The Potters:
The extraordinary artwork that you see here today was created in the most difficult of circumstances inside Belmarsh high security prison in south east London by individuals who were at the time interned without trial on secret evidence and whose circumstances have been specifically hidden from public knowledge by this government. All the men are innocent of any involvement in ‘terrorism’ yet have been subjected repeatedly to proceedings based on secret, closed evidence that denies them any proper opportunity to defend themselves.
The episode, still continuing after the men were re-arrested on 11th August 2005, brings shame upon all of us and in particular upon this government and all those who support its policies in the claimed ‘war’ against terror and the repeated attacks on hard won civil liberties which protect us all. These men and their wives and young children have been devastated by the arrests and re-arrests. Many may never recover. It is only by hiding the suffering of these individual human beings and families that the government is able to maintain both its policy and its self-proclaimed ‘civilised’ façade.
The details and recent background of what has happened to the men who created these beautiful pieces of pottery is as follows.
The men were interned from December 2001 to March 2005 under the Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001. This enabled the British government to lock up foreign nationals who were claimed to be ‘terrorism’ suspects without charge or trial and on the basis of mainly secret evidence. The detentions were to be indefinite and potentially forever. The government accepted that the men could not be deported because if they were deported they would be tortured or killed. None of the men were interviewed by the police about the claimed allegations against them as would be expected if they were truly believed to have been involved in unlawful activity. There were no prosecutions. Instead the men were ‘certified’ by the Home Secretary on the basis of ‘suspicion’ and incarcerated in high security prisons. Neither they nor their lawyers were allowed to see the evidence against them so they were unable properly to defend themselves or assert their undoubted innocence.
During their confinement the men and their families suffered appallingly. They were already vulnerable having fled their countries of origin to seek sanctuary in the United Kingdom. They had all lived here for many years, having residency in many cases, becoming settled and establishing roots with families and friends.
The effects of the internment however were to cause inexorable and potentially permanent deteriorations in their mental health. Four of the men had to be moved out of Belmarsh prison after suffering mental breakdowns directly caused by the uncertainty and hopelessness of the Kafka-esque and secretive indefinite incarceration. Three were transferred to Broadmoor high security psychiatric hospital by agreement with psychiatrists instructed by the Home Secretary. A fourth, again on the recommendation of psychiatrists including two acting on the government’s instructions, had to be released and moved to his small one bedroom flat with his wife and child on strict conditions of total house arrest. Indefinite detention at Belmarsh had caused his mental deterioration to reach a life threatening point.
In December 2004 in a resounding judgment the House of Lords ruled that the men’s indefinite detention was unlawful. In March 2005 the British government finally acted and all of the men were then released to their homes and subjected to the harshly restrictive regime of the Control Orders. This involved extensive surveillance and monitoring by electronic tagging; a strict curfew; prohibitions on any visitors other than those approved by the Home Office and security services; and a number of other restrictions on contacts, movements and activities which prevented any of the men and their families from being able to lead anything approaching normal lives.
Many of the family homes were subjected to constant harassment and intimidation from the police who insisted on telephoning and visiting at all hours of the night, disrupting the lives particularly of the men’s wives and children and causing widespread trauma, anxiety and depression. Psychologists and psychiatrists who have treated them are concerned that some family members, particularly wives and younger children, will never recover. Despite these ordeals, for five months all of the men and their families adhered diligently to the conditions that were imposed. There were no breaches.
Then on 11th August 2005 their lives were shattered once again. Ten of the men were re-arrested in violent dawn raids by armed police at their homes. They were taken to two separate high security prisons, Long Lartin and Full Sutton, hundreds of miles away from their families and friends, and were isolated in small units away even from other prisoners in the same establishment. One of the men (detainee B whose magnificent work is on display here) was re-arrested from an open ward in a psychiatric hospital and taken to prison. Almost immediately his mental state, as predicted, plummeted again to the severe level as previously. The authorities opposed bail which would have enabled him to be transferred back to the care of hospital he was taken from. Following inexplicable delays after four weeks he was transferred to Broadmoor hospital. Another of the men (detainee ‘G’, who was released from Belmarsh to house arrest as described above) has already since re-arrest and detention made one serious attempt on his life and has recently been assessed by a senior consultant psychiatrist as posing a very severe suicide risk. There is little doubt that a disaster is waiting to happen. The government is fully aware of this yet has no concerns.
The men were re-arrested because the Home Office now claims that they can be deported to the very countries – Jordan and Algeria – to which previously, until 10th August 2005, the British government had accepted that deportation was not possible because of the risks of torture and other serious ill-treatment. A ‘memorandum of understanding’ has been obtained from Jordan and the British government claims that soon it will have a similar diplomatic assurance from Algeria, stating that the men will be treated humanely. This is despite the British government for known for years, on strong evidence, that the military and state forces in those countries make use of torture. The stated acceptance of the diplomatic assurances (which in relation to Algeria has yet to materialise more than six weeks after the men were re-arrested) is in the face of the universal international rejection of such ‘assurances’ by all expert independent domestic and international bodies.
The real reason for the government’s change in stance is depressingly clear. Following the 7th July atrocities in London it had to appear ‘tough’ and be seen to take action. So it picked on and used as sacrificial lambs these vulnerable people who it is known were not involved, and against whom no allegations of involvement in such attacks have been made. Foreign nationals and refugees are evidently fair prey for this government in its relentless pursuit of tabloid favour.
Diplomatic assurances that torture will not be used could never be asked of countries that truly guarantee human rights. Such practices are already expressly prohibited by international law and treaty obligations by which those countries are bound and which are already flouted as this government accepts. Assurances of the kind sought carry no sanction if breached; they are unenforceable and they provide those brutal regimes with an endorsement by our government that they are true democracies in violation of the sickening facts as to the way they operate. As regimes that use torture regularly subcontract that work, the regimes themselves can claim that the rogue torturers operate without their state blessing.
The Home Office cannot suggest that either of the countries concerned, Algeria or Jordan at present, has undergone overnight any internal revolution that does away with torture. Jordan and Algeria are at the top of every list of countries known to use the most brutal of forbidden measures. As recently revealed in the press, even now aeroplanes depart from the UK on behalf of the USA carrying suspects to detention centres in Jordan that use torture (the abhorrent practice of ‘rendition’). We know that in the recent ‘ricin’ prosecution in Britain, false evidence was extracted by torture from a detainee in Algeria. That false evidence was thereafter seized upon and given as a justification not only for that prosecution but also for this country’s invasion of Iraq. The acquittal of the ricin defendants after a six month trial and the clear absence of any ricin or claimed conspiracy appear not to have affected the British government’s position one iota.
Ultimately the move to deal with torture states such as Algeria and Jordan in this manner risks disenfranchising this country from the international community which guarantees true observance of fundamental human rights. We cannot continue to be a part of that community unless we abide by our treaty obligations and refuse to trade in human beings in this way. This is insane and dangerous government at its worse.
This government cannot parade itself on the international stage with its claimed commitments to democracy and the rule of law whilst at home its contempt for such principles has never been more evident than in its treatment of these men and their families. The Prime Minister is wrong. The rules of the game have not changed. The rules cannot be changed for the purposes of political grandstanding at the expense of the most vulnerable and innocent amongst us.
Daniel Guedalla
23rd September 2005