Let’s see. Pamela Geller and I were banned from Britain because, we were told, our presence would be “not conducive to the public good.” The grounds for my ban, according to the Home Office’s letter to me, was that I have said that Islam has a doctrine of warfare against unbelievers, which is like banning me because I say that the sky is blue. I have never advocated for or approved of any violence or hatred, and the Home Office’s letter, contrary to claims from Leftists and Islamic supremacists in the UK and the US, did not claim otherwise. Now here is YM, a convert to Islam and a convicted jihad terrorist — in other words, someone whose entire life is dedicated to violence and hatred. He was ordered deported from Britain because his presence, like mine, was deemed “not conducive to the public good.”
The howling absurdity of banning both me and a convicted jihad terrorist on the same grounds — that we are “not conducive to the public good” — is blazingly obvious, but the British government, under pressure from Leftists and Islamic supremacists, was trying to show that its actions against jihad terrorists, such as they were, were not “Islamophobic,” and that they were equally set against “extremists on both sides.” Thus it has become commonplace among British Leftists to refer to me as if I were the equivalent of jihad preacher Anjem Choudary, a Big Lie that endeavors to obscure the fact that Choudary has frequently and cheerfully stated his approval for various acts of jihad mass murder and openly calls for the imposition of Sharia and the consequent denial of basic rights to women and non-Muslims, while I have never approved of or called for the murder of anyone, and believe that societies should work to secure equality of rights for all people.
Now to compound that absurd equivalence comes this news: while we are still banned (although our appeal is still under consideration), the jihad terrorist YM, a man who trained to commit jihad mass murder, cannot be deported after all. To do so would violate his human rights.
And so Britain takes one more jolly step toward chaos and civil war and blood in its streets, in yet another demonstration of the British intelligentsia’s abject surrender to Islamic supremacists who wish to destroy them.
“Convicted terrorist wins new round in human rights battle,” by David Barrett, Telegraph, October 10, 2014:
A Muslim man who attended two terrorist training camps and went to meetings at the home of a “fanatical Islamist” has used human rights laws to secure a further delay of his deportation by the Government.
The Telegraph disclosed last year how the 30-year-old Ugandan, who can only be identified by the initial YM, had been using the “right to family life” to avoid being removed to his home country.
Now, in a further controversial development, the convicted terrorist has won a new application in the Court of Appeal.
YM’s lawyers argued the married father-of-three has weak ties to his homeland and his removal would breach his rights to “private and family life” under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Three senior appeal judges – Lord Justice Aikens, Sir Colin Rimer and Sir Stanley Burnton – ruled YM was now entitled to have his case reconsidered by the Upper Tribunal of the Asylum and Immigration Chamber.
Sir Stanley said: “It would in general be difficult to see that in the case of someone who had committed offences as serious as those of the appellant the lack of ties to his country of nationality would lead to a breach of his Article 8 rights, since the public interest in his deportation is so strong.”
But the judge said he was “persuaded in this case that the right course is to remit his appeal to the Upper Tribunal” because of changes to legislation and the immigration rules since the tribunal last considered his case.
YM was born in Uganda in June 1984 and came to this country with his mother and her other children in 1991, aged six.
At the age of 14 he was convicted of robbery. He was later convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm when he was 15; three assaults on police constables when he was aged 18, and aggravated burglary when 19.
Despite his earlier convictions YM obtained indefinite leave to remain in Britain when he was 16, but never obtained British citizenship.
The court heard YM began practising Islam in a youth offender institution.
After his release in 2005 he attended a mosque in Croydon, south London, and later attended meetings at the house of a man called Hamid “whom YM subsequently admitted was a fanatical Islamist”, said Lord Justice Aikens.
“These encounters resulted in YM attending two terrorist training camps (in southern England) in 2006,” he added.
After going to the camps he arrested and charged under the 2006 Terrorism Act, which makes it an offence to attend a place where instruction or training, including with weapons, is given for terrorist purposes.
YM pleaded guilty to two charges and in February 2008 at Woolwich Crown Court was sentenced to three years and five months imprisonment to run concurrently on each count.
A month before his release on licence in June 2008 the home secretary issued him with a deportation notice stating that his presence in the UK was “not conducive to the public good” because of his terrorist-related convictions.
The lower immigration tribunal allowed YM’s initial appeal against the notice on human rights grounds in July 2009, but that decision was overturned by the upper tribunal.
In the latest legal action, YM’s lawyers challenged the upper tribunal’s decision and judges decided he was entitled to a rehearing by the tribunal on his Article 8 grounds….