Fusilier Lee Rigby - Woolwich Murder
Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale
Firstly i'll discuss the horrendous and nonsensical murder of Lee Rigby and questions relating to terrorist attacks;
- how long should the two men be sentenced for
- what is the court of appeal ruling for whole life terms
- is religion (specifically Islam to blame)
- are those who worship Islam terrorists
- is there likely to be another terrorist attack akin to 9/11, 7/7 or the murder of Lee Rigby
Their reasons for this heinous brutal attack?
Revenge!
They stated to by-standers that they committed this heinous act due to revenge; stating in a cold calculating manner, 'An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth'. They randomly selected him - taking his life, because of his 'Help the heroes' T-Shirt and Khaki back pack. It was their belief that the UK were taking the lives of Muslim people everyday.
During the trial it was made clear that there was likely to be another attack and that no one in Britain is safe. The prosecution believed these men were radicalised and had a history of violence. Each of them were known to the British security, and if that is the case, could this heinous attack have been avoided? Given the history of both these individuals; Nigerian born Adebolajo was deported back to the UK from Kenya a few years ago due to extremist views and activity. Adebowale had psychotic episodes in the past due to drugs and violence that occurred in his past along with witnessing a murder. Both of these men had attended rallies alongside an extremist group that was banned in the UK; Al-Muhajiroun.
I often wonder, IF these extremists politico-religious groups are banned and they're seen in rallies and shouting on the streets about racial hatred, non-conformity to their beliefs etc... Why then weren't they arrested and charged with inciting racial hatred? It's been done in the past with other political parties, so why not with these?
Why are these extremist Islamic groups given a voice, when they should be arrested and detained for citing racial hatred?
My personal opinion is that these two Islamic extremists should have whole life terms, and by that I mean should not be let out for a minimum of 50 years. However, to be able to sentence someone to 'life' you have to go through the appeal court. Why? Well, it seems that the European Court of Human rights believe that to sentence someone to 'life' constitutes a breach of THEIR human rights.
During the trial it was made clear that there was likely to be another attack and that no one in Britain is safe. The prosecution believed these men were radicalised and had a history of violence. Each of them were known to the British security, and if that is the case, could this heinous attack have been avoided? Given the history of both these individuals; Nigerian born Adebolajo was deported back to the UK from Kenya a few years ago due to extremist views and activity. Adebowale had psychotic episodes in the past due to drugs and violence that occurred in his past along with witnessing a murder. Both of these men had attended rallies alongside an extremist group that was banned in the UK; Al-Muhajiroun.
I often wonder, IF these extremists politico-religious groups are banned and they're seen in rallies and shouting on the streets about racial hatred, non-conformity to their beliefs etc... Why then weren't they arrested and charged with inciting racial hatred? It's been done in the past with other political parties, so why not with these?
Why are these extremist Islamic groups given a voice, when they should be arrested and detained for citing racial hatred?
My personal opinion is that these two Islamic extremists should have whole life terms, and by that I mean should not be let out for a minimum of 50 years. However, to be able to sentence someone to 'life' you have to go through the appeal court. Why? Well, it seems that the European Court of Human rights believe that to sentence someone to 'life' constitutes a breach of THEIR human rights.
Yes you did read correctly.
Since joining the EU and signing up to the various policies regarding human rights, they have declared that to give someone life sentence without prospect of release is a breach... which kind of defeats the purpose of a life sentence from my perspective.
Because the UK signed up to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) we are expected to follow the rulings laid down. Strasbourg decided in their infinite wisdom that we would be in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR, and to keep someone in prison indefinitely would result in 'Inhuman and Degrading treatment'.
Whilst I do agree in principle with the ECHR, I believe Strasbourg doesn't always take into account certain aspects. Specifically why they allow this ruling, when from my perspective and i'm sure many others believe that the perpetrators lost their rights when they killed Fusilier Lee Rigby. They randomly picked him out, treated HIM inhumanely, degraded HIM, tore a family apart, caused distress to his family, the people on the street that tended to him, the people that witnessed him being killed. What about their rights? What about HIS right to life? He will never have the opportunity to live a life that he dreamed of, his children will be without a father, but for whatever reason, the court decided that 'whole life' sentences are a breach of human rights.
Since joining the EU and signing up to the various policies regarding human rights, they have declared that to give someone life sentence without prospect of release is a breach... which kind of defeats the purpose of a life sentence from my perspective.
Because the UK signed up to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) we are expected to follow the rulings laid down. Strasbourg decided in their infinite wisdom that we would be in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR, and to keep someone in prison indefinitely would result in 'Inhuman and Degrading treatment'.
Whilst I do agree in principle with the ECHR, I believe Strasbourg doesn't always take into account certain aspects. Specifically why they allow this ruling, when from my perspective and i'm sure many others believe that the perpetrators lost their rights when they killed Fusilier Lee Rigby. They randomly picked him out, treated HIM inhumanely, degraded HIM, tore a family apart, caused distress to his family, the people on the street that tended to him, the people that witnessed him being killed. What about their rights? What about HIS right to life? He will never have the opportunity to live a life that he dreamed of, his children will be without a father, but for whatever reason, the court decided that 'whole life' sentences are a breach of human rights.
I think for me what is frustrating with the ECHR is that Strasbourg courts have declared that under Article 3, a life sentence takes away any hope the detainee has of the future, and therefore will continue to feel hopelessness whilst incarcerated.
Isn't that the point of punishment?
Isn't that the point of punishment?
Personally I think they should lose that right. They took that right away from their victims. Unless someone is found mentally unstable and 'not in their right mind' when they committed murder, fair enough. However, these dangerous criminals who brag about killing, and are proud of what they've done, or who have hidden their crimes; those individuals should have the harshest sentences possible according to UK law. Some people see this as an 'eye for an eye'. I disagree, these are dangerous criminals, who were fully aware of their actions from the onset, and have shown no remorse. Why then should they live a life that they denied their victim(s)?
So what does that mean in practice? Can the UK give out 'whole life' sentences anymore?
The UK has to show that if a life sentence is handed down, then there will be the prospect of a review, and a possibility that the perpetrator will be released. Whether this will mean; a second review of all the evidence again, another trial later on down the line, or simply a parole hearing, it's not clear what the policy will reflect. One thing i'm sure it won't take into consideration is the victim and the victim's family.
It will most likely be about the person that committed the crime and how much 'they've changed' or 'how much they've atoned for their crimes', and whether they are 'still a danger to society'. Either way, i'm sure we'll find out come January 2014.
Some of the points raised in the newspaper articles online (specifically Huff Post) suggest that any member of Islam is to blame for the terrorist attack on Lee Rigby. The reason I call it a terrorist attack is because it was 'politico-religious' in nature. Their attack (according to their confessionals) was revenge for what they believe the UK armed forces have done, and have caused harm to Islamic people.
As with ALL religions, you have individuals who have varying levels of religious beliefs. For example, you may have Christians who pray now and again, go to church once a week/month/year and believe in God, but that's pretty much as far as they go. Other Christians who are more devote may pray multiple times a time, go to mass daily, know the Bible inside and out, are fully active in the church.
Some of these very devout people who try to proselytise their religion to others are, i'm sure, capable of going to the extreme; be it in their views, their actions, their ideologies, their beliefs etc...
Some of the points raised in the newspaper articles online (specifically Huff Post) suggest that any member of Islam is to blame for the terrorist attack on Lee Rigby. The reason I call it a terrorist attack is because it was 'politico-religious' in nature. Their attack (according to their confessionals) was revenge for what they believe the UK armed forces have done, and have caused harm to Islamic people.
As with ALL religions, you have individuals who have varying levels of religious beliefs. For example, you may have Christians who pray now and again, go to church once a week/month/year and believe in God, but that's pretty much as far as they go. Other Christians who are more devote may pray multiple times a time, go to mass daily, know the Bible inside and out, are fully active in the church.
Some of these very devout people who try to proselytise their religion to others are, i'm sure, capable of going to the extreme; be it in their views, their actions, their ideologies, their beliefs etc...
'So how are Islam extremists any different?
Extremists are by the very definition, outside the scope of the average views of the general public. We know these types of people usually are close knit in terms of working/liaising with other like-minded individuals. These type of people don't fall into the mainstream populace when it comes to furthering their cause. They tend to dislike and disagree with people who don't share their views, and will often disassociate themselves from these people. Instead these people are more likely to either remain within a group like setting or remain in a solitary state; thus allowing their views to solidify and potentially escalate.
Extremists are by the very definition, outside the scope of the average views of the general public. We know these types of people usually are close knit in terms of working/liaising with other like-minded individuals. These type of people don't fall into the mainstream populace when it comes to furthering their cause. They tend to dislike and disagree with people who don't share their views, and will often disassociate themselves from these people. Instead these people are more likely to either remain within a group like setting or remain in a solitary state; thus allowing their views to solidify and potentially escalate.
However, these people are a minority in this country, and shouldn't be confused with liberal Muslims who have no issues with understanding that people have varying religious and political views as can be evidenced from the statement from the British Muslim Council (BMC), who took a stand against this barbaric crime, and did everything they could to dissociate themselves from these extremist views.
Since the verdict came out, the BMC also gave their views on the sentencing of Adebolajo and Adebowale. They like the majority of the British public condone what these criminals did, and that is the difference between someone who supports Islam, and someone who uses Islam to further their extreme political and religious views.
I don't deny that there are Islamic extremists not only in Britain, but all around the world. These people don't think twice about inciting hatred wherever they go, be it through; rallies, leaflets, religious teachings, mosques. They search out like-minded people as they believe there is strength in numbers. They make no apologies for torturing, maiming, killing men, women or children in the name of Islam.
Since the verdict came out, the BMC also gave their views on the sentencing of Adebolajo and Adebowale. They like the majority of the British public condone what these criminals did, and that is the difference between someone who supports Islam, and someone who uses Islam to further their extreme political and religious views.
I don't deny that there are Islamic extremists not only in Britain, but all around the world. These people don't think twice about inciting hatred wherever they go, be it through; rallies, leaflets, religious teachings, mosques. They search out like-minded people as they believe there is strength in numbers. They make no apologies for torturing, maiming, killing men, women or children in the name of Islam.
Throughout the world they've targeted countries, people, social structures, rallies etc. To them (I believe) and from reading their views, it seems they're incapable of seeing any other persons point of view. They read the Qu'ran and for whatever reason they interpret the teachings differently from other Muslims. To them each person must strictly adhere to the teachings and failure to do so results in them believing we (non believers) have violated (for want of a better terminology) their 'God'. As such they feel that jihad is justified against those with differing views.
It may be from reading other news items that these individual extremists believe that we have 'invaded' their country and killed their people. Subsequently it is their belief that the 'West' should be punished for 'interfering' and 'killing' supporters of Islam, by going to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, possibly Syria if the situation continues.
So, what's the likelihood of another attack on either the UK or the US akin to 7/7 or 9/11?
Well, a lot of people have differing views on the subject. David Cameron has stated that for the next few years until the situation settles down in Afghanistan, then the UK will commit themselves to giving the Afghani government £250 million a year for support and stability of their country. To say I have issues with this would be an understatement, particularly given the precarious situation with our own country in terms of poverty, food banks, benefit cuts, 11% MP wage increases etc but it is something i'll have to discuss in a separate blog, otherwise this post is going to end up being a novel.
Statisticians have assessed data of the last 40 years regarding lethal terror attacks. They only assessed up to 2007 and during this period there were 13,000 in total. The date 2007 was at a time when the US was still actively involved within a Muslim country. It is their understanding that if more attacks occur after the US and UK withdraw their troops then the threat of more lethal terror attacks drop from 50% (which is currently stands at) and will drop to between 5-20%.
To be honest, i've never put much faith in statistics. I believe that when emotions become involved, logic and reason go out the window. I believe that there is still a high probability of another terror attack in some form or another. Whether the attack will be from individuals or groups such as Al Qaeda, I don't know. Some believe that Al Qaeda is no longer since the the death of Bin laden. However, I believe they're regrouping, organising themselves and when they believe the timings right, they'll show up either in Afghanistan again. In this case, they could potentially push their way forward and gain momentum, or they could escalate their presence in Syria as what seems to be the case so far judging from the crimes that are being committed by extremists.
What do you think? Will another terrorist attack happen?
It may be from reading other news items that these individual extremists believe that we have 'invaded' their country and killed their people. Subsequently it is their belief that the 'West' should be punished for 'interfering' and 'killing' supporters of Islam, by going to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, possibly Syria if the situation continues.
So, what's the likelihood of another attack on either the UK or the US akin to 7/7 or 9/11?
Well, a lot of people have differing views on the subject. David Cameron has stated that for the next few years until the situation settles down in Afghanistan, then the UK will commit themselves to giving the Afghani government £250 million a year for support and stability of their country. To say I have issues with this would be an understatement, particularly given the precarious situation with our own country in terms of poverty, food banks, benefit cuts, 11% MP wage increases etc but it is something i'll have to discuss in a separate blog, otherwise this post is going to end up being a novel.
Statisticians have assessed data of the last 40 years regarding lethal terror attacks. They only assessed up to 2007 and during this period there were 13,000 in total. The date 2007 was at a time when the US was still actively involved within a Muslim country. It is their understanding that if more attacks occur after the US and UK withdraw their troops then the threat of more lethal terror attacks drop from 50% (which is currently stands at) and will drop to between 5-20%.
To be honest, i've never put much faith in statistics. I believe that when emotions become involved, logic and reason go out the window. I believe that there is still a high probability of another terror attack in some form or another. Whether the attack will be from individuals or groups such as Al Qaeda, I don't know. Some believe that Al Qaeda is no longer since the the death of Bin laden. However, I believe they're regrouping, organising themselves and when they believe the timings right, they'll show up either in Afghanistan again. In this case, they could potentially push their way forward and gain momentum, or they could escalate their presence in Syria as what seems to be the case so far judging from the crimes that are being committed by extremists.
What do you think? Will another terrorist attack happen?
No comments:
Post a Comment