Mandy Rhodes interviews human rights campaigner, lawyer and general thorn in the side of the establishment, Aamer Anwar
Coiled spring. That’s the phrase. He’s talking, I’m listening, he’s talking, and I’m trying to ask a question, he’s talking. It’s extraordinary; this man doesn’t draw a breath. I sit with my mouth opening and closing, like a goldfish, poking the air with a stray finger as I try and get a word in – none of this qualifies as a good look – while he rants from one bone of contention to the next; on and on; Palestine, Muslim radicalisation, police brutality, white bigots, defending the weak, fighting for the vulnerable, Iraq, terrorism, war on terror, detention, miscarriages of justice, underdogs, fear…And this is just the small talk, we haven’t even got to the big issue.
Saturday June 30 2007. It’s one of those ‘what were you doing when....’ dates. Aamer Anwar’s memory is that he had had a row with his wife, Ifet, about how much he worked. It was a fairly regular battleground for the couple and as usual he had stormed off to the office. It was a Saturday and the courts were shut but he had gone to work anyway, letting his wife unwittingly win the argument. He was still seething but knew she was right. He did work too hard but there were too many causes to fight, too many people to defend. How could he not work?
When he eventually returned home she had taken their baby son, Qais, and gone out. He flopped down on the settee, trying to decide how to placate the situation. He got a text. But it wasn’t from her. It simply read, ‘switch on the TV’.
“I switched the TV on and I froze on the sofa, I just thought oh my God, what’s going to happen now? All I saw were the pictures of the burning car and the reporters talking about the attack on Glasgow Airport. I just felt sick and within the space of about five minutes realised that nothing else would be the same again and what this could mean for the Siddique family.”
Even then, in those panic-filled first few minutes, his thoughts turned to work before his family. The next call he took was from the Siddique family wanting to know what this would mean for their son.
21-year-old Mohammed Atif Siddique had been charged some months before under the Terrorist Act 2002 with a series of Islamist terrorism offences which centred on the possession and distribution of terrorist material via the web. As Siddique’s lawyer, Anwar had naturally immersed himself in the case but nothing, he says now, could have prepared him for Siddique’s trial taking place just one month after the Glasgow Airport attack.
Later described as Scotland’s first home-grown terrorist, the court heard that Siddique had provided training material on bomb-making and the use of weapons, threatened to become a suicide bomber and showed fellow-students videos of beheadings and suicide bombers. He was described during his trial as a “wannabe suicide bomber”, and told friends that Osama Bin Laden was his god.
Police also believe that Siddique, a shopkeeper’s son from Alva, Clackmannanshire, may have been planning to take part in a series of al-Quaeda inspired attacks planned in Canada when he was detained at Glasgow Airport en route to Pakistan.
At the end of his trial Lord Carloway told Siddique at the High Court in Edinburgh: “You told fellow college students that you intended to become a terrorist and one of your targets would be central Glasgow.” None of this had actually come to its terrible fruition but the student was found guilty and sent to prison for eight years.
Reading from a statement on the steps of the High Court, Aamer Anwar said:
“Today Mohammed Atif Siddique was found guilty of doing what millions of young people do every day, looking for answers on the internet.
“This verdict is a tragedy for justice and for freedom of speech and undermines the values that separate us from the terrorist, the very values we should be fighting to protect.
“It is farcical that part of the evidence against Atif was that he grew a beard, had documents in Arabic which he could not even read and downloaded material from a legitimate Israeli website run by DR Reuven Paz, ex Mossad.
“When detained at Glasgow Airport by Special Branch on the 6 April 2006, his laptop was confiscated and he was released, at liberty for seven days, he made no attempt to escape or to destroy his home computer, hardly the actions of al-Qaeda. He remained at home until 7am on the 13 April when the police broke down his front door and he was taken to the Scottish Terrorism Centre in Govan for two weeks of questioning.
“Young Muslims today live in a climate of fear no different to that experienced by the Irish community in the last century. There are two questions that remain unanswered: why websites based in the United States full of hatred (such as those of the chief Crown expert Evan Kohlmann - www.globalterroralert.com) are allowed to operate? And why are young Muslims looking for answers to the horrors of Iraq, Guantanamo and Palestine on radical websites?
“Since the Prevention of Terrorism Acts of the 1970s terror laws have done little to ensure that we are safe from terrorist attack, but much to infringe the human rights and civil liberties of those living in the UK. Terrorism can and must be fought without sacrificing our human rights.
“Repression and injustice, and the criminalisation of communities make us less safe, not more. They act as a recruiting sergeant to extremism and marginalise those whose engagement is vital to the effective fight against terrorism. The sensational and biased reporting of this case breached the most important principle of justice - that people are innocent until proven guilty. This is not a way to isolate extremism but only encourages it.
“Atif Siddique states that ‘he is not a terrorist and is innocent of the charges, that it is not a crime to be a young Muslim angry at global injustice.’
“The prosecution was driven by the state, with no limit to the money and resources used to secure a conviction in this case, carried out in an atmosphere of hostility after the Glasgow Airport attack and ending on the anniversary of 9/11. In the end Atif Siddique did not receive a fair trial and we will be considering an appeal.”
 It was an impassioned statement, read by a tired and emotional criminal defence lawyer. The kind of speech that has made many a young wannabe lawyer reach for their books and want to follow in the footsteps of Spencer Tracy in ‘Inherit the Wind’. But these words have led to Anwar facing, as he does now, a charge of contempt of court – the first case of its kind in the UK.
Lord Carloway described Anwar’s remarks as “an unjustified attack on almost every area of the trial process, other than the defence”. He claimed that, rather than speaking for his client, Anwar’s statements reflected his own “personal views” and “lacked any hint of objectivity”. Siddique’s family insist that Anwar’s comments did reflect their views.
More than 100 high-profile figures – including writer Iain Banks, anti-war campaigner Rose Gentle and Paddy Hill, one of the Birmingham Six – have declared their support for Anwar. Michael Mansfield and Helena Kennedy are among a host of high-profile lawyers who have also thrown their weight behind him and Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: “The ability of a lawyer to protest on behalf of his client is crucial to both free speech and justice in a democracy. This case provides a golden opportunity for Scotland to protect the independence of lawyers – even in difficult times.”
Anwar is no stranger to difficult times or the headlines associated with them but the notoriety of this contempt case and the high-profile support he has gleaned offers no comfort to this regular rabble rouser. If he is found guilty, it could mean a fine, imprisonment or a referral to the Law Society of Scotland, which could effectively ban him from practising law which would mean no business, no income, and no clear future but plenty more domestic arguments about work taking precedence over family. With little room left on his tensed shoulders for even more chips, Anwar has been left to stew for eight months as eminent law lords attempt to reach a decision about his legal future.
“I was told that this would be dealt with quickly because the court could feel my pain,” he laughs but the pain still shows. He admits that everyday he waits for a phone call or a letter that will call him back to court and seal his fate. The stress on his family has been immense and there is a tangible question left hanging – ‘why on earth did he open his big mouth?’
The roots to that lie in Anwar’s past. Not just in the well publicised compensation case that he took and won against Strathclyde Police after being brutally beaten up as a student or in the flak he took for being the son of a bus driver sent to a private school or in the criticism he got for labelling the judiciary as being institutionally racist after the Chhoker murder case, but in the very depths of his being. Who is Aamer Anwar?
He is undoubtedly an angry 40-year-old. An interesting mix of good son and rebel and it is in that struggle and the “loving but difficult” relationship he has with his father that you can see where his complex combination of anger, compassion and frustration comes from.
His father came from a very privileged Pakistani family and had been a bit of jet-set playboy, mixing with those and such as those of Pakistani royalty, film stars and wealth. He unconventionally married Aamer’s mother, Nargis, for love and the two of them came to live in Manchester in the 60s, moving to Liverpool where Aamer and his sister, Saiqa, were brought up. However, life in the UK was very different for the couple. Anwar’s father may have come from money and influence but he was not educated and found work as a bus driver, working double shifts to fund both his children through private school. He believed that his children should not do as he did and that they should get the benefits of an education that he had never had. But even at school Anwar’s mouth got him into trouble as he fought back against racism-fuelled bullying and general snobbery. As so often happens, he turned away from the things his father wanted him to do, perhaps giving him a little control in what seemed a situation where he had no power.
He came to Scotland aged 18, to study engineering at Glasgow University with an eye to a career in the RAF but when a problem with his eyesight was detected, that dream was abandoned and he was soon exploring left-wing politics compounded by a working holiday to Chicago where his anger became politicised with the racism and inequality he witnessed and also by the story of Malcolm X.
In his third year at university, he noticed his flatmates who were Asian students at the university’s dental school were doing well in their general studies, but badly in clinical assessments. He took a look at the school’s past yearbooks. He found entries referring to “darkies” next to the names of black students. He began a campaign for anonymous marking and although lecturers were subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing, the university did change its exam marking system. Buoyed by this first political hit, the increasingly radical student swapped engineering for a degree in politics and sociology and became a regular student activist.
In 1991, when he was fly posting off Byres Road in Glasgow’s West End for yet another student demonstration, Anwar was attacked by police officers who repeatedly banged his head against the pavement until his teeth broke. One of them said, ‘This is what happens to black boys with big mouths’. Four years later, Anwar successfully sued Strathclyde Police, winning £4,200 in Scotland’s first civil action alleging a racist attack by police.
He describes the incident with such clarity all these years later because it was his tipping point. He says he saw his life flash before him and instead of just getting angry, he got active. He became the Scottish organiser of the Anti-Nazi League and increasingly political. But unlike many angry young men, he put his money (or rather his parents’ money who remortgaged their home to pay for his studies) where his mouth was and began to study law. But why law? Why not politics?
“I have been approached by parties from Labour to the Scottish National Party to Solidarity, but I don’t want to get involved with one group,” he says. “Toeing the line would be incredibly difficult for me. I think my mouth might get me into even more trouble as a politician.”
For Anwar it has never been about why he opens his mouth but more about how could he ever stay silent.
For Anwar it has never been about why he opens his mouth but more about how could he ever stay silent. 
He believes that too many people keep quiet when they should be standing up for the oppressed. He says the SNP Government missed a trick immediately after the Glasgow Airport attack by refusing to speak up for human rights and the root causes of terrorism and that there has been a tangible negative sea-change in attitude since towards Muslims in Scotland.
“Generally speaking in Scotland, I think compassion has become less, hatred has increased and people believe they have a defence now. Probably in the 70s and 80s when I was growing up in Liverpool, if you were attacked and were chased down the street by a thug, you would be called Paki, whereas now you would be called a Muslim terrorist bastard. It’s almost as if there is a green light to attack the Muslim community now. Individual well-known families, I won’t name them, connected to terrorism cases, found their shop windows and families attacked within half an hour of the Glasgow Airport attack.
“What was shocking for me was we had a new government and there was no debate to talk about the root causes of terrorism and the baby was very quickly thrown out with the bath water. I stood at a unite against terrorism rally in George Square where everyone patted themselves on the back and there was only a few dissenting voices because what was missing from all those that spoke on the platform, apart from a few honourable exceptions, were the words, Iraq and Afghanistan and it was as if this new government fell into the trap of not talking about issues like Iraq or Afghanistan at this particular time because they were frightened to look as if they were being soft on terror. You don’t get consensus on terror without talking about the fundamental issues that brought us here.
“We didn’t have suicide bombers in this country before Iraq or Afghanistan. We didn’t have young, British-born males willing to blow themselves up before Iraq. It doesn’t mean we excuse their actions but the point is that we are not addressing those issues and unless we attack those root causes of it then we are creating more problems.
“We are creating an environment where, I believe, extremists and terror recruiters will grow the pool of people that they will recruit from and the policies and practices are not tackling it because they don’t know how. They don’t understand the grievances and I know that people say that these are too long term but if you don’t deal with them then you are never going to be able to deal with the terrorist attack that happens the next day.
“There was a missed opportunity by the Scottish Government to come up with something new and they bottled it. We have seen it since with the 42-day detention and there has been no debate in the Scottish Parliament. Yes, these things are reserved but they will still be implemented in Scotland so a debate should be legitimate. The SNP is saying it is the Scottish Government and it could have differentiated itself by being brave enough to talk about these issues. The SNP came in with a large Muslim vote and they had a prior good record of raising the difficult issues about war and making the connections with the root causes of terrorism but what are they doing now?
“People out there think I’m Mr Angry and I’m this and that but look at the people that I’m representing. They’re people who are demonised by society, they’re hated by society for their religion and beliefs, and that hatred can transfer over to me as well, because people see me as being part of them, rather than recognising that I’m just doing my job.
“Yes, I am emotional but what’s wrong with that? I didn’t come born with a silver spoon in my mouth, I didn’t come straight from school, to university straight into law and with life all sewn up and secure. I have had my teeth kicked in, dragged down a lane and kicking and screaming and being told this is what happens to black boys with big mouths, I’ve spent nights in cells, I was abused by police officers, I have had to move flats several times because of Nazi death threats, I have been abused, I have had friends who refused to mix with me because they thought I was trouble and I have had heartbreak as a result of that. I gave my family heartbreak and anguish and I still continue to do that. I’ve had my life destroyed, unbearable pressure’s come to bear on my family life but people never ever seem to click that you can’t just switch off. It does occupy your whole life and it can make you morose and unhappy and angry all the time. Look at Gareth Pearce who is an absolutely fantastic human being but when people meet her for the first time, they’re shocked, because she’s very quiet and never strikes you as a happy person. She will ask how can she be happy when she’s carrying the burden of the world on her shoulders.
“I’m always described as a controversial lawyer, as a race row lawyer or something like that. An eminent QC said to me at the end of a trial, ‘Aamer, if you kick the establishment, expect to get kicked back’. He said you have a choice, either you can conform and things will be great, or don’t conform and speak out on difficult issues but if you speak out on behalf of people who are demonised by society, then expect to be demonised. The clients that I have are hated by society for their beliefs, or their religions or what crimes they commit. If I was wanting to win a popularity contest then I’m in the wrong job. I didn’t become a lawyer just to be popular and to do the easy thing. To do the easy thing isn’t always the right thing.”
No one has commented on this article. |
Holyrood magazine 
Holyrood magazine is the fortnightly insiders guide to understanding the complexity of Scottish politics and policy developments and is widely regarded as being the leading publication for political news and information in Scotland.
