Last week’s judgment clearing Tommy Robinson of a terror-related offence laid bare the double standards at the heart of the UK’s counter-terror legal infrastructure. And, it brings to mind a well-known quote from George Orwell’s Animal Farm:
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
It also proves what many of us have long argued – that the UK’s counter-terrorism laws are not about protecting the public, but about policing identity, criminalising dissent and establishing a surveillance state.
Tommy Robinson precedent
Robinson was stopped under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 – one of the most intrusive and discriminatory powers in UK law. He refused to hand over his phone’s pin code citing journalistic privilege. The prosecution claimed they had reasonable suspicion that the far-right agitator’s device contained material related to terrorism. Yet the judge concluded that Robinson had been targeted for his political beliefs.
While I fundamentally differ with Robinson’s political and ideological persuasions, the judgment clearing him was in principle, correct. The case could be used as precedent in future matters relating to protecting journalistic or legal privilege, but it will not change the arbitrary nature of Schedule 7 stops. At best, it would compel police to be more specific and detailed in court when citing ‘reasonable suspicions of terrorism’.
What the case should prompt us to ask however, is whether the judgment would have been the same if Tommy Robinson was from a Black or ethnic minority community in the UK? We may speculate about what could have happened to a keffiyah-wearing Tommy Robinson; a Muslim Tommy Robinson; a black or brown Tommy Robinson, a leftist Tommy Robinson; or a Tommy Robinson who was investigating possible abuses of state power.
Plenty of examples of state repression
We do however, have several cases over the last few years that point to the possibilities. In 2017, I was found guilty of a terrorism offence for refusing to hand over passwords to my phone and laptop after being stopped at Heathrow Airport. As Managing Director of CAGE International, I had obtained information from a client about the torture he was subjected to by US security agencies. Aside from the pure principle of privacy, I was protecting crucial testimony implicating high ranking officials. I found myself in court a few months later, convicted of a terrorism offence, but walked out with my integrity and the principle of privacy intact.
Phantom Parrot – a documentary covering my case – took its name from a programme referred to in leaked information. It revealed a policy of stopping people under Schedule 7, with the explicit purpose of downloading their device data. This is then fed into a larger database, which by 2023 already, was reported to have contained over a billion records.
Earlier this year, human rights lawyer Fahad Ansari was detained under Schedule 7 after a family holiday. He was grilled about his religion, political beliefs, and whether he supported Palestine Action, and about Hamas – who he had legally represented in a de-proscription application in the UK. Despite information on his device being legally privileged, police mirrored the contents of his work phone. A High Court later refused to prevent the state from accessing that data. The message is clear: privilege and protection apply selectively in the UK.
Stop and search
CAGE International has documented dozens of similar cases. From a Black Muslim father, Muzaffar Abdullah, harassed repeatedly for travelling to see his children in Egypt, to a Muslim mother detained after a trip to Makkah and denied medication while her DNA was taken; or Umar Butt, stopped some forty times and falsely accused of withholding his pincode – until a recording exposed the police lie.
These aren’t anomalies. They are the predictable outcomes of a racist and Islamophobic law designed to target Muslims, people of colour, and those with dissenting political views. The UK Institute for Race Relations cites statistics showing that in the year ending 31 March 2020, Schedule 7 was used to stop 8311 people, with 76% of those stopped identifying as being from ‘black and minority ethnic’ communities.
In 2017, CAGE International produced a report, Schedule 7 – Harassment at Borders, which refers to a 2014 study by a team of students at Cambridge University, which found that 88% of the sample of those stopped under Schedule 7 at a particular airport, were Muslim.
Intimidation
Even politicians though, who may have views that don’t align with the establishment, may face similar intimidation. In recent years, far-right leader Paul Golding who had returned from a trip to Russia; and former MP George Galloway – known for his pro-Palestine stance, were both stopped under counter-terror laws.
Similarly, journalists like Matt Broomfield and Martin Banks were held and interrogated not about violence, but about their opinions and articles they had written. French publisher Ernest Moret was detained in 2023 en route to a London book fair. He was asked if he had taken part in anti-government demonstrations in France and if he backed French President Emmanuel Macron. Moret refused to give his phone passcodes to officers and was arrested. His phone and laptop were confiscated for several weeks.
Unlike any of the other cases, police later dropped charges against Moret and agreed to pay him out.
Tiered justice system
The pattern though is unmistakable: these laws are political weapons. They are used not to prevent terrorism, but to extract intelligence and silence criticism of state policy. Under Schedule 7, individuals are detained, interrogated, and “digitally strip-searched” – with the state having carte blanche access to their devices and personal information. Some have reported even being pressured to become informants for MI5. This is all despite a 2016 ruling which found Schedule 7 incompatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment was in relation to the 2013 detention of David Miranda, who was carrying encrypted material derived from Edward Snowden for journalistic purposes.
While the courts upheld his detention as lawful, it found that there were inadequate safeguards for journalists under Schedule 7. What begins to emerge from these cases however, is that even after a Schedule 7 stop, there appears to often be a differently tiered justice system for different people. It seems that convictions, and rulings for the state to access protected information are habitually reserved for those who are Muslim, brown, black, or whose political views aren’t the flavour of the day at Downing Street.
Staggering hypocrisy
The hypocrisy is staggering, and it simply exposes the wider complicity of the judiciary within the system. After two decades of this failed system, the conclusion is unavoidable: the UK’s counter-terrorism framework is beyond repair. It is a machine built on discrimination, a lack of transparency and on unethical political expediency. Minor reforms cannot fix it – it must be abolished.
Under the guise of ‘national security’, the UK has built an authoritarian legal infrastructure. It has normalised surveillance, intimidation, the curtailment of civil liberties and the criminalisation of certain communities and ordinary people.
Schedule 7, and the wider counter-terror regime it represents, is not about keeping the UK safe. It is about establishing a society where some are treated as more equal than others.
Featured image via the Canary
From Canary via this RSS feed