Joseph Loughnane of human rights organisation CagePrisioners says that the media and judiciary handle “Muslim” terrorism cases differently to “non-Muslim” ones.
Why was the case of Richard Dart, Imran Mahmood and Jahangir Alom pleading guilty to engaging in conduct and preparation of acts of terrorism one of the main stories in the British media a few weeks ago?
This was the focus of the reporting despite them not being found with any explosives or chemicals on their person.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
Dart was sentenced to 11 years, of which he will serve six in prison and five years on license. Alom was given four years and six months, and Mahmood more than 14 years, of which he must serve nine years and nine months.
Mark Topping, a specialist counter-terrorism lawyer for the Crown Prosecution Service, said: “Although the men did not identify any specific targets for an attack, their determination and intent were very clear.”
Far-right extremists
But how come no attention was drawn to far-right extremists who have been convicted of actually possessing materials that could be used in an act of terrorism?
Searchlight’s report entitled “Lone wolves: myth or reality.” includes case studies of nearly 40 individuals holding far-right political views who have been convicted for violence or terrorist offences that go as far back as the 1960s.
The cases outlined in the report demonstrate conclusively that far-right individuals who have been convicted of terrorism offences are not lone wolves but are connected with, influenced by and often helped by organisations whose beliefs they share.
Neil Lewington
For example, Neil Lewington was arrested after stepping off a train for urinating in public in October 2008. He was arrested under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Some of the items found in his holdall were component parts to an improvised explosive device (IED), a black Samsung mobile phone with picture images on it containing racist comments and several handwritten notes containing lists which related to components of IEDs.
In a search of his bedroom, a number of component parts to an IED as well as a number of instruction manuals on how to make IEDs were discovered. He had been arrested while travelling to meet a woman he had met on a dating site. He was convicted on eight counts under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the
Explosive Substances Act 1883. On 8 September 2009 he was sentenced to a total of six years imprisonment, less the time he had spent on remand.
Darren Tinklin
In February 2010, Darren Tinklin was charged with making explosives including a pipe bomb and possessing a firearm. He was an advocate of and politically affiliated to the neo-Nazi organisation “Blood and Honour” and a group called the “British Movement” which has members who have partaken in paramilitary training in Germany and Scotland.
Tinklin was jailed for three years. During his case, the judge stated: “Ideas and political affiliations may come and go but there is a potential threat presented by someone who harbours an interest in explosives and extremist views.”
But how come such a flippant view with regard to political affiliations was not taken with regard to the three men jailed earlier this month?
Afghanistan
Is it because the men charged were stopped at airports while travelling to and from Pakistan? This despite one of their defences being that civilians were not his target, instead he had wanted to fight NATO soldiers in Afghanistan? Were the men charged with terrorism offences convicted because they were concerned about those Muslims abroad whose lives were being lost in illegal wars?
Darren Tinklin and Neil Lewington had no concern for such people; instead they intended to attack oppressed minorities in the UK and had prepared weapons accordingly.
Regardless of these two far-right individuals with clear connections to organised political groups linked with violence received less harsher sentences than the three men who had not only specified a target for their apparent “acts of terrorism” but were not found to possess any such materials to advance their cause.
Why are the perceived victims of the latter held in higher regard than the potential victims of the former?
