There is a story on BBC News today: a mother who cooperated with the police when she found out about her son, Yusuf Sarwar, had traveled to Syria to fight felt betrayed by his arrest and subsequent 12 years and 8 months sentence under the anti terrorism laws.
His mother Majida told the BBC she believed the sentence would discourage other Muslims from helping the police.
There is a question of how these returnees should be treated. Should they be incarcerated and seen as a problem? Surely they cannot be left alone, after coming back from carrying out "terrorist activities" abroad?
I would suggest that that is too simple a reading. Until the rise of ISIS this year, the big bad in Syria was Assad. He still is and kills far more people, but the focus now in popular attention is ISIS.
Until the brutality of ISIS and other groups was made openly known there was no simple way of knowing what going to Syria to resist Assad meant.
Mr Yusuf Sarwar did not fight for ISIS and from what I understand there is no evidence that he actually carried out any attrocities or fought the UK. He probably decided to return home when things got messy and it was no longer easy to tell right from wrong.
The fight against Assad is just and was portrayed as such even in western media, and compared to those who went to fight in the Spanish civil war.
Many of those that return from Syria do not return because they are "radicalised" and want to fight in the UK, but because they have seen the situation on the ground and probably do not want to take part in attrocities or other acts that they do not consider just.
Giving these returnees stiff sentences just tells others who are stuck in the same place after acting on their convictions that it is better for them to remain there and potentially be used by bigger organisation for political and logistical reasons than return home.
This government does not represent Muslims or Muslim families so its stance of supporting harsh sentencing is expected, but it is not helpful as it will not fight radicalisation or extremism, but simply entrap people who made decisions to act based on good intentions.
Forgetting the broader Muslim community, should those who have family in Syria simply sit back and let the likes of Assad kill their family?
Labeling all acts the same and trapping everyone in the same wide net is not helpful - if there is intelligence or evidence that Mr Yusuf Sarwar carried out actual acts of terrorism, he should have been charged accordingly. If there is evidence that he fought against the UK, charges on these grounds can also be justified, but otherwise it is tarring the whole Muslim community as one.
There are also white former UK soldiers operating in Syria who have gone to "fight the good fight", mostly not to help the people there, which they could have before the rise of ISIS, but to fight ISIS which is the poolitically correct thing to do. They will never be charged and convicted under UK anti-terror legislation.