Breaking the silence

No Place Like Home Documentary — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:53:26 +0000

Since the broadcast we’ve not said anything publicly about the film on our lawyers advice. That was until last Thursday when we held a press conference with Liberty to announce that we were facing the threat of jail for making this film. The Attorney General is looking to see if we can be prosecuted for making this film.

You can see the press reaction here:

Evening Standard:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23868937-film-makers-face-jail-over-terror-suspect-on-newsnight.do

Daily Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-blog/7956747/Documentary-makers-and-contempt-of-court.html

The fact that we can be prosecuted for telling the story of a man who has never been tried charged or convicted, shocks us deeply.

Newsnight Exclusive – 17th June 2010

No Place Like Home Documentary — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:08:52 +0000

Last night Hussain took the difficult decision to tell his story on national television, this despite the warnings from all that it may result in his re-imprisonment in Long Larten High Security prison.

The film was a Newsnight exclusive and the half hour segment led the show and included a live telephone conversation with him.

It is unnecessary to say more as he speaks for himself so eloquently:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00st267/Newsnight_16_06_2010/

Detention without trial – 16th June 2010

admin — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:30:56 +0000

The use of detention without trial in the UK is an insult to the traditions of British justice and democracy. Instead of the principle of equality before the law, it says that we are only equal if the government says so. Instead of the separation of the judiciary and politics we have a system that gives the home secretary, with all the partisan politics and self-interest that implies, ultimate power to overrule the courts.

It is politically convenient for a government to imprison a number of individuals as a threat to national security. It shows us, the public that they are doing something about the terrorist threat; here look at these evil people that are so dangerous we can’t even tell you what they’ve done, for fear it could jeopordise your safety. It demands that we trust the government in the decisions it makes based on intelligence. But why should we? The war on Iraq being the most recent example of classified information being used to justify a political decision, not exactly a ringing endorsement.

This desired level of trust we should have is often expressed as “‘in the interest of the general public” implying a disdain for general safety if you question. Does the public want to be kept in the dark about “terrorists” living next door to them? Don’t they as much as the accused have a right to know?

The argument made in favour of this system is that it’s not perfect but it’s the best we have in difficult circumstances, that there are judicial checks and balances, in the form of special advocates. That these are difficult times is true, but what do we stand for if when it becomes difficult we revert to practices that wouldn’t look out of place in Iran, North Korea or Iraq under Saddam. We are fighting Islamic extremism because we believe in our system of democracy, we believe in the rights that we have fought hard for over the last century. When the government is appointing the judge and both lawyers, and the lawyer of the accused is unable to speak to his client, to provide an explanation for any behaviour that might be suspicious, then the system is skewed in favour of the prosecution and the state. Innocence should be assumed until proven otherwise, not the other way round.

The burden of proof has always been upon the prosecution in order to defend the liberty of the individual, which is a paramount human right. Would you want it the other way round? As hard as proving the guilt of someone may be, proving your own innocence is much much harder.

Today Hussain Alsamamara is in court to ask for a fair trail, a chance to defend himself against the accusations against him. This is a right that we all should have. Why is he any different?

He does not want to be released without a trial, he wants to be exonerated, to be able to live with his family without the constant fear of re-arrest at the whim of the home office. If the government have evidence that can persuade a jury of 12 people that he is guilty then let them produce it and he should go to jail. If he is innocent then the government is wasting the taxpayers’ money and resources. The security services are stretched enough as it is, shouldn’t we ensure that their focus is in the right place, stopping those people who do wish us harm.

Whatever you think of him personally, the principle of this case is clear, everyone should be allowed the chance to defend themselves against any accusations.