Saturday, August 08, 2009

When a terrorist is not a terrorist

Thank goodness, British justice is consistent - unfair, unequal, but consistent. Prosecutors and judges make sure that the lines don't get blurred. Nowhere is this more important than when it comes to what defines who is with us and who is against us: terrorism is an exclusively Muslim hallmark, and it must stay this way.

Prosecutors and the bench at Glasgow Sheriff Court knew the distinction. There was a man before them who had threatened to blow up Glasgow Central mosque, called himself a "proud racist" and promised to execute one Muslim a day until all mosques in Scotland would be closed. A man with a problem, but definitely not a terrorist. To be a terrorist you have to confess Islam. MacGregor hates Islam and Muslims, and his patriotic choice is reflected in the leniency of his sentence. Three years probation provided he seeks occasional psychriatric help.

Contrast this with Isa Ibrahim, a disturbed convert to Islam, who was also a heroin addict and fancied to blow up Bristol shopping centre. He didn't have the capability and in his first experiment with explosives promptly injured himself. He was a lot more in need for psychriatric help than the proud racist MacGregor, but judges at Winchester Crown court knew that the moment he had converted to Islam he had crossed the line to becoming a terrorist and awarded him a life sentence. Ironically, it was his local mosque who reported him to the police, thus giving the media another frenzy to feed on about the dangerous Muslims in our midst.

Or take the "lyrical terrorist" Samina Malik. Her crime was to write poetry. She didn't plan or threaten to kill anybody. Her poetry was tasteless, but no more so than being a proud racist. At the Old Bailey, judges knew the difference, and gave her a nine months suspended jail sentence under terrorism legislation.

Take Peter Stephen Hill from Skipton in Yorkshire, a former territorial army soldier who had amassed a large amount of explosives. A risk analyst by trade, he knew he would not be branded a terrorist if found out. He was charged at Leeds Magistrates court under the "Explosive Substances Act 1883". By the time the matter was due in the Crown Court the prosecution withdrew from the case.

Or former British National Party candidate Robert Cottage from Lancashire who kept all kinds of chemicals for the purpose of making explosives in preparation of a civil war and who also wanted to shoot the then prime minister Tony Blair (many Brits did, but he meant it) - he also was charged only under laws relating to explosives. Sure, it's naughty wanting to take out the prime minister, but at least he had the right reasons. There was no doubt he wanted an Islamic State to emerge from the civil war he was preparing for. He was jailed for a mere two-and-a-half years and the media kept it all low key.

One could give many more examples. But more telling is that the terrorism charge is usually not brought to court but used as a blunt bludgeon to hit innocent Muslims with. Like the Pakistani students rounded up and expelled without evidence when an anti-terrorist police chief Bob Quick cocked up by showing an open dossier to press photographers. Or the Bengali Kalam brothers in East London who had there house raided and got seriously injured in the process, followed by a media smear campaign, all on the basis of unreliable police "intelligence". Or Barbar Ahmed, brutally assaulted by police and still fighting a US extradition warrant. Or the thousands of Muslims who get stopped and searched going about their ordinary daily business. And thousands of Muslims have been arrested and held under terrorism legislation to date only to be released without charge. The police would love to hold them all indefinitely.

You can say what you like about the British justice system. It may be antiquated, slow, expensive, inefficient. But the charge of ambiguity in distinguishing those who are with us from those who are against us cannot be levied against it: British injustice remains consistent.


At 8 August 2009 at 19:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The modern State needs the terrorist to increase its own power and reach. islam and Muslims have been designated by the ruling group as 'the threat' which need policing. In time they may even shift their discourse and make all Muslims...'non people', 'non citizens'...'a danger to the People' and so to be exterminated. This is how democracies have always functioned from the French Revolution, The American, and The Russian, it will not stop until they have a world democratic state and everyone just accepts it.

At 8 August 2009 at 20:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well if were into quoting examples, how about this one. Dr Mohammed Asha provided substantial funds to doctor Bilal Abdulla and Kafeel Ahmed who first of all tried to kill hundreds by planting bombs in the West End. They then attacked Glasgow airport with a jeep full of petrol bombs and explosive gas.

We can't even deport Mohammed Asha because there was not enough proof to link him with the other. Security say he is a threat to UK security. His laptop was full of extremist material and it is pretty clear he was involved in the plots.

So yes British justice can be pretty bad at times.

As far as this case goes this guy had no bombs, materials or means to carry out any of his threats. What self respecting terrorist calls the police to tell them of the plan anyway!

At 12 August 2009 at 20:56, Blogger Unknown said...


At 21 August 2009 at 07:12, Anonymous SlaveOfGod said...

The UK is very Orwellian.
Take the case of the Heretical Two, Stephen Whittle (pen name Luke O’Farrell), and his publisher, Simon Sheppard. Refused asylum by a judge who gave it to an IRA murderer. The Two's crime was publishing unflattering information about the World Jewish organisations.
There was no coverage in America of their cases.
Thought Crimes, in the US with the new "Hate Crime" law. Former Reagan Treasury Asst Secy Dr Paul Craig Roberts wrote about that law here:

At 21 August 2009 at 23:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I respect the viewpoint of the blog owner, a lot of those ideas resonate with my own. I'm not Muslim but I find this blog to be very supportive of freedom for all, of liberty, of some of the principles that America, as an example, were founded upon. This doesn't match the propaganda that Americans are subjected to about Islam and Muslims.

About that free speech issue, it is really bad in Europe and Canada and Australia but now it seems even the US with its 1st Amendment is falling:

"The Anti-Defamation League, which has been a strong supporter of all hate crime legislation, has made it clear that it considers criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitism and therefore a hate crime. Some leading supporters of the laws have also explicitly included any opposition to Zionism, which they equate to denying Israel’s right to exist, and any comparison of Israeli behavior with Nazi Germany. Pro-Israeli groups have been extremely active in promoting hate crime legislation because of their belief that such laws can be used to mitigate criticism of Israel...

In five years, all internet will likely be monitored and regulated, following the German model. Hate crime legislation will make it illegal to criticize any group or country if it can plausibly or even implausibly be construed that such criticism reflects bias, permitting judges to silence anyone who opposes the status quo. Together, the technology and the new laws will quite possibly put the websites that readers of peruse daily out of business."

See this also he is a Christian who DOES NOT bow down to Zionists fought thought crime laws.


Post a Comment

<< Home