“This is what happens to black boys with big mouths.”

That’s what the Strathclyde Police said to Aamer Anwar, then a student organiser at Glasgow University, when they assaulted him in 1991.  Now Aamer Anwar is a prominent Muslim human rights lawyer who faces contempt of court charges for speaking out on behalf of a client.  If he is convicted he could lose his license to practice law or even face jail time.  This attack on Aamer Anwar is an attack on the free speech and civil liberties of everyone.  Lawyers, politicians, academics, trade unionists and community leaders are speaking up in support of Aamer. Please join the campaign to defend Aamer Anwar!

To get started, go here – this will tell you what’s going on and what you can do.


20 Responses to ““This is what happens to black boys with big mouths.””


    Millions of young lives were lost in World War Two in the fight for freedom and against oppression.I can only hold my head in shame as a Labour Government brings in oppressive laws that makes the sacrifice these young men made, a sacrifice made in vain, We, the British people must stand firmly together against politicians that agree to these oppressive laws and make sure they never hold political office again

  2. As long as people keep voting for evil they will get evil. After all the Tories and New Labour (working hand in hand) have done to harm millions of people in the UK and the world over people keep on voting for them. We are truly living a nightmare with no end in sight. We just don`t have enough Aamer Anwar`s in the world thats the problem.

  3. Both Aamer and Atif have had the bloody book thrown at them for victimless acts. Why?
    I was in court every day of this trial, and I still can’t see where a crime’s been committed, either by the client or his solicitor.
    Spread the word. Copy those banners into our blogs. Let’s shout loud and proud.
    Defend Atif and Aamer til the end.
    Did the state really need to spend over one million pouds of public money to lock up Atif? Are we any safer?

  4. Ayesha Siddique Says:

    Aamer Anwar has been dragged into the courts for speaking up for his client – Mohammed Atif Siddique, meanwhile his client -Atif, was accused of being a terrorist, aswell as a suicide bomber, – no evidence of this.

    I believe Mr Anwar has the very right to defend his client to the best of his ability, and therefore he shouldn’t be facing charges of contempt. He is innocent, and i believe that whatever he sayed was not dissrespective to anyone – the judge, jury and the court.
    I believe whatever Mr Anwar said, was the plain truth and, nothing but the truth.
    If Mr Anwar, gets convicted, i could see the uproar it would cause, and it would be not fair, and a very sad day for scottish justice. – it would be unjustice.

    I also believe Mohammed Atif Siddique is no terrorist, innocent of the charges brought against him, he was convicted of only a thoughtcrime..nothing useful to a terrorist, and this was indeed what anyone would call a MISSCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, & NOT A FAIR TRIAL.

  5. Norma Anderson Says:

    I can only echo the sentiments above! I was once told by a solicitor (not Aamer) that going to court wouldn’t ensure ‘justice’ because the Scottish courts do not dispense justice – they only deal with the law, and that’s a different thing altogether. Let’s tell them that, in this instance, we DEMAND justice for Aamer!

  6. asif siddique (sidd m) Says:

    ““This is what happens to black boys with big mouths.”” back in 1991, the strathclyde police only did half the job, its seems to me the whole legal system has a chip against aamer, lord carloway is trying to finish off the polices vendetta against aamer in 2008.

    Aamer anwar, is being made a scapegoat just like his client atif siddique, to show the muslims and other lawyers who stand up for the truth and are not afraid , that watch out this can happen to you.

    what the system needs to realize is back in 1991 aamer anwar may have been the only black boy with a big mouth, but now there are plenty people asking questions who are not all black!

    I for one stand shoulder to shoulder in support of aamer anwar and hope and pray the system can see sense be4 its too late!

    these contempt of court charges are not only laughable but insane!

    the legal system and lord carloway should get a life!! and stop cherry picking!

  7. whitewoman Says:

    Anwar is a self publisist!

    I truly believe his wife said .. I am a lawyer, I will…. apart from other racial comments from Anwar himself!

    If Anwar is not carefull he could look racist?

  8. Sean McLeod Says:

    Some objectivity here, please.

    Start with report by Raj Jandoo into Chokkar case and his comments on Anwar (ouch):


    Look at what Carloway said the charges actually were in relation to Arif (not good):


    A Jury found guilty of possession of items in connection with terrorism not “thought crimes”.

    This is why Carloway reported the matter to the High Court – because what Anwar said about the verdict of the jury was a stranger to the truth.

    And what about the Sheriff not believing him in relation to what happened after his car accident:


    And can anyone name one, just one, reported case or any other human rights case involving Anwer to justify a “leading human rights lawyer” tagline?

    If you search for the firms he has been involved with on the Scottish Courts website you find nothing there of any note.

    Now, with this background can we all believe the “This happens to black boys with big mouths” line?

    Anyone seen any real evidence of this?

    I am not saying it couldn’t have happened but you do wonder with someone who has a track record of difficulties with the truth.

  9. Sean McLeod Says:

    What a difference between Anwar and Saghir Hussain – lawyer for Usman Malik on Channel 4 News yesterday.

    Malik suceeds in arguing before the Court of Appeal that Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (also applicable to Atif) not relevant to browsing the internet. He appears on TV to explain the judgment and says he is restricted in what he can say because might be appealed – very responsible and proper thing for a solicitor to do as saying something can prejudice client’s case. Anwar opens mouth rather than the doors of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland.

    To the poster who referred to “victimless acts” – might not be a victim yet but setting up websites telling people how to kill is more of a “no victim yet – but wait” type of act. This was one of the charges Atif found guilty of – contrasting with Zafar and others dealt with today by the court.

    Don’t believe Anwar’s spin – Read the charges.

  10. Sean McLeod Says:

    And how is Anwar going to deal with acting for both the Sheridans given the content of Article 2 of the Code of Conduct from Criminal Work?


  11. Sean McLeod Says:

    Will someone, anyone, engage me on the issues I have put up on this blog?

  12. Hello Sean,

    There’s probably been very little response because this is not a heavily frequented blog.

    (Blog Moderator)

  13. I have added your banner to my blog http://www.qunfuz.blogspot.com and will write on this case sometime in the next ten days.

  14. Sean McLeod Says:

    Interesting given that this blog is called “Defend Aamar Anwar” that no-one has yet lept to his defence given my criticisms posted since 13 Feb!

  15. good luck Aamer Anwar……and all the best for your hearing! 🙂

  16. jim walker Says:

    anwar is a thug with money backing him,who plays the race card at every opportunity.why not show the videos of him smashing up grave stones in glasgow,etc etc.oh how easy these things are forgotten.A little time inside may be a good thing.

  17. heh jim i think the gravestone you are talking of was the gravestone erected to Rudloph hess by Nazis as a memorial in eaglesham at the site he landed, so if thats a crine so be it!
    as for sean mcleod, if gail and tommy don’t have a problem whats your obsession, as for Jandoo its an iold trick of the establishment to attack those who campaign for justice, The Chhokar family in case you forget stood shoulder with him, walked out of the inquiry and boycotted it, the inquiry was written and then Attacked Amer surprise suprise!
    How exactly do you have a balanced inquiry when the only people who gave evidence to it were the ones who failed the Chhokar family, the Prosecutors and the police. THERE WAS ONEWTHING HE REFUSED TO THEN WHEN HE WAS ATTACKED AND THAT WAS DEFEND HIMSELF AND ONCE AGAIN HE HAS DONE THE SAME! i noticed that members of the Chhokar family were present at the hearing that says it all for me.
    Let him be found not guilty and i hope that that the lawyers from whom there is a silence have the guts to stand up and be counted!

  18. Sean McLeod Says:

    Taula –

    Thanks for being prepared to respond to my posts on this blog.

    The Law Society Rule is there for situations like Tommy and Gail who should have separate representation but who would not want to be seen to have different solicitors (it would look as if they were going to present two different defences to the court).

    If they are represented by the same person a conflict of interest could easily arise when fingers are being pointed between witnesses (an inevitability given the evidence before the Court of Session).

    There are many many sensible legal rules which are there for the protection of the public and can’t be overruled by the beliefs or desires of those involved.

    In relation to Chhokar, you have forgotten or never been advised about the nature of the evidence in the case.

    The evidence, let me remind you if you don’t know it, was that Chhokar was a friend – repeat a friend – of the individuals who were tried for murdering him.

    It was an argument over revealing a giro drop address to the DSS.

    There was absolutely no evidence that the murder was racially motivated.

    If you have it, please post it.

    And Anwar’s mouth nearly prevented the second trial going ahead because of the prejudicial publicity generated by him.

    Go to this link if you don’t believe me:


    If you do look at the Jandoo report, you will see that he gave Anwar every opportunity to contribute to it.

    You will also see that various people believed at various times that Anwar was making sure that the Chhokar family were not getting a proper translation of what he was saying to Police, Procurator Fiscal, etc. Anwar refused to allow a normal interpreter to deal with the case – You might think so that he could make sure that the Chhokars did not hear the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    This is precisely why Anwar didn’t co-operate with the Jandoo report despite the ability he was given – classic avoiding the truth some, including myself, would say. It allowed him to say that it was all a plot against him.

    And if the Jandoo report is a product of the establishment (a bit difficult to prove given his involvement in the Executive’s Stephen Lawrence Report), why has there never been a point by point critique by Anwar saying why it is so rubbish.

    The problem with lawyers, I’m afraid, is that they know about weighing up the evidence and finding where the truth lies. In that, Anwar fails. And it is for that reason that so few put their name to the recent letter supporting Anwar. No conspiracy – just people who have read and understood the facts.

    This case is about whether lawyers should be allowed to lie to the public about what happens in court. I am on the side of telling the truth. Anwar’s supporters appear to be somewhere else on this matter – at least if they had read what the case as reported by the judge is actually about.

  19. Actually the second chhokar trial did go ahead, sounds to me as though youre a lawyer with a grudge sean, should read your facts, the lord advocate, the jandoo report, the police and jim wallace the justice minister apologised to the chhokars and accepted there was institutional racism when it came to the chhokars, as for a critique maybe if you read the jandoo inquiry you find what Anwhar said alongside the chhokars as a reason for the family boycotting the inquiry, as usual yoiu sound like a patronisiing individual who belittles the power and dignity of the chhokar family- who to this day stand by what they fought for and gave full support to amer when he was attacked by the system then and now.
    Actually if you read the newspapers you will find this case is about whether an accused is allowed to make a statement through his lawyers or whether we are in a system like zimbabwe or china?

  20. Sean McLeod Says:

    Talula –

    You should read my post again.

    You are correct in saying that the second Chhokar trial went ahead – which is why I said that “Anwar’s mouth nearly prevented the second trial going ahead”.

    I have read all of the documents you mention.

    None of them has a shread of evidence to say that the Chhokar murder was racially motivated. That was the point I was making.

    That the Crown were bad at communicating with them is not in dispute – but the Crown in Scotland, particularly at the time, was not good at

    The Chhokars have only ever spoken through Anwar or with Anwaryat their side so it is difficult to give full weight to what they have been quoted as saying.

    I have read the newspapers about the case – and also what the judge said he thought it was about. The judge questioned on a factual basis whether the statement was the statement of the client or not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: