Britain Has Become a Police State for Muslims      
Issues Explained  
Sunday, 09 December 2007  

Recent events in the British criminal justice system provide a compelling case for the existence of a parallel system of justice for Muslims as apposed to non-Muslims. However, the conviction of Samina Malik, aka "the lyrical terrorist," has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the British anti-terror legislation was not constructed simply to protect the security of Britain but rather to criminalise Muslims who hold and express Islamic political views.


Several additional cases have highlighted the disturbing consequences of this draconian legislation which is being utilised to prosecute Muslims for nothing other than the possession of books or videos: items that represent nothing more sinister than holding certain political views towards the west's war on Islam. By comparison, non-Muslims involved in far more seditious activity have been tried under less severe legislation.
 
Samina Malik was convicted under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2006 which outlaws possession of documents "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" as various books accessible from the internet were found in her possession. These included titles such as "The al Qaeda Manual" and "The Mujahideen's Poison's Handbook" but no evidence was brought connecting these books in anyway to any other persons or terrorist related incidents, yet were used as evidence by the prosecution for her eventual conviction. Similarly, Muhammad Atif Siddique was convicted last October and sentenced to eight years imprisonment for a number of terror-related offences after the police found sound and video files glorifying jihad on his laptop as well as downloaded documents on military strategy. No evidence was brought to indicate his involvement in any act of terrorism or the planning of any violent activity.
 
Contrast these cases with those of non-Muslims who were involved in much more serious activity yet were not prosecuted under the terror legislation. For example, Robert Cottage and David Jackson, two former members of the BNP, were prosecuted after police discovered in their possession the largest cache of firearms and chemical explosives ever found in the West Midlands region. The two men also possessed a rocket-launcher, documents outlining plans to blow up mosques and Islamic centres all over Britain, planning notes of a potential plot to assassinate of Tony Blair (then prime minister), and notes about an impending civil war against immigrants in Britain. Cottage believed that if there weren't "blood on the streets", the country would be "lost". He received a two-and-a-half-year sentence for his crimes while his co-defendant, Jackson, walked free.
 
Furthermore, the activities of Miles Cooper, the Cambridge letter bomber who terrorised Britain with seven letter bombs that injured eight people in a two-week campaign, were prosecuted under the 1883 Explosives and Substances Act leading to a lenient sentence with the possibility parole in five years. Cooper planned, prepared and delivered his explosive devices and was motivated by distaste for the surveillance culture of the British state. Additionally, his computer revealed he had extensively researched letter bomb-making websites and his book collection included titles such as "The Shooter's Handbook," "Homemade Guns" and "Homemade Ammo." Cooper also used blogging sites to exchange bomb-making information but was not charged under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2006 of possessing articles likely to be useful for terrorists!
 
What these examples illustrate is that Muslims who support the right of Muslims to resist occupation of their lands by western colonial countries like Britain are having the full weight of the anti-terror legislation used against them even though they themselves are not involved in militant activity either in Britain or abroad. With the current anti-Islamic climate created in Britain by the media onslaught upon Islam, the latest example of which was the disproportionate reaction to the conviction of Gillian Gibbons in Sudan, Muslims do not feel they can receive a fair trial anymore. Most sinisterly, the conviction of Samina Malik among others shown below illustrates how the anti-terror legislation is in truth politically motivated with the aim to silence by criminalisation those who oppose Britain's aggressive and disastrous foreign policy in the Muslim world.

Comparison of Recent Muslim and Non-Muslim Criminal Cases

Name
Background
Basis of arrest
Evidence of violent intention
Prosecuting legislation
Outcome

Miles Cooper
Non-Muslim
Explosives Act
Yes
Explosives Act
Guilty-jailed 5yrs

Robert Cottage
Non-Muslim
Explosives Act
Yes
Explosives Act
Guilty-jailed 2.5yrs

David Jackson
Non-Muslim
Explosives Act
Yes
Explosives Act
Acquitted

Gregory Whittam
Non-Muslim
Explosives Act
Yes
Explosives Act
Guilty-2 yrs community service

Samina Malik
Muslim
Terrorism Act
No
Terrorism Act
Guilty-9 months suspended sentence

Muhammed Siddique
Muslim
Terrorism Act
No
Terrorism Act
Guilty-jailed 8yrs

Abdul Patel
Muslim
Terrorism Act
No
Terrorism Act
Guilty-jailed 6 months

Bilal Abdullah
Muslim
Terrorism Act
Yes

Explosives Act
Waiting trial

Aboker Hussein-Younis
Muslim
Terrorism Act
No
Released without charge
N/A





Comments (2)  

neutral observer: ...
It would also be interesting to include the prison sentences of kids from asian backgrounds, after the bradford riots. I remember many getting unprecedented prison terms, compared to others of other backgrounds. If you have those comparisons add them as well. They would also be a good comparison of how the justice system is set out to make examples of Muslims. 1

December 09, 2007 - 12:28:25
Asaf Razaq: How long was Aboker Hussein-Younis detained for
How long was Aboker Hussein-Younis detained for?

They can detain you for days without charge....probably equivalent to some months sentence...w/o any evidence at all....and they are seeking to increase tht further.....definately a POLICE STATE...just for muslims though!!!!

And then they say...were British as well???  

--Last edited by Riaz A on 2007-12-23 23:35:32 --

First they came for the Muslims
Niedermeyer
Soon they come for all of us

Yeah, and Old Trafford is a Police State for footie fans. Compliance with authority is the law!

I'm all for football fans being rounded up and locked away in their bloody stadiums!  

The beautiful game is the only thing which I can tolerate on TV anymore. What a pity it is spoiled by greedy billionaire oligarchs.

Rooney! Rooney!

Sorry, I've been frequenting Mirror Forums so long, I can only write one liners and short paragraphs. I'm turning into a hooligan!

Then they came for the Yobs, Police randomly bording busses in Mersyside to search the occupants.

I was stopped and searched the other day at a train station in London. A sniffer dog jumped up on me! I thought he was after the Mars bar I was chomping on. His big Scottish brute of a handler had no sense of humour though. They found nothing but my name was taken. There were about twenty cops milling around. It's getting more and more common now.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTtQNqcMvUo

Are you serious! For what reason?
I shall watch the video at home - NO AUDIO HERE AT WORK!

I would imagine that if it was London, it would be under section 44 so is technically legal under present arrangements.

As for the searching of the Bus passengers in Liverpool, I can't see how that is lawful in any way. Possibly under SOCPA but you would have to ask Mowlam about that.

My mate has been stopped twice under section 44, in Leeds station by another humourless Scotish Police officer.

Huh? You think that's bad? My eighteen year old, who fits the target profile, was stopped and searched TWICE on Tuesday. The only thing he had in his possession was an umbrella (no guns, drugs, knives) so the police asked him whose it was. When he refused to tell them they said they would do him for a stolen umbrella. I kid you not!

Later the same FEDS stopped and searched him again saying a car had been broken into and he fitted the (mixed-race) descrïption. When they couldn't pin that on him they said they would do him for having no lights on his push-bike.

This a total abuse of power and now that they are cranking up the 'sus laws' it can only increase. All this will serve to do is alienate and infuriate young people.

But soon it will be across the board, so all these idiots who condone this better be careful what they wish for. It will be them next.