to want to know why British Jihadi fighters will have their passports revoked?

[partyskirt]

Upon hearing that there are 500+ English muslims fighting in Syria and Iraq as part of the Isis army I immediately looked online for what would happen to them if they tried to return to the UK. I've listened to the news for days and read the papers, government websites etc. and it seems that they will simply be allowed back in. I find this extremely frightening. Why isn't there a clear line on what will happen to them if they try to return? Why isn't the government being clear that they will have passports cancelled and be exiled?

I think there is a real problem with moral equivalence and the need to tolerate intolerance in order to show off the liberal credentials of the west. I don't think this will work because these people have a completely different ideology than the west, don't believe in our values and will use our values to destroy us. They are very clever.

If we tolerate the intolerant, then in the end all that happens is that intolerance will win as more and more is given in the name of political correctness and not wanting to be seen as racist/Islamophobic etc. We are fighting an ideology that is diametrically opposed to liberalism and all the west stands for and they use our weakness (human rights/rule of law) as a stick to beat us with and introduce their own illiberal practices which we are supposed to tolerate according to the doctrine of all cultures being equal, rights of the minority and appeasement. This means that for a long time there was silence on things like white girls being groomed by Pakistani gangs, FGM, honour killings etc. All these were originally tolerated for fear of the police/communities being labelled as racist/Islamophobia etc etc.

I think the real problem is that the West will have to compromise on some of our most cherished enlightenment values (especially when it comes to protecting the rights of the individual vs protecting the rights of the majority) in order to protect it's core culture from being usurped/annihilated by an intolerant ideology that will protect neither the rights of the individual or the majority. In doing so we will most certainly lose some things that are very valuable to us and we will be hypocrites in some ways but that is the price to pay in order to keep the majority of freedoms and rights that the World wars were fought for and the suffragettes died for.

excellent post Ghost and people are frightened to speak out because there is no nuance or sensible discussion.

Absolutely, Ghost. That is our every real 1st world dilemma, one we have been trying to avoid in an ever changing world.

We must get our heads out of the sand and re-evaluate our world and our place in it - politically and socially.

The (very right wing) government of Australia is talking about revoking passports, but really it's only talk, because of all the difficulties sensible people are pointing out here.

Who here is old enough to remember when Nelson Mandela was a terrorist?

ghostland

I think the real problem is that the West will have to compromise on some of our most cherished enlightenment values

You mean like the freedom of its citizens?

I do remember Mandela being a terrorist, yes. Though I have been shouted down by younger people on a few occasions, I know I am right.

They may have confused him with Ghandi, a non violent 'terrorist', as he as labelled.

Username some of them, possibly!

It has been done before! We were complicit in Guantanamo Bay, for a recent example.

Username - yes, exactly that. We will have to sacrifice some our deeply cherished values in order to protect the rest of our core values. It is the least worst option imo.

Username. I will give you an example of how difficult it is going to be. Imagine if an ISIS jihadi comes back to the UK and the government cannot prove s/he was there. They have proof that s/he is going to commit an atrocity which will kill hundreds or thousands of innocent civilians however in court there is a technical error in the evidence and said person is allowed to go free (or witnesses are too afraid to come forward) etc etc. Would it be better for that person to be able to kill thousands (but protect their right to freedom/liberty because they have not been convicted) or would it be better to deny them their liberty but save thousands from being their victims? This is the kind of moral dilemma that I have no doubt the West will experience in the coming years. I personally think it is always better to put the safety of the majority before that of the individual but each to their own opinion.

Nelson Mandela was thought a terrorist by the Tory right wing.
His actions were reasonable under the circumstances of a majority African population oppressed by white rulers. (Yes, I was around then and many like me thought him to be a guerrilla, not a terrorist)
He didn't cut off heads, eat human body parts, commit genocide, mass rape or slavery.

Islamic Jihad and their aims to conquer other lands to achieve the old Caliphate dream are a complete quantum leap in horror and severity, Also, no comparison to terror groups like Baader-Meinhof or the IRA.

Early in WW2, Parliament passed legislation to allow the Home Secretary to intern anyone judged dangerous to the war, e.g. British Blackshirts like Mosely, German nationals.
British planes bombed German cities, causing massive civilian casualties - e.g. 100,000 in just one night over Dresden.
All this was perfectly legal.
However, we didn't put Germans in gas chambers, regardless of what they did, because that would be war crimes too.

We should follow international law to deal with British Jihadists and hardline Islam followers, not just close our eyes and hope they'll fade away.
If this law is now inadequate, then the USA, EU, Australia etc would be just as eager as we are to modify it and together we have the clout

We should act now, before the problem spins out of control, e.g. the USA or EU might impose punitive sanctions on the UK or force extreme measures, after a 9-11 scale atrocity on their soil committed by Jihadists from Britain.

If we're going to imprison, etc. people who fight in wars for their deeply-held beliefs, shouldn't we also imprison mercenaries who fight in wars for cash? They're clearly as much of a danger if not more.

By the way that Australian article (I live in Australia) says their justification for the new laws is that 23 of the people who returned "were involved in terrorist activities" … so why not just arrest them? Were the activities non-arrestable type terrorist activities? Not actually in Australia?

www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jun/23/uk.religion

www.newenglishreview.org/Nicolai_Sennels/Muslims_and_Westerners%3A__The_Psychological_Differences/

excellent post Ghost and people are frightened to speak out because there is no nuance or sensible discussion.

Its nigh on impossible to have any discussions about Islam at all.

I find it hard to stomach anyone trying to compare Nelson Mandella, with these current murderers. Nelson was fighting for a fair and better future. The men are fighting for ...what exactly?

MistressMia as ever wonderful enlightening posts, I am another who wished you were able to compute your wisdom and knowledge to help the situation in some way on a larger scale.
I think you do very well when posters keep on using terms like "these brown ferrigners" over and over again to keep your patience and calm. It must be frustrating for you! Well it would be for me.

Oooh! Did you read that as though we were comparing Mandela with ISIS?

Weird!

ghostland

Why have a justice system if your not going to follows it rules?
1 rule for some, another for others.

The justice system isn't perfect and could be changed to make it better. Yes. But if we decide to become a country that cherry picks which citizens we are going to try following the rules and which we aren't, it becomes a slippery slope.

KnittedJimmyChoos

Why do you keep posting this: www.newenglishreview.org/Nicolai_Sennels/Muslims_and_Westerners%3A__The_Psychological_Differences/?

I think there is a real problem with moral equivalence and the need to tolerate intolerance in order to show off the liberal credentials of the west. I don't think this will work because these people have a completely different ideology than the west, don't believe in our values and will use our values to destroy us. They are very clever.

Yes ghostland that is the crux of it, and I think you are quite correct that the use of our own democratic liberalism against us has been quite deliberate, in a more organised way than some suspect.

Nomama's Churchillian-wartime-pragmatism post pulled me up short because of course it is exactly how these ethical dilemmas have been restored historically (even at a time of CP for treason) distasteful as that is.

But even if we accept the inevitability of similar now, true secrecy is no longer possible in C21st. Extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation etc werethe Churchillian pragmatic policies of the late C20th western alliance and they hardly remained secret or backlash-free. Of course, there may be much more that is not widely known from the post 9-11 era, but it hardly matters

We would not intern Jihadis out of moral disapproval, but because they are part of a huge fanatical movement committing war crimes, which is a great danger to us and our allies.

Mercenaries are a tiny issue, not remotely dangerous to us.

user at times it has felt like that already but more for ordinary citizens. I think our political correctness and human rights legislation has tied us up in knots

wonder if Abu Hanza's family are still being paid for by us and living in a lovely house in a leafy suburb.

In WW2, we passed new laws to deal with a dangerous situation.
The West may need to discuss changing current laws if they prevent necessary action - but maybe British judges just apply laws differently, so legislation here needs to spell things out more clearly.

So, not ignoring / picking & choosing laws, just updating them to the current world, not the world as we wish it was.

Arsenicy that is the crux of the dilemma, isn't it?

Do we change? If yes, how? Do we relax our scruples? If so how much?

How much will keeping the higher moral ground cost us?

How much will stepping off it cost us?

Username. The point I am making is that the West is going to have to become a little less tolerant in order to preserve the essential core values and perhaps will be classed as hypocrites, but better to be hypocrites and alive than morally virtuous and dead (and that applies to beliefs and cherished rights, not just peoples). This is obviously not ideal but the alternative is the complete destruction of Western values to be replaced by values that are completely antithetical to our values. Of course in a perfect world we wouldn't need to change our values to protect the majority from the minority but unfortunately this is reality. We can flagellate ourselves for not being morally perfect or we can do our best to be as morally perfect as the situation permits.

Can I ask what is your suggestion with regards to my example of a Jihadi that wants to (and has the means to) kill lots of innocent civilians but has not been found guilty in a court of law? Is it better that we preserve his/her freedoms whilst denying the freedom to live of his/her potential victims? How do we reconcile our values in cases where there is no "good" option but rather two options, one of which is worse than the other (imo as I said upthread, being the necessity to curtail the rights of an individual if it means protecting the rights and freedoms of the majority, although of course this goes against liberal values but unfortunately it will not always be possible to protect the rights of both the individual and the majority, so in that scenario, what would you do)?

Absolutely NoMama. You and ghostland have nailled the whole issue as far as I can see. The solution is not going to be easy, though

ghostland I find it scary to see that people argue in favour of the removal of the right to a fair trial and seriously believe that would make anyone safer.

Widow, there are already exceptions to Article 6. That's why there is still one UK citizen in Guantanemo, along with 45 or so others, who has not been found guilty of anything but is deemed to be too dangerous to release! The UK government are not actively seeking his release!

We already live in a world where civilised countries do this. We just have not shouted that information from the rooftops.

And no, I don't think it has made us any safer either.

But not being able to conceive of a viable solution I am having to accept that such shit is happening on my behalf. And, as my posts here may suggest, I am not finding that to be an easy thing to accept about myself.