Why have the British Govn. not rescinded Muslim's passports?
Discussion
Having just watched this http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29586746 on the BBC it seems as if even the Netherlands have taken passports form forty-six Muslims going to fight for ISIS. This in a country where the court of International Justice is located.
Why have we not done the same - ? Is it just the usual 'mis-use' of Human Rights by those who stand accused - ???? Some have had them taken away whilst they were in the planning stages and others after they have left.
Why do we bend over for everyone?
Pip
Ps Of course I would have liked to clear up the title to 'Muslims who are taking up the cause with ISIS' but am limited by space.
Why have we not done the same - ? Is it just the usual 'mis-use' of Human Rights by those who stand accused - ???? Some have had them taken away whilst they were in the planning stages and others after they have left.
Why do we bend over for everyone?
Pip
Ps Of course I would have liked to clear up the title to 'Muslims who are taking up the cause with ISIS' but am limited by space.
SV8Predator said:
Another one posted in the wrong forum.
Where should I post it then? I thought it would fall under '-& the Law'.Terminator X said:
Let them go and don't let them back is surely a better policy?
TX.
I am happy as many others are I am sure to let them go and then just cancel their passport but why is it not being done - ?? If they are doing it in the Netherlands (somewhere I consider to be a fairly laid back country) why not here.TX.
Nobody has a right to live here as far as I am concerned unless they put their country first and not go crusading for some foreign caliphate.
Pip
Mojooo said:
Just playing the devils advocate - we dont take away the passport of people who commit more minor offences abroad so why apply that here.
Overal lI probably believe the passprots should be taken off them - if only for the fact it may make osme of them think twice if they realsie they cannot come back if they don't like it over there.
You answer your own question here really in that you are talking about "minor" offences but this is murder, genocide and terrorism. All very good reasons to give them to the country they wish to create.Overal lI probably believe the passprots should be taken off them - if only for the fact it may make osme of them think twice if they realsie they cannot come back if they don't like it over there.
Eclassy said:
I cant seem to find this story about revoking 46 passports anywhere. Only thing I can find are 'proposals'
Listen to the clip from the BBC.ralphrj said:
However, it is worth noting that the actions of both the UK and Netherlands Governments are likely to be in breach of International Law - namely the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights.
I never really get that. Why those that take away others' freedoms think they should be entitled to their freedom and human rights. They choose to leave and fight for another so should go and live elsewhere not here.
Terminator X said:
Eclassy said:
If these guys going abroad to support these terrorist groups happened to be 'young white men', I am pretty sure taking away their passports would not have been an option that was considered.
I don't care what colour or religion they are, take it from anyone going over there.TX.
Pip
Eclassy said:
I dont think its the race card.
John Smith and Ahmed Ahmed are friends from college. They become radicalized and travel to Syria for jihad. They soon realise that this isnt Call of Duty and wish to come back home after 3 weeks in a training camp without as much as lifting a gun in anger.
Now John Smith is a white caucasian and can trace is roots back hundreds of years.
Ahmed Ahmed on the other hand is a 3rd generation Asian with a caucasian mum and 2nd generation Pakistani dad. He was born in Blackpool, has never been to Pakistan and last saw his dad when he was five.
In the scenario above even though both are British citizens by birth, they could be treated differently under this flawed proposal. The government definitely wont be able to revoke John Smith's passport as he'd become stateless but will be allowed to revoke Ahmed Ahmed's because technically he wont be stateless as he 'has' dual nationality by virtue of his dad being a 2nd generation Pakistani in Britain.
I hope this makes it clear. I support the immediate revocation of the passports of those who have immigrated here and naturalized only to go and fight with terrorists against UK interests.
But for those who were born here and are British for all intents and purposes - to be able to revoke/cancel their passports because of where their parents/grand parents are from is a tad racist IMHO.
Personally I would revoke both, John Smith and Ahmed Ahmed but that aside if we can get rid of any terrorist at all it has to be a good thing. He Ahmed, has joint nationality so we can 'lawfully' get rid of him. Moreover unless Ahmed or John has a screw loose it does not take the brains of the archbishop to see that those making a religious call are killing anyone and everyone that does not fit into their square hole. John Smith and Ahmed Ahmed are friends from college. They become radicalized and travel to Syria for jihad. They soon realise that this isnt Call of Duty and wish to come back home after 3 weeks in a training camp without as much as lifting a gun in anger.
Now John Smith is a white caucasian and can trace is roots back hundreds of years.
Ahmed Ahmed on the other hand is a 3rd generation Asian with a caucasian mum and 2nd generation Pakistani dad. He was born in Blackpool, has never been to Pakistan and last saw his dad when he was five.
In the scenario above even though both are British citizens by birth, they could be treated differently under this flawed proposal. The government definitely wont be able to revoke John Smith's passport as he'd become stateless but will be allowed to revoke Ahmed Ahmed's because technically he wont be stateless as he 'has' dual nationality by virtue of his dad being a 2nd generation Pakistani in Britain.
I hope this makes it clear. I support the immediate revocation of the passports of those who have immigrated here and naturalized only to go and fight with terrorists against UK interests.
But for those who were born here and are British for all intents and purposes - to be able to revoke/cancel their passports because of where their parents/grand parents are from is a tad racist IMHO.
You can look on Ogrish.com (as it was - not sure if it still runs), Youtube, BBC News, Al Jazeera, You can read the papers and listen to the radio. You can watch 'The World at War' or documentaries on Afghanistan or Iraq to see what war/combat/terrorism entails. Peter Kassig, Alan Henning, David Haines and Steven Stoloff are all well publicised people executed or about to be by ISIS. What sort of moron thinks that they are going on a holiday camp for a religious jihad - John and Ahmed?
It is not racist anymore than ISIS or their beliefs are. Muslims forcing their religion on a non Muslim country through a caliphate abroad. Go to a Muslim country and stay there or fight your jihad for a new nation but do not expect the British Government to bail you out when you realise it is not really your cup of tea!
I am all for tolerance but only if you play by our rules ie stay within the laws of the land. I refer here to FGM, stopping women from dressing how they wish, stopping the consumption of alcohol by others, fighting foreign wars, beheadings with a knife, running over British citizens and then chopping them up. The little things that show you are trying to fit into a country that has a free healthcare and education and is extremely tolerant.
Pip
Here is a good example http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-29642584 .
In short:-
A mother whose son joined a militant group linked to IS in Syria has described how she travelled to Turkey and managed to persuade him to return home.
Her son converted to Islam three years ago at the age of 18 after attending talks at his local mosque and researching the religion online.
"My son came to Islam through his own decision, he wasn't forced or anything like that," she said.
However after seeing reports of the conflict in Syria, he secretly travelled to the country to join a militant group linked to IS.
And the best bit (read it as you will although being a cynic the words NHS and free come to mind):-
Her son had been in Syria for four months when he decided to try and make his way home. However, he suffered a back injury in crossfire between two rival factions and is still receiving treatment for his wounds.
"He was traumatised and in quite a fragile state," she said.
After returning to the UK her son was questioned by the Metropolitan Police.
The son was also approached by officials from MI5 but she said the contact had made it hard for her son to adjust to life back in London.
"My son felt pressurised and quite fragile," she said. "It made him quite mistrusting, a bit paranoid."
Why should someone fighting a terror campaign be allowed free treatment on the NHS let alone be allowed back?
Pip
In short:-
A mother whose son joined a militant group linked to IS in Syria has described how she travelled to Turkey and managed to persuade him to return home.
Her son converted to Islam three years ago at the age of 18 after attending talks at his local mosque and researching the religion online.
"My son came to Islam through his own decision, he wasn't forced or anything like that," she said.
However after seeing reports of the conflict in Syria, he secretly travelled to the country to join a militant group linked to IS.
And the best bit (read it as you will although being a cynic the words NHS and free come to mind):-
Her son had been in Syria for four months when he decided to try and make his way home. However, he suffered a back injury in crossfire between two rival factions and is still receiving treatment for his wounds.
"He was traumatised and in quite a fragile state," she said.
After returning to the UK her son was questioned by the Metropolitan Police.
The son was also approached by officials from MI5 but she said the contact had made it hard for her son to adjust to life back in London.
"My son felt pressurised and quite fragile," she said. "It made him quite mistrusting, a bit paranoid."
Why should someone fighting a terror campaign be allowed free treatment on the NHS let alone be allowed back?
Pip
Edited by Pip1968 on Monday 20th October 19:08
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff