As I read through this article my blood started to boil, and my anger was not directed at Hani al-Sibai, as was the intention of the Sunday Telegraph, but instead at the newspaper's unfair reporting and the stupid comment made by David Davis in conclusion.
The headline screams "Muslim terror suspect allowed to stay in UK" and the sub-heading states "A Muslim terror suspect - living in the UK has publicly praised the insurgents who are battling British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan".
Does it really matter to record a person's religion? Then we have "terror suspect" to denote someone who we know to be guilty if only we had the evidence to take a case to court and prove it. Mr Hani al-Sibai is "living in the UK" because he applied for and was granted asylum status on the ground that his own country, Turkey, would not guarantee his safety if he was returned. According to the Sunday Telegraph, Mr Hani al-Sibai's "crime" is that he has publicly praised resistance fighters battling the British occupation forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. What's more, he dared to express his views in a debate on Al-Jazeera television. This was last month, so why has the Sunday Telegraph decided to run with the story now? Especially, as it reports "The comments will reignite concerns over Britain's policy of sheltering extremists". So, only the Western Media is allowed to inflame and incite?
What does it matter that Mr Al-Sibai "lives with his wife and five children in a £600,000 four-bedroom housing association home in a fashionable area of Hammersmith, west London"? Should he instead live in the gutter? And, as the article later points out "He and his family have the same entitlements as British citizens to work or claim welfare benefits". I take it that the Sunday Telegraph is saying that this is wrong?
Given that the Sunday Telegraph reports on the law and that no offence has been committed "Under the Terrorism Act 2006, it is an offence to "glorify" terrorism in a way which incites attacks by others. However, police sources said Al-Sibai's comments on Al-Jazeera were probably within the law", why did it run with a non-story unless it was to stir up racial hatred? They even roll out an Uncle Tom figure for a comment to justify the newspaper's attack. And the cream on the cake is a comment from an idiot representing the Nasty Party, David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary, said: "Clearly this man has deplorable views, and the sooner he is removed from Britain the better". Because David Davis judges someone to have deplorable views they should be removed from a democratic country, where they stand a good chance of being tortured? I find David Davis's view deplorable. He won't like my view either, that he is a racist, bigoted, twat.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
Site Meter
No comments:
Post a Comment