Thursday 12th February. The charge is “securing avoidance of immigration control using deception” and comes under the Immigration Act. The sentencing will take place on March 6th. The charge carries a maximum sentence of 2 years in jail.

We are obviously saddened and disappointed at the outcome, especially considering how hard Hich and the campaign have fought for him to have his day in court. Despite this setback, Hicham’s spirits remain high. His legal team is now considering the various options on offer and we will therefore be releasing a full statement in the coming few days.

Peter Tatchell, one of the UK’s most prominent civil liberties commentators has written a piece about Hicham’s persecution in today’s Guardian. Please read it and add your comments.

Last week, the Guardian published a piece by Hicham on the subject of the student occupation movement.

In the meantime, your continued support is crucial to ensure Hicham is treated fairly and any attempts to deport him are resisted. Please continue to visit this website for updates and invite your friends to join the Facebook groups.

As many of you know, Hich refused the offer to have all charges dropped against him in exchange for leaving the country quietly but he needs our help to ensure his legal case is fought properly.

We are grateful to the thousands of people who have already joined the ranks of the campaign, your donations, legal advice, letters, emails and good wishes have already made a difference.

We hope our support will ensure Hich’s contributions to the community and the UK are acknowledged. Please continue to visit the website for updates on the case.

The Free Hich campaign

Crackdowns on a resurgence in activism highlight universities’ transformation into businesses selling employable students

“Over the past four weeks, the UK student community has been witnessing an unprecedented political awakening not seen since the anti-apartheid protests of the 80s, and yet you would be forgiven for being completely oblivious to it. Coverage in the media has been sporadic and muted at best, mostly confined to a few orphan stories in local outlets and a couple of notices in the broadsheets.”

Since mid-January, students in more than 20 universities across the UK have been taking part in a series of sit-ins or soft “occupations” of university spaces. These have for the most part consisted of dozens of students peacefully remaining in lecture theatres and using the act as a gesture of protest against what they perceived to be the shameful silence and collusion of many British universities in the horrific ongoing suffering in Gaza. The movement has even spread to US campuses.

Many issued lists of demands that included requests for educational equipment to be donated to Gazan schools as well as scholarships for Palestinian students. Crucially, no lectures were to be disrupted and indeed, when covering the Nottingham University protests for Ceasefire Magazine, most lecturers and students I spoke to were happy to continue studying in the occupied spaces.

For anyone interested in the health of our political system, these events are highly instructive. For a start, they would have been unthinkable a decade ago: everyone remembers the quasi-proverbial, and not wholly undeserved, reputation students have cultivated over the years for extreme political apathy. Indeed, the extent of the indifference to the political process among the youth was a source of national despair, wistfully and routinely bemoaned by politicians across the spectrum.

More importantly, these protests have also been very indicative of some larger truths: not only have they highlighted a rise in political awareness among a new generation raised in the shadow of the Iraq war debate, they have also exposed what has for long been a suspected but unspoken reality: rather than being the centres of learning, debate and intellectual engagement of yore, British universities are now little more than businesses purveying a product, employable students. The message is unambiguous: political engagement might be good for the mind but it is very, very bad for business.

The last four weeks have given us ample evidence to that effect. Take Nottingham University, where senior management responded to a peaceful sit-in by sending in private security agents to drag the students out of the building and into the snow (injuring some in the process according to media reports). To their credit, the students responded by launching a “books not bombs” campaign aimed at initiating a campus-wide debate about the university’s links to the arms trade. Things were not much better at Sheffield Hallam where students had agreed to end their sit-in when threatened with police action but were suspended from their course anyway, a lesson to everyone else.

Thankfully, not everyone was this draconian: many of the universities, including King’s College, Oxford University and the London School of Economics, engaged in reasonable dialogue and several sit-ins ended in amicable agreements (after negotiations) where some or all of the demands were satisfied: Edinburgh University granted scholarships for Palestinian students. Glasgow University offered to send equipment to Gazan educational institutions. Unfortunately, these have been the exception rather than the rule.

How is it that a peaceful movement (both in its aims and actions) that has received support from members of both houses of parliament – not to mention a long list of academics, politicians and public figures (including Tony Benn, Noam Chomsky, Desmond Tutu and MPs such as Alan Simpson) has come to be seen as such a grave threat to the public image of a university? Since when has a group of peaceful protesters organising lectures, film screenings, open discussions and live acoustic gigs been deemed worthy of heavy-handed tactics and deployment of considerable university security resources and police time?

The answer is rather simple. Many universities have now grown to see their task as that of churning out generic, malleable clones for the consumption of ever more regimental recruiters. Students now spend their university years being bombarded with instructions on how to turn themselves into perfect job interview candidates. Countless career tutorials, taster sessions, seminars, workshops and presentations drum into students the notion that any semblance of political consciousness will damage employability – and that employability is everything. What is being lost on many is that such a shift is draining this young generation of bright, capable graduates of their essential critical instincts. The unquestioning deference to authority and the blind adherence to the party line are now seen not as impediments, but as the pre-requisites for anyone serious about getting a job with a top recruiter.

Let us be clear: this is obviously not about the political merits of the protests per se. The problem is not that university managers disagree with their students’ demands (which they are perfectly entitled to do), but that they view the very act of students engaging with the wider reality of their world as a subversive phenomenon to be nipped in the bud before it infects the rest of the student population. In an attempt to discredit the protests, some university authorities simply resorted to calling them “disruptive” despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. This PR-obsessed mindset now prevalent amongst university managers perceives any discussion of controversial topics to be a nuisance they can ill afford and an unacceptable threat to the image of Stepford-like stability, homogeneity and conformity that is at the very heart of their international recruitment efforts.

We can dismiss these sit-ins as simple-minded tantrums by soixante-huitards manqués all we like but, ultimately, if British universities are serious about remaining a competitive presence in the international market of ideas, whether in the natural or social sciences, it is essential the ongoing rot is brought to a halt as a matter of urgency. It is simply not enough to pay lip service to an esoteric, non-existent “right to protest”. Students must be encouraged, not quelled and intimidated, in their efforts to engage with the complex realities of the world.

Sure, some of the demands might be unrealistic and arguably naive in their assumptions, but that is beside the point: whether they’re right or wrong in their political positions, students need to be heard and respected, not patronised and infantilised for their dissent.

More importantly the Home Office attempt to deport Hicham without trial resulted in one of the biggest anti-deportation campaigns seen in British history.  This campaign continues to stand by Hicham as an invaluable and much-loved member of the Nottingham community in his fight against an unjust deportation.

All funds raised will be dedicated to the emergency appeal for Gaza.

Sunday 15th February 2009
7.30pm
£12 / £10 / £15 on the night

Please contact the Carriageworks Theatre directly for ticket information and booking.
http://www.carriageworkstheatre.org.uk/book_tickets_now_unid615a_page.aspx

By Phone: (0113) 224 3801
________________________

Event benefit is sponsured to Gaza Appeal by:
Medical Aid for Palestinians www.map-uk.org
Palestine Solidarity Group www.leedspsg.org
Save the Children www.savethechildren.org.uk
Welfare Association www.welfareassociation.org
________________________

www.carriageworkstheatre.org.uk
www.alzaytouna.org