A man linked to far-right group Patriotic Alternative has denied stirring up racial hatred.

Samuel Melia is charged with distributing downloadable versions of stickers which were “intended to stir up racial hatred” between April 2019 and April 2021.

The 33-year-old is also accused of intentionally encouraging or assisting racially aggravated criminal damage by distributing material for the Hundred Handers, an anti-immigration white nationalist group, during the same period.

Melia pleaded not guilty to both offences at Leeds Crown Court on Monday.

The court heard the charge of stirring up racial hatred relates to an allegation that Melia “published or distributed a series of downloadable electronic versions of stickers which were threatening, abusive or insulting, intending thereby to stir up racial hatred”.

He was charged following an investigation by Counter Terrorism Policing North East.

Judge Tom Bayliss KC bailed Melia until his trial at the same court on January 15.

Read more: ‘Grooming Leaflets circulated in North Shields

Environmental campaigners have been referred to the Home Office’s anti-terror Prevent programme amid fears they may become radicalised, it has emerged.

Data obtained by The Times newspaper under Freedom of Information laws found at least 45 activists were referred to Prevent over alleged environmental extremism between April 2016 and March last year.

The figures come at a time of increased global focus on climate change and environmental issues, with activists such as Extinction Rebellion orchestrating synchronised mass protests around the world.

The prominence of teenage campaigner Greta Thunberg has also helped raised the profile of green causes.

The data does not contain information on whether any of those referred to Prevent were aligned to any particular cause or organisation, and the Home Office said the “vast majority” of cases were closed with no further action.

A Home Office spokesman said: “Prevent is about safeguarding people at risk from being drawn into all forms of terrorism, rather than targeting a particular ideology.

“Activists engaged in peaceful protest for environmental or other causes are not extremists.

“All referrals to Prevent are carefully assessed – if an individual does not meet the threshold, the case is immediately closed.”

The strategy, launched in 2003, is one strand of the Government’s multi-pronged national counter-terrorism programme.

It relies on tip-offs from members of the public, schools and other organisations in identifying those who may be at risk of becoming radicalised to commit acts of terrorism.

In the vast majority of cases, the person identified will either leave the process requiring no further action, or will be signposted to other services.

When authorities conclude there is a risk that the person could be drawn into terrorism, they can be supported through another scheme known as Channel.

Prevent has also been criticised for its impact on free speech, placing an additional burden on teaching staff, and has been described as being heavy-handed in its approach.

Allan Hogarth, head of advocacy and programmes at charity Amnesty UK, said the referral of environmental activists was “deeply concerning”.

He said: “The Government must respect the rights of those peacefully protesting and ensure that the voices of those demanding action on tackling the climate crisis can be heard without fear of being labelled ‘extremists’.

“Under the guise of Prevent and the incredibly vague definition of ‘extremism’ the Government has been able to profile, use surveillance, compile data and infringe on the personal freedoms of many individuals and minority communities.

“This cannot go on.”

Green Party peer Baroness Jenny Jones said: “The use of Prevent to deal with social campaigners and environmentalists shows that the Home Office and politicians need to urgently define domestic extremism and give the police a tight legal definition that they have to stick to.

“I want the police to be focused on dealing with serious crimes, rather than chasing round after people who are peacefully taking part in the democratic process.”

Last summer the Government ordered a review into the programme, which is due to report back to Parliament later this year.

A British man was sentenced to life in prison on Friday over a plot to kill Prime Minister Theresa May by first detonating an explosive device to get into her Downing Street office and then using a knife or a gun to attack her.

Naa’imur Rahman, 21, of north London, planned to detonate an improvised explosive device at the heavily guarded gates of Downing Street and gain access to May’s office in the ensuing chaos and assassinate her, according to police.

He was convicted last month of preparing to commit acts of terrorism and at London’s Old Bailey court on Friday was given a life prison and will serve 30 years behind bars.

“Rahman’s target was the prime minister but he had no qualms about killing innocent bystanders in the process of reaching her,” said Dean Haydon, the UK’s Senior National Coordinator for Counter Terrorism.

“At one point he told a covert counter terrorism officer that even if he could not reach the Prime Minister, he just wanted to strike fear into people.”

As he put the plot together, Rahman believed he was corresponding online with members of the Islamic State (IS) militant group. However, he was actually talking to undercover officers from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Britain’s MI5 domestic spy agency.

He was arrested last November shortly after unwittingly meeting an undercover police officer and collecting what he believed was a homemade bomb but was in fact a harmless replica.

After his conviction in July, police said Rahman had been in contact with an uncle who had travelled to Syria and joined IS and who had encouraged his nephew to carry out attacks in Britain.

Rahman had been planning to carry out the attack for two years but his resolve was hardened when he heard that his uncle had been killed in a drone attack.

Britain is on its second highest threat level with an attack considered highly likely. Last year, there were four deadly attacks and the head of MI5 said in May that a further 12 Islamist plots had been foiled since the first of these in March 2017.

Earlier this month, a man was charged with attempted murder after a car careered into people and a barrier at London’s parliament, with police saying the incident was being treated as an act of terrorism.

In September 2015, the Home Office released data on terrorism statistics, allowing us to review the use of terrorism-related powers on ethnic and religious minority communities. What we have found is that there is a significant level of racial profiling across counter-terrorism powers in Britain. All minority ethnic communities are affected by disproportionality but we see that people belonging to the category ‘Asian’ and ‘Chinese and Other’—which includes Arabs—are the most likely to be affected by terrorism powers.

Panel 1

We found that stops and searches in London under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are more than twice as likely to be used on Black, Asian, and Chinese and Other people than White individuals.

Methodology

We have calculated this using the same methodology as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) report, Stop and Think. First, we take the proportion of each ethnic group to the total number of arrests. Then we compare that proportion with the proportion of that ethnic group in the population in London (available from the Office of National Statistics). We then compare the ratio of individuals stopped and searched by ethnic group as a proportion of the total number of stops and searches with the ratio of each ethnic group as a proportion of London’s total population. Finally, the product of this comparison is measured against the ratio calculated for White individuals, providing us with a number that tells us how many times more likely a person from a given ethnicity is to be stopped and searched by the police. This operation would also tell us if a member of an ethnic minority group is less likely to be stopped than a White person, but it appears that in almost all cases, ethnic minorities are more likely to be stopped and searched.

Panel 2

Whites and Asians are convicted of terrorism at almost the same rate from 2001 to 2015. Where there are far more Asians arrested than Whites under terrorism powers despite being a much smaller proportion of the population, the conviction rate for terrorist offences are virtually the same for Asians and Whites. This suggests that they offend at the same rate and racial profiling against Asians is ineffective in countering terrorist activity.

Methodology

In order to ascertain that Whites and Asians are convicted at a rate of 17 per cent, we divided the number of convictions by the number of total arrests for each ethnic group. This provides us with a conviction rate.

Panel 3

Anecdotal evidence makes abundantly clear that Asians are profiled at airports. What is surprising is that almost all ethnic minorities are at least twelve times more likely to be searched at a port or airport in the United Kingdom. Non-whites are at least 37 times as likely as a White person to be detained at a port or airport. Asians are almost 80 times as likely as a White person to be detained at an airport or port. This is a significant level of profiling that demands urgent action to ensure that British citizens and non-UK nationals visiting Britain are treated equally rather than profiled because of their ethnicity.

Methodology

In order to determine the level of disproportionality in Schedule 7 stops, we took the ratio of each ethnic group as a proportion of all those that were searched or detained. We then took the ratio of each ethnic group as a proportion of all travelers in UK airports (provided by the Civil Aviation Authority in 2010, available in an EHRC report which uses the same method as we deploy here). It is possible that these numbers have changed slightly since 2010 but we were unable to obtain free data on this from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in time. Please note that the CAA provides estimates, not absolute figures on the proportion of each ethnic group as its members pass through airports. As in Panel 1, these ratios (ethnic group to search/detention, and ethnic group to the population of travelers) are compared, the product of which is then used to examine whether or not ethnic minorities are more likely than Whites to be searched or detained under Schedule 7 powers. The numbers that we found are disturbing. While there may be some margin of error based on the changing patterns of ethnicity in airports, it does provide weight to the anecdotal evidence provided by so many people who have been stopped, searched, and even detained when trying to ‘fly while brown’.

Panel 4

In our final panel, we examine the disproportionality of Channel referrals. We find that Muslims are more likely than any other group by an overwhelming proportion to be referred to the programme. Fewer than one in five of these referrals actually lead to the provision of deradicalisation services. This suggests that those responsible for making referrals to Channel are hypersensitive to Muslim differences and unable to accurately detect when a deradicalisation referral is actually appropriate.

It is worth noting that Sikhs, Jews, and Buddhists are also more likely than Christians to be referred to Channel as a proportion of the population (though these numbers are rather small and may not be statistically significant, representing anomalies rather than patterns) it is important to note that Hindus and Atheists are less likely than Christians to be referred to Channel.

Methodology

This is calculated using the same method as Panel 1 and Panel 3. The ratio of Muslims and each other religious group referred to Channel as a proportion of total referrals is calculated, then compared with each religious group as a proportion of the population in England and Wales per the 2011 census. We then used Christian as a reference point to ascertain whether non-Christian groups are being disproportionately affected by Channel.

The reader should note that these numbers are provisional. The information is collected from a Freedom of Information Response and there is a significant proportion of referrals where the religion of the individual is unknown. This could reduce the disproportionality observed towards Muslim but not enough to bring it anywhere close to the other religions. Given that there are more Muslims referred to the programme than any other religion combined and ‘unknown’ or ‘not stated’ religious categories, it is certain that Muslims will remain the single highest religious category even after controlling for these problems – and as better data becomes available.

Through one of the cases that we are dealing with, it has come to light that security monitoring for flights to the United States, is a dynamic and constant process before a flight takes off for the States. Homeland Security it seems, is in constant communication with carriers and with airport authorities right up to the moment that someone steps onto a flight.

Recently, this case came to light and there was the case of Ajmal Masroor whose business visa was revoked just before be boarded a flight to the United States. Also, in the last few days, Stella Creasey MP revealed how the UK Government kept no records of citizens barred from boarding flights to the United States. Indeed a response by the Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, in a letter to Stella Creasey MP stated:

“You asked for the statistical information relating to the numbers, religion, ethnicity and cultural background of British citizens refused entry to other countries and notified of that at UK airports. We do not hold this information, as these matters are from the government making the decision, the carrier and the individual concerned.”

We have been notified by a carrier that there are secondary security checks that are carried out at the departure gate before someone travels to the United States. Prior to each flight departing, Homeland Security in the United States contacts carriers with the names of customers that they would like to have secondary security checks conducted on. What is the reasoning, why specific people are chosen or whether racial or religious profiling is taking place, we will never know. The stock response to any query may well be that the process is security or intelligence driven and there is no real way of addressing that and has to be taken at face value by civil society groups.

What is interesting to note is that the security list is updated in real-time right up to the flight’s departure. This means that Homeland Security will be talking to airline and airport staff about individuals of concern whilst the individual may have checked in and is walking around in the lounges or in the airport shopping malls. The lists of names is therefore updated after the customer has even boarded and this means that if a specific name flags up, airport staff will have to approach the customer onboard and ask him or her to follow them back to the gate for a secondary check.

The carrier also made clear to us that the security list provided by Homeland Security is random and beyond the control of airline carriers. In effect, neither the airline carriers, nor Her Majesty’s Government have any control over the process. It therefore seems that US Homeland security and border controls start within the United Kingdom and within our airport terminals. We are the frontline for Homeland Security.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note is that Homeland Security also ask relevant carriers to ensure that a selection of people check in at the airport rather than online and these individuals will then have a secondary search at the gate. How these people are chosen remains a mystery and within the domain of Homeland Security.

If you have been stopped from travelling to the United States or were held under Schedule 7 and refused from travelling to the United States, we would be grateful if you could fill in this questionnaire. This initiative is being led by Stella Creasey MP who is looking into such cases.

The post No Fly’s: Community Awareness of the Practical Processes appeared first on TELL MAMA.