http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31809453 In that report it states that MPs are set to approve travel restrictions on those whom the government believe to pose a "terrorism-related threat". I took this to mean those who want to travel to Syria to fight with IS. I knew that this was in the pipeline but I don't think it goes far enough. I'd rather let those who decide to take up arms in Syria or anywhere else and then not let them back into the country. It'd be a few less nutters on our own streets! I know that this wouldn't happen, but in my opinion it should. I think a lot of people going over there seriously underestimate what it's like to fight in a warzone but that is their problem not ours. If they make the choice to fight for terrorist groups on foreign soil then they deserve to lose their British Citizenship as a result. I guess the problem is then that we would face battle hardened extremists trying to enter the country illegally if they chose to carry out terrorist attacks back "home". I'd rather that though than keep those who are willing to take up arms at our cost in our prisons, hoping they would become reformed, which I seriously doubt would happen.
Sounds like the US no fly list. The trouble is in distinguishing between the bad guys and the good guys going home to visit relatives. "those whom the government believe" I would assume that no proof is required and that it would be very difficult to appeal.
Refusing them entry on return doesn't work for practical reasons. Unless they have dual citizenship no country wil let them in, leaving them stranded at the airport and frankly no one wants to fight off a bunch of beggars who are also terrorists at every UK airport on the way from the plane to passport control.
I know it wouldn't happen, for both political and practical reasons, but restricting travel to those who do want to go and take up arms isn't going to work either. There will be many who fall through the net and manage to travel to Syria. There will no doubt be many who aren't even on the security services radar. The government needs to tackle radicalisation much more than it is. They should be tackling those who preach extremist views and are promoting taking up arms more too.
IS recruits through propaganda. Once the useful idiot has joined them and experienced the realities of war, they return (if they manage to get out) disillusioned to the UK. Should we let them? If they share their experiences and feelings of disillusionment with others, that might be helpful in debunking the propaganda (if they get killed over there that works too, of course). But generally IS recruits don't want to return, and they are not encouraged to. Part of the IS ideology is an undying allegiance to the caliphate, and an obligatory residence within its self-proclaimed borders. People who leave are regarded as drop-outs and possibly apostates, even if they engage in terrorism here. The best defence against hate preaching is teaching children to think critically and to help them feel connected to mainstream society. Everything else is just symptom management.
That and i think it's either illegal or against EU rules to leave a person stateless. We would be forced to let them back in and because they haven't broken any laws we couldn't lock them up or anything like that.
Here in Canada, if you go fight for terrorists groups, your citizenship is voided and you can't comeback. I remember my brother in law who said '' They can't do that : / '' like if the canadian passport was some kind of bulletproof jacket. I'm sure there is a few persons who went to Syria and regretted their decision once they hit the reality wall, I guess I should feel sorry for these poor *******s but I don't.
whilst I agree it would make perfect sense to remove their citizenship, part of the problem is the human rights laws, one of them state it would be illegal to make a person stateless.
Flip it around, would you accept if lets say Syria would suddenly started to issue you a fine or a jail sentence for something you did in Canada? Of course not. So you display a very serious double standard if you claim that Canada has any right to punish someone for what happened in Syria.
Your example is flawed because the example activity's in Canada would have to be along the lines of war level actions against Syrians or Syrian property, or Syrian concerns. If you did said activity's in any place, Syria could rightly look unfavourably towards you and dependant on the seriousness of your actions could involve harsh penalty's. One thing about war is that there is always two sides to the story, and most of the time both sides have several reasonable arguments.
This is such a BS knee-jerk reaction. What are we going to do lift passport restrictions? You can put people on a no-fly list for security reasons, but preventing them from leaving their country or from coming back to it is a major breach of human rights. Such a law will never pass even a local court, let alone the supreme one or the European Human Rights court. If people want to go to Syria I don't see under what authority we should prevent them. Less nutters on the street as far as I see it. Are they radicalised? Well sorry, they actually need to break "some" law on uk soil to be able to do anything about it. It sucks, but hey, that's how a free society works. And, weirdly, how do we even start deciding which side of a civil war the "terrorists" are? In the end, all we can do, is being being very very careful who we hand citizenship to.
Indeed, centuries of moral advances just get thrown out of the window, around a decade ago the world was prepared to give Milosevic a fair and transparent trial, since then we have regressed to tactics that would make the dictator of some banana republic proud. That is just one of the many things that will come back to haunt us about that current conflict, even if ISIS looses it won't be over, the Kurds will then ask for their reward (northern part of Iraq + part of Syria + part of Turkey), so it won't be over quick no matter what. Well, in addition to that we can also try to make sure the people here don't see the authorities as the enemy. Take whats going in Ferguson for example, if the police is racist eventually crowds will hide people who shoot back. Or a UK example, if the authorities ignore thousands of kids being raped over years despite being aware of it, how many of those kids are going to squeal on the guy building a bomb in their garage rather than cheering for him?
