yusufsarwar.jpg
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.
Comments
I am not sure, but even out of the country they are costing UK taxpayers a lot of money.
Hundreds of thousands spent on lawyers for quartet linked to 'Jihadi John' cell
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/hundreds-of-thousands-spent-on-lawy...
But the first obstacle as i see it, what if ISIL won't let them return?
Isis: Mother who fled UK for Syria with five children 'wants to come home'
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/isis-mother-fled-uk-syria-204157128.html#IMmq2FV(link is external)
A woman from Manchester who fled to Syria with her five children is now desperate to return to the UK. Shukee Begum left last year and made her way into Syria via Turkey.
The woman of Somali origin, is reportedly married to an Islamic State fighter and claims she only travelled to Isil's self declared capital of Raqqa, with the intention of persuading her husband, Muftah el-Deen, a jihadist and also a British national, to return home with her.
Her husband is believed to have died in conflict and Begum is now appealing for help to return home to safety with her three daughters and two sons, who are aged between one and 12.
There is two good things that might be worth pointing out.
In the recording, she describes her plight, adding that her house being bombed by the US-led coalition was the final straw, prompting her decision to escape. She appears to regret her decision to flee the UK and place her children in the Isis stronghold and now denounces the militant terror group describing it as 'not Islamic'.
and
Ahmed Adul Kader, an activist with anti-ISIS group Eye on the Homeland, based in Turkey, who helped smuggle Begum and her children out of Syria, told The Telegraph the family were "traumatised" by the ordeal and are now terrified that they would be tracked down by Isil sleeper cells in Turkey for escaping. Anyone who demonstrates opposition to the regime or defects would almost certainly be executed.
So anyone planning to do the same in the name of Islam, should think very carefully. The UK Government is the least of their problems.
Now the questions do we [the UK tax-payers fund the family safe return to the UK?] Also we only do so if she states publicly the what’s and whys? [Or will the UK government be accused of exploiting the situation for political purposes?
This topic is coming to the fore again with recent news of around 58 britons defecting/wanting to defect from ISIS and calls for their protection.
Many are suggesting that if they are allowed to return they can be a useful tool for those who are thinking of going, to learn what the reality on the ground is as aopposed to the propaganda
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
The above comment is from your link. But who is a genuine defector from ISIS and who is now changing sides because of the recent attacks on ISIS from the Syrians/Russian coalition and the Iranians and Iraqis, will challenge the judgement of a Solomon
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/21/protect-isis-defectors-west...
Unfortunately with that many conflicting versions/reasons for the conflict it is almost impossible to know the truth anymore.
I forget tthe web site but it was showing pictures of ISIL fighters [the few that are not masked] and alongside these pictures were pictures of the same men crossing over the border as refugees. Could this have been the reason why a lot of single male refugees did not want to register, be finger printed and have their photos taken?
Again this may have been a propaganda exercise. [photo shopped] How can one tell with so much misinformation doing the rounds.
Nope as they would eventually be registered, finger printed and have their photos taken, but in a place which accepts refugees as opposed to Hngey which more or less sends them back.
The problem with sites showing pictures of refugees and contrasting them with pictures from Syria is that someone dressed in military fatrigues, or even with face covered etc doesn't necessarily belong to ISIS - a year ago before it captured AMerican weaponry in Mosul, ISIS was being driven out of Syria by the other rebel groups.
Besides, something like 90% of Syrian refugees and women and children,
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
This maybe the case in neighbouring countries, but the TV footage etc of people entering the EU appear to be at least 80% males?
TV footage is tv footage and shows what needs to be shown to support a specific message. There are men in the refugees and not all refugees are Syrians. With the number of refugees, the media can pick and choose to decide what they record and what they show from hours of footage for the 30 second segment that is presented in the news.
My figure of 90% may also be wrong - I read it somewhere when the refugees statistics were being discussed.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists in new law to crack down on political dissidents
Atheists, peaceful protesters and those who go to fight abroad have all been brought under the auspices of new "anti-terror" laws
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declare...
At first i thought it was some sort of april fools day joke? But with recent flogging of Saudi dissents i am not to certain. So i did some checking and found that it was no joke.
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/03/new_laws_in_saudi_arabia_declare_that_atheists_are_terrorists/
This article goes into further detail, It would be indeed frightening if western governments was to follow the Saudi lead, or example in framing laws to combat anti western governments. Then again western governments have the human right acts to contend with, plus a whole army of state aided lawyers to defend any would be dissident? On the whole we are a pretty tolerant lot, it takes a lot before we become intolerant.
One could say on reading the above articles, that the Saudi government fall foul of most of these laws in their dealings with other states, governments, people and yes "religion". Then again who speaks for religion? Saudi v Iran for the Muslims. Or Rome v Canterbury for Christians. Or maybe it is time we kept religion [as much as possible] between ourselves and our maker.