[Important Thread]: The Terrorism Act 2000 and the Uighurs. 1
Monday saw the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Terrorism Act 2000. To mark this lamentable occasion @UK_CAGE produced a detailed report on its malignant effects over the duration of its operation. PLEASE do read and share it. Link:
I also wrote an article which you can read here: maskedavenger1.wordpress.com/2020/07/20/the…
I want to turn my attention now to China and her genocide of the Uighurs in order to demonstrate just how insidious a piece of legislation the Terrorism Act 2000 is (hint: READ MY ARTICLE).
The Act defined terrorism as the use (or threat of use) of action (meaning serious violence to persons or serious damage to property) against a government or international governmental organisation (e.g. UN, NATO) for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or...
...ideological cause.
When the Bill was debated at least one MP (David Lidington, the former Conservative MP for Aylesbury) raised the age old conundrum of "one man's terrorist, another man's freedom fighter". How would the legislation resolve it?
Then Home Office minister, Charles Clarke assured the House of Commons that given that any prosecution under TACT 2000 had to be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions (currently @MaxHillQC ) one needn't worry about supporting "righteous causes" e.g. the Kurdish...
...rebellion under Saddam. Because the DPP would use their discretion and decided not to prosecute you, even if technically those actions WERE terrorism by the letter of the law. Leaving aside the fact that this violates the principle of "legal certainty" whereby the legal...
...consequences of any given action should be determinable in advance of their being carried out, it effectively confers upon the DPP (and ultimately the Attorney General) the power to decide what is and isn't terrorism upon a whim. A whim that is invariably decided by...
...the political expediencies of Her Majesty's Government at that moment in time. So, for example, if they are pro-Kurdish at the time you most likely won't be prosecuted. If they are pro-Saddam at the time (as in the 1980s) then you almost certainly will be.
Fast forward 7 years to 2007 and the Court of Appeal (R v F). A Libyan dissident had been convicted of downloading (inter alia) bomb making manuals in order to aid groups seeking the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi. He appealed claiming the overthrow of such...
...Gaddafi's regime didn't fall under the definition of "terrorism" given that it was a brutal, unrepresentative authoritarian government. He argued, effectively that he was supporting "freedom fighters" not "terrorists" despite their activities falling within the Act's...
...catch-all definition of terrorism. The Court in its Judgement demurred from this interpretation and determined that any government that is internationally recognised falls within the ambit of TACT 2000, despite how dictatorial and abusive it might be. It stated that:
"...the legislation [The Terrorism Act 2000] does not exempt, nor make an exception, nor create a defence for, nor exculpate what some would describe as terrorism in a just cause. Terrorism is terrorism, whatever the motive of the perpetrators."
And so it dismissed the appeal. So the assurances provided by Charles Clarke turned out (entirely predictably) to be hollow and empty. But furthermore a mere four years later the UK government would provide military support to the very same people! Yes, that's right...
...now that HMG's political stance towards Gaddafi had changed (because of course they didn't know he was a murderous thug back in 2007) it was no longer terrorism to support armed groups attacking his government. So even though it came under the definition of the Act...
...nobody would be prosecuted for carrying out such terrorist activities anymore. Lol.
Ok, so how does this tie into the Uighurs? Well I'm sure you've noticed the sudden outpouring of neoconservative tears for the plight of this Muslim ethnic group in China's far western region. Declarations of genocide are now bellowing forth from people who for years didn't...
...utter a word (despite these atrocities being public knowledge for about 5 years now). They didn't care about the genocide of the Rohingya Muslims or the suffering of the Palestinians either. But now China's ascendancy threatens Western economic hegemony the Uighurs...
....present a useful tool to exert pressure on Beijing. Anyway, tying it in to TACT 2000....any people facing genocide sure have the right to physically (yes that's right, I mean violence) resist? Except under TACT such resistance would constitute terrorism. Yes, that's...
...right...to resist one's own genocide under this law would be classed as "terrorism". That' how sick and disgraceful it is. So if tomorrow the Uighurs were to rise up and say we won't accept to be lead like sheep into concentration camps anymore, for our women to be forcibly...
...sterilised...for our children to indoctrinated into hating our religion and culture...for Han Chinese men to be billeted upon our womenfolk whose men are in said camps...and for our mosques to be demolished or turned into bars...and we will fight the regime perpetrating...
...these genocidal policies upon us...as British Muslims if we were to say "we stand with them and support their righteous struggle" we would be committing a terrorist offence. Yes, really.
What's worse is that given the decision to prosecute is in the hands of the DPP, the authorities could selectively prosecute some whilst giving a pass to others. So for example were I to call for jihad against the Chinese regime I would more than likely end up...
...in HMP Belmarsh (the UK's main prison for terrorist offenders). Were a certain nasty individual who spends his time denigrating Islamic practises and posting insulting imagery of the Prophet (saw) to do the same nothing would happen...because he sings the tune...
...those in power want to hear. I don't.
It's important to bear in mind that China's genocidal policy vis-a-vis the Uighurs is actually nothing more than PREVENT taken to its logical conclusion. They have long tried to "reform" Islam, to induce the Uighurs to abandon their Islamic beliefs and practises.
Because they see Islam as "the problem" - just like neocons like @DouglasKMurray. Islam in the eyes of the Chinese authorities is inherently violent and subversive and so if its votaries won't voluntarily abjure it then more forcible means must be employed. Sure their methods...
...are exponentially more crude and brutal than anything PREVENT has, or (hopefully) ever will, employ but the thinking is the same. When @amanda_spielman makes evident in her parliamentary cross questioning by Muslim MP Shabana Mahmood her disdain for the hijab and...
...her very obvious desire to deracinate Muslim children she exemplifies this same mindset. If you stand against the genocide of the Uighurs then you have no choice but to stand against PREVENT also.
