In a continuing series of interviews with personalities in the legal profession, Rachel Rothwell meets Ifath Nawaz, chairwoman of the Association of Muslim Lawyers

It might seem surprising to some that the head of the Association of Muslim Lawyers (AML) should be a woman, but not after you have met Ifath Nawaz. Ernest and determined, she takes the responsibility of her role seriously. And for Muslim lawyers at the moment, there is a lot to be serious about.


‘The fact that I am a woman has never been an issue for the AML,’ she says. ‘There are more and more Muslim women taking lead roles within organisations these days. I was one of the founding members of the AML, and had been general secretary for eight years. I knew where we were heading and had plans of how I wanted the organisation to shape itself.’


The AML was set up in 1995, as a forum for solicitors, barristers and law students to discuss and lobby on ‘the issues that matter to Muslims’. Ms Nawaz has chaired the group, which has more than 250 members, for three years. She combines the role with her job as principal solicitor in the management team at High Wycombe District Council, where she also plays a key role in ensuring the council and its external suppliers adhere to equality and diversity principles.


Ms Nawaz explains that the AML was ‘instrumental’ in bringing about legislation prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of religion, which came into force in December 2003. It also successfully campaigned for the recognition of Muslim marriages under UK law. But the bomb attacks on London in July – and the host of legal and policy changes being quickly formulated in response – mean the AML’s role as a respected Muslim voice and champion of the Muslim community is more vital now than it has ever been.


Weeks after the attacks, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that ‘the rules of the game have changed’. Home Secretary Charles Clarke has already published new grounds for deportation and exclusion, as the UK prepares to follow France and Spain by deporting individuals to Algeria, Lebanon and other countries on the basis that a ‘memo of understanding’ will be sufficient guarantee that they will not be tortured when they get there.


Mr Blair has talked of amending the Human Rights Act 1998, closing mosques and screening imams for extremist views.


The quantity and speed of issue of these measures have startled human rights lawyers – with none more alarmed than those from the Muslim community itself. Ms Nawaz maintains that such government rhetoric is fanning the flames of Islamophobia in Britain, with more than 346 reports of religiously incited attacks since 7 July.


The AML has already enlisted the help of high-profile human rights lawyers Louise Christian, Imran Khan and Gareth Peirce to advise those who have suffered attacks, and is looking for more lawyers to volunteer to help on a pro bono basis. Ms Nawaz says: ‘As lawyers, we have a huge role to play in what is going on. We need to take up the gauntlet. We need to represent the individual and make sure their voice is heard when it comes to the implications on civil liberties. This is not the time for lawyers to sit quietly.’


Ms Nawaz herself has noticed an increase in hostility towards Muslims since the July attacks. She explains: ‘People stare at me more than ever before, since the bombings. If my little girl is carrying a bag, she can’t put it down without people looking. It is unfair on the rest of us, because that is the way we are perceived now.


‘This suspicion will last if the government continues with these measures, because people feel justified in their attitude. And it will get much worse if the government does not take a step back and think about how to deal with these issues properly. There will be human rights challenges through the courts, but in the meantime, Muslims will suffer. They are suffering right now, and there are even more attacks against Muslims which go unreported.’


She describes the shock wave that spread through the Muslim community when the attacks occurred: ‘[It] was mortified and devastated by the bombings. Like the 11 September attacks, when it occurred we said, “Please let it not be Muslims that did this”. We knew what the repercussions would be, and the impact on civil liberties.


‘These measures are a knee-jerk reaction to what is going on. Tony Blair is talking about “evil ideology”, and wanting people to spy on each other. The perception is growing that Muslims cannot be trusted. People are being told to watch their neighbours, and watch the mosque. This is not going to lead to a healthy society, and is making Muslims uncomfortable.’


She says Muslim people are worried about what they can say, and whether what they say will be misinterpreted. ‘If you say something which is considered to be encouraging terrorism, you are going to be charged. If you question foreign policy, and you are not white, then you are being disloyal to the country. But some of us think the government’s foreign policies are encouraging terrorism… Anyone who says that the war on Iraq [has not had an impact] would be naive.’


Ms Nawaz is uneasy about measures to screen religious leaders. She says: ‘They are proposing controls over what can be said in a mosque, but whatever happened to free speech? And what exactly would the mechanism be for screening clerics – who would do it?’


A legal challenge arising from the current use of stop-and-search powers is ‘always likely’, she says. ‘There is no doubt that searches are being targeted at Asian men and Afro-Caribbean men. We are being told that we should accept this as a result of what has happened. But there has always been an issue about stop-and-search powers being targeted more at certain groups – particularly Afro-Caribbeans – even before the attacks.


‘The security of the public is a justification for these searches, but we have to make sure that the process is being monitored, and what it is based on. At the moment we are just being told that it has got to be done and we must put up with it – but that is not the way a democratic society should operate. It is taking away people’s freedoms. I would expect there will be legal actions against this, though it takes time to gather the evidence.’


The fact that the bombers were home-grown British Muslims has sparked many commentators to criticise Britain’s failure to integrate the Muslim community. Indeed, former Conservative party chairman Norman Tebbit recently claimed that the attacks could have been prevented if only the lack of integration highlighted by his notorious ‘cricket test’ – a means of identifying where an immigrant’s loyalties lie – had been addressed. But Ms Nawaz refutes the notion that the community keeps itself apart.


She says: ‘We are being told that we are not part of British society at the moment. But Muslims are involved in every sphere of life. They are teachers, police, lawyers, doctors, mothers and fathers, they are in retail and manufacturing. Muslim groups have been encouraging them for years to get involved, for example, as school governors, or going along to the school harvest festival.


‘It’s true that there was a time when Muslims did not integrate, but that was more down to a lack of confidence than anything else. For the last 20 years, Muslims have said they wanted to be involved. We have achieved much more than what is negatively portrayed about us.’


Though Ms Nawaz sees integration as important, she also values her identity as a Muslim, and wears the hijab, or headscarf, with pride. She disagrees with advice from leading Muslim cleric Zaki Badawi, chairman of the Council of Mosques and Imams, that Muslim women who fear attack should remove the hijab. She says: ‘I would not want to take off my hijab. I feel it gives me security. I am proud of it as part of my identity. I have not always worn it – I put it on in 1998. But I do have people staring at me because I am wearing it, and making remarks. It is amazing the questions I get about why I wear it, even from some very eminent people.


‘Mr Badawi is entitled to his opinion, but I do not agree – I would not consider taking off my hijab. It is a matter for the individual. But if you are persecuted for wearing it, there is resource to the police. Just because we are being persecuted does not mean we should throw off our identity. We could take off the hijab, but that might still not be enough.’


On the issue of identity, Ms Nawaz is scornful of Home Office minister Hazel Blears’ recent suggestion that a new category of British-Asian could be introduced, similar to the US concept of ‘Italian-American’. She says: ‘This idea of being classified as British-Asian – why do we need to inter-label? We are British, full stop. We are all part of British society.’


One of Ms Nawaz’s gravest concerns is that the unintended consequence of ill thought-out measures to defeat terrorism, could be the destruction of the very thing that makes British Muslims and other Britons proud of their national identity: ‘The biggest thing about the British community has been, and is, its tolerance. Muslims regard Britain as one of the best places to live in the world because of this. People are free to practise whatever they believe in without persecution. Whatever new measures the government introduces, it should not take that away.’