An Afghan stripped of his British citizenship for allegedly travelling to Pakistan and Afghanistan for terrorism training lost his appeal against the decision on Wednesday.
The 41-year-old, identified only as Y1, claimed asylum in Britain in 1998 and became a British national in 2004.
But he allegedly travelled to Miranshah, the main town in Pakistan’s northwestern tribal area of North Waziristan, for terror training in 2010, and was then captured by British forces in the western Afghan city of Herat in July 2011.
Home Secretary Theresa May rescinded him of his citizenship later that month.
The Afghan lodged an appeal with Britain’s Special Immigration Appeals Commission, but the panel said on Wednesday that it had rejected his bid.
Judge Stephen Irwin said secret material given to the tribunal provides “absolutely conclusive evidence of the appellant’s desire to engage in terrorist activity and very strong evidence of an enduring commitment to jihadist ideas”.
The court heard that Y1 was currently in Kenya on a three-month visitor visa.
Security officials told the tribunal that the man was suspected of being involved in an extremist network and possibly in fighting NATO forces on the Afghan-Pakistan border.
The Afghan, who allegedly praised the September 11, 2001 attackers as “the magnificent 19″, had told the panel that leaflets he distributed outside a London mosque while living in Britain did not glorify terror.
He also said he moved to North Waziristan to “escape the problems and pressure of living in England” and because his wife was “receiving constant public pressure as a result of her Islamic dress”.
He said the activities he took part in in the troubled Pakistani tribal region were “survival training” in order to protect his family.
But judge Irwin said he found Y1′s account to be “deliberately deceptive” and “quite incredible”.
The Home Office, or interior ministry, welcomed the judgment.
“We are pleased the court found the home secretary was ‘fully justified’ in her assessment of the threat posed by this dangerous individual, and that it was proportionate to pursue deprivation action,” a spokesman said.
“Citizenship is a privilege, not a right, and the home secretary will remove British citizenship from individuals where she feels it is conducive to the public good to do so.”
This is an odd report. After all, British Home Secretary Theresa May warned of Syrian jihadists returning some time ago. Both she and Dr Sally Leivesley, "security expert," seemed blandly and complacently to accept that the Muslims who traveled from Britain to Syria or Afghanistan and train for jihad simply had to be admitted back into Britain. Neither raised the possibility of stripping the UK citizens among them of their citizenship. What's more, British authorities banned me from the country for saying that Islam had a doctrine of warfare against unbelievers.
So apparently the British authorities don't believe that Islam has a doctrine of warfare against unbelievers, and think it is offensive to point out that it does. Yet they let in the Saudi jihad preacher Mohammed al-Arefe the week before they banned me, even though al-Arefe has said: "Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight."
From that, one must conclude that the British authorities are fine with people thinking that Islam has a doctrine of warfare against unbelievers, as long as one does not oppose that doctrine, but instead believes in it and preaches it. Yet they're worried about those who act upon that doctrine, and have now barred one of them from the country.
In other words, the British government is quite mad. There is no consistency whatsoever to its stance on jihad terrorism.