If successful, the seizure of the Farooqi family home in Manchester, England will threaten one of our most fundamental human rights.
Update: On Friday, May 23 Judge Richard Henriques at Manchester Crown Court ruled in favor of the Farooqi family, finding that seizing the family home would have “draconian, severe and unjust” consequences by rendering homeless a “wholly innocent” family. The judge also ordered Munir Farooqi to pay £500,000 towards the costs of his trial.
Next year, 3-year-old Rumaysa and her family may be made homeless, but not for the reasons you would expect. In 2011, her grandfather was convicted of running a “recruitment center” for British extremists, and now the Greater Manchester Police (GMP) want to take the roof over her head. If successful, the forfeiture will be the first in the UK granted under terrorism legislation, and will establish a legal precedent that should greatly trouble Britons of every faith.
Munir Farooqi is currently serving four life terms for purportedly attempting to persuade two undercover policemen, both posing as converts, to join the jihad in Afghanistan. The alleged crimes took place in the basement of his family home, where the 56-year-old also stored a large quantity of da’wah (proselytizing) material for his stall on Longsight market. This past September, Mr. Farooqi lost his challenge in the Court of Appeal and the legal proceedings on the forfeiture were set into motion.
Rumaysa does not really understand what is at stake, but her mother Zulaikha worries about the toll this might take on her in the future. “How would any child feel growing up knowing their government vigorously fought to make her homeless?” The three generations of family members currently living in the home are not sure where they will go if the forfeiture is approved.
The Terrorism Act of 2000 gave courts the power to seize assets used to commit or promote terrorist activities. However, according to the family’s solicitor, Simon Pook of Robert Lizar Solicitors, the GMP is not applying the law as legislators originally intended. “When the Act was being discussed in Parliament, the general view was that they should target mobile phones, laptop computers, printers . . . anything that could be used to distribute [terrorist] literature. They never had in mind to seize a family home or a house.”
Nor are the substantive claims of the GMP convincing. The house hardly qualifies as a safe haven for terrorist publications; an estimated 98 percent of the da’wah material initially seized from the family’s cellar has been returned. While Mr. Farooqi did admittedly commit the majority of his offenses inside the home, he is now behind bars – the only family member to be convicted, even though they were all under constant surveillance. What is most shocking is that the house does not even belong to Munir Farooqi. It has always been the legal property of his wife and oldest daughter.
In short, the Farooqi family home is not a criminal asset, as the term has long been understood. That the GMP is pursuing this forfeiture anyway reflects the second-class status accorded to British Muslims today. The recent public debate on a partial face-veil ban is just the tip of the iceberg. Muslims are spied on in universities and places of worship, harassed at ports of entry and even stripped of their citizenship by Home Secretary Theresa May.
What is happening to the Farooqis is also reminiscent of David Cameron’s call to “enforc[e] responsibility in our society” by evicting from council flats individuals convicted of participating in the summer 2011 riots – even though doing so would also put the family members of offenders out on the streets. A number of local authorities ultimately boycotted the prime minister’s demands.
The political ethos guiding the riot evictions and the Farooqi home seizure are similar, even if their underlying legal rationales are not. In both cases, government officials have endeavored to sanction innocent individuals for the alleged crimes of another. In both cases, the state has responded viciously to communities already ravaged by austerity measures and alienated by racial profiling and police brutality. Poor and black people are demonized for being benefit scroungers, Muslims for leading so-called parallel lives.
In the end, the plight of Rumaysa and her family should alarm us all. As Mr. Pook noted, “If Greater Manchester Police are successful in this case, it will be a significant change in the landscape of human rights in England.” The forfeiture stands to threaten one of the most fundamental entitlements enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights: the right to respect for private and family life. How many of us want to live in a country where courts have the power to confiscate family homes, even if they are owned and inhabited by people who have done absolutely nothing wrong? It might be the families of convicted terrorists today, but it could be you or me tomorrow.
The Crown Court will hear GMP’s application to seize the Farooqi home on May 22 and 23. Will progressive Britons rally around Rumaysa and her family as they fight to prevent collective punishment from becoming legal precedent? Or, will British Muslims once again be left out in the cold?
Note: The Save the Farooqi Family Home Campaign will be protesting outside the Manchester Crown Court on May 22 and 23.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.