Skip to content or view screen version

First woman convicted under Terrorism Act

Liz Smith | 15.12.2007 19:39 | Analysis | Repression

On December 6, Samina Malik, a 23-year-old from Southall, West London, became the first woman in the UK to be sentenced under the Terrorism Act 2000. Malik was sentenced to 9 months, suspended for 18 months, with the condition that she be supervised for the whole period and undertake unpaid work. She has already spent 5 months in custody and 1 month under house arrest after her conviction.

Passing sentence, Judge Peter Beaumont said that Malik’s offence was “on the margins of what this crime concerns” and said he was taking into account her family background. “You are 23, of good character till now and from a supportive and law-abiding family who are appalled by the trouble you are in,” he said.

Following her trial in November, the jury at the Old Bailey found Malik guilty, by a majority of 10 to 1, of “possessing records” likely to be used for terrorism. She was convicted of having articles “likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.”

Malik, who worked airside at a WH Smith newsagent at Heathrow Airport until her arrest in October last year, had written and posted poems on the Internet that the court deemed extremist. She had earlier been found not guilty, under Section 57 of the Act, of possessing an article for a terrorist purpose. Malik denied the charges.

The jury was told that Malik, who dubbed herself the “Lyrical Terrorist,” had written “extremist poems” praising Osama Bin Laden, in support of martyrdom and beheading.

One of her poems, “How to Behead,” was extensively quoted in the media and used by the prosecution to arouse a sense of repugnance in the jury. It states, “It’s not as messy or as hard as some may think/ It’s all about the flow of the wrist. No doubt that the punk will twitch and scream/ But ignore the donkey’s ass/ And continue to slice back and forth/ You’ll feel the knife hit the wind and food pipe/ But don’t stop/ Continue with all your might.”

The court also heard she had written on the back of a shop till receipt; “The desire within me increases every day to go for martyrdom.”

Court prosecutor Jonathan Sharp said, “These communications strongly indicate Samina Malik was deeply involved with terrorist related groups.” Police said they had found a “library” of extreme Islamist literature in her bedroom including The Al-Qaeda Manual and The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook. Deputy Assistant Commissioner and head of the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command Peter Clarke said, “Malik held violent extremist views which she shared with other like-minded people over the Internet. She also tried to donate money to a terrorist group.

“She had the ideology, ability and determination to access and download material, which could have been useful to terrorists. Merely possessing this material is a serious criminal offence.”

Following the verdict, Judge Peter Beaumont QC, the Recorder of London, told Malik, “You have been in many respects a complete enigma to me.”

In her defence, Malik said the poems had been “meaningless,” and that she had only called herself the “Lyrical Terrorist” “because it sounded cool,” explaining that it did not mean she was actually a terrorist or wanted to be one.

During the hearing, Malik explained that she started writing love poetry under the name “Lyrical Babe” while at Villiers High School in Southall. She then began writing rap poems in the style of artists Tupac Shakur and 50 Cent. Of one of her many poems, she said: “This does not mean I wanted to convert my words into actions. This is a meaningless poem and that is all it ever was. To partake in something and to write about something are two different things.”

Malik was prosecuted for a thought crime, and her conviction represents a grave threat to democratic rights. As offensive as her poems may be, they were the thoughts of a troubled individual and not a terrorist.

The decision by the jury was taken against the background of a hysterical media barrage around the so-called terrorist threat, while the ink was still drying on the Queen’s Speech in which the government made clear its intent to deepen the assault on democratic rights and civil liberties. In the same week, Jonathan Evans, the head of the secret service MI5, gave his first speech in which he spoke of Al Qaeda targeting young teenagers in particular.

It was clear from the evidence presented in court that Malik’s interest in Islamist fundamentalist publications never amounted to any actual plans to cause injury or a conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack. She did not possess any explosives or weapons, nor was any evidence presented that she attempted to procure them.

The attraction to Islamic fundamentalism of a section of Muslim youth is a political problem, not a criminal issue. It is a politically confused response to the actions of the imperialist powers in the Middle East and Africa, exacerbated by the social difficulties and racism faced by young Asians in Britain and throughout Europe.

In the absence of a socialist political movement of working people against war, social inequality and racism, and with a nominal Labour government instrumental in all of these attacks, it has been possible for Islamist reactionaries to portray themselves as a genuine anti-imperialist force. Far from combating Islamism, the anti-terror laws not only undermine the democratic rights of everyone but also help push a layer of young people towards it.

This situation is exacerbated by the failure of many civil rights groups to strenuously defend the democratic rights of Muslim youth and the growing closeness of the most high-profile, Liberty, to the government. Protest against Malik’s sentencing was generally subdued and came from only a small number of writers and journalists.

The fact that downloading Internet material is a “criminal offence in itself” means that millions of people throughout Britain could potentially be tried and convicted on the basis of what they or someone else entirely might do with it.

Liz Smith
- Homepage: http://www.wsws.org/

Comments

Hide the following 12 comments

What planet are you people on?

16.12.2007 00:10

"The attraction to Islamic fundamentalism of a section of Muslim youth is a political problem, not a criminal issue."

Yes. And collecting manuals for killing people and trying to donate money to terrorists is a very real danger to the general public.

Fair enough if all she was doing was writing poetry, but the donation alone goes far beyond freedom of speech and into aiding terrorism.




A dead member of your family


Poetry Corner

16.12.2007 08:32

For the living martyrs are awakening
And kuffars world soon to be shaking.
Let us make jihad
Move to the front line
To chop chop head of kuffar swine.

How to behead
It's not as messy or as hard as some may think
It's all about the flow of the wrist
No doubt that the punk will twitch and scream
But ignore the donkey's ass
And continue to slice back and forth
You'll feel the knife hit the wind and food pipe
But don't stop
Continue with all your might.

She means YOU, lefties... Throw away the key.

Lyrical Terrorist


Schlock Horror

16.12.2007 12:55

I wrote a bloodier poem when I was six about a battle between Scots and English. My mum kept it but I best get her to burn it in case the thought-police arrive.

If this girl is in prison why aren't many more people ? Why not imprison Ridley Scott, the film director who did 'Black Hawk Down', glorifying an overseas US massacre using detailed military information.

In our brainwashed society, it is only terrorism when THEY do it to US. When we do it to them it is preemption or retaliation, it is a police action not a criminal act. This court case simply replays that argument at a personal level. She is a terrorist because she is against our new world order occupying forces.

Danny


Dead family members

16.12.2007 13:09

How many citizens have been 'murdered' by terrorists over the last year in the UK?
There should be no need to have the 2000 Act as the UK is at war with Iraq (or is the UK terrorising Iraq?) and the Geneva Conventions cover hostilities by non-uniformed combatants, be they killers or spies or propagandists.

For reference how many were 'murdered' by car divers during the last year? Would not the lives of family members be saved by prosecuting anyone in possession of a Highway Code?

Peoples Republic of Southwark II


The killing fields of the UK.

16.12.2007 13:38

How many people were killed by the British State and its agents in the last year? To include those killed in custody, mental institutions, not to mention the old bill. Killed either deliberately, or by neglect in the knowledge it could result in death.

Can we expect these people to be tried and convicted too?

Double standards exist where one section of society are above the law while others are persecuted without any grounds for it.

Glyndwr


No

16.12.2007 15:31

She is a terrorist because she was caught trying to donate money to Al Qaida and was a member of a Wahabbist activist group called 'Jihad Way' who promote Al Qaida.

In case you haven't noticed, Al Qaida are terrorists who by definition target civilians and would have no thoughts about killing you.

Exactly. Bring them all to book on a level playing field. Tony & Ian Blair included.

And I agree Terrorism 2000 Act is madness, and she could have been prosecuted for providing material support to terrorists without it anyway.




A dead member of your family


Motorist killers

16.12.2007 16:20

3 or 4 years ago a barrister motorist knocked down and killed a pedestrian using a zebra crossing in Highgate, north London. He argued he hadn't seen the zebra crossing, and got a 9 month suspended sentence. There was nothing to indicate that anything was wrong with the zebra crossing, or that it affected his membership of the Bar.

Some years ago a motorist who had angered a cyclist, drove at him and killed him, and escaped jail. The judge or magistrate said it could have happened to anyone (driving).

Strepsil


Dead Family

16.12.2007 18:21

Any dead member of my family from this mess would far, far more likely be a British troop killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. They would be there foolishly trying to preserve freedoms such as the freedom of expression and freedom of speech, while the real attack on these freedoms occurs solely in Westminster. They would be there to prevent terrorist attacks in the UK but by each massacre they contribute to that genocide then they are sowing the seeds of future terrorist attacks in the UK.

A legal system that fears poetry is unjust. I read a recipe for napalm when I was ten from a book I bought in a supermarket - that is the quality of the evidence against this woman and yet I have yet to naplm anyone despite much provocation. Most anarchists have at some point downloaded the anarchist cookbook to see what the fuss is about - it is boring, irrelevant and unreliable to all but the seriously desperate. But just looking at it doesn't make you a terrorist.

Danny


An incovenient truth

16.12.2007 20:11

Again. She was caught trying to donate money to Al Qaida and was a member of a Wahabbist activist group called 'Jihad Way' who promote Al Qaida.

Who cares about the poetry.

A dead member of your family


Trying to donate?

16.12.2007 22:12

Tell me more or where to read more. If anyone wants to donate money to any terrorist group I am available, leaves me with the problem of sorting out fraud charges - accepting money for a cause I have no intent of handing over.

As others agree with me, to some extent or another, about car drivers she would have been far better off driving down a crowded pavement. There is enough case law to be handed a suspended sentence.

It still begs the question why the 2000 Act instead of the Geneva Conventions? Possibly 'attempted donation' is not an offence. Poetry could be construed as propaganda.

Peoples Republic of Southwark II


a question

20.12.2007 16:56

terrorist groups to not accept donations like any old charity- they are underground. surely the last place they would want to be seen is in connection with the;
"Wahabbist activist group called 'Jihad Way' who promote Al Qaida" that was referred to. it sounds like a load of nonsense to me to think that anyone who fancies it can 'donate' to terrorism. i reckon with a little research i could show that this is nonsense, but how can i research the topic without the risk of being done for thought crime?

...


Sure they do.

20.12.2007 23:58

They use fronts to collect and launder the money. Al Qaeda is in the habit of setting up bogus charities.

Up until 9/11 al Qaeda were openly receiving funds in Finsbury Park London. I know this for a fact as I used to live there and see their Bin Laden flyers everywhere.

 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a93threefronts

Noraid
- Homepage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID