London, Sept 29, IRNA , Britain was accused
Saturday of having one law for Muslims and one law for others following
the conviction of a 27 year old primary school caretaker for carrying
out a nationwide letter bomb campaign.
Miles Cooper was given an indeterminate sentence after being found
guilty of sending seven explosive devices containing nails and broken
glass, injuring eight people, and for having what police described as a
"bomb factory" in his home.
But Humza Yousaf, convener of Young Asian Scots for Independence,
questioned why Cooper was only charged under the Explosive Substances
Act and the Offences Against the Person Act and not under the country's
extensive anti-terrorism legislation.
"As a result, his sentence is extremely light in comparison with
those charged under terror legislation, even those who did not have an
active plot and had not harmed a single person," Yousaf said in
reference to a series of trials against Muslims.
In a letter to the Glasgow Herald Saturday, he said that the
conviction and sentence only helps to "confirm what many Muslims have
suspected for a long time: there's one law for us and one law for them."
"Our authorities are playing with fire if they continue with such
blatant double standards in the application of anti-terror laws,"
Yousaf added.
He warned that there was "no doubt young Muslims will feel more
frustrated if they feel they are being treated differently by the law."
The latest conviction follows other discriminatory examples, including
a former member of the extreme British National Party, who was
sentenced in July to two-and-a-half years in jail for amassing an
arsenal of explosive chemicals in anticipation of a civil war with
immigrants.
The sentence was less than those passed a week earlier against three
of five Muslim students, who were commonly labelled as terrorists, for
possessing 'terrorist material' downloaded from the internet.
The contradictory sentences led the Muslim News last month to
challenge the British Government's definition of terrorism and the
judicial response.
"The definition should be universally used against all criminal acts
intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general
public, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical,
ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be
invoked to justify them," the monthly paper said.
"It should not, as the leader in the French revolution, Maximilien
Robespierre, proclaimed in 1794, be misused as a general principal of
democracy applied to the "country's most urgent needs," it said in its
editorial.
Readers have left 6 comments.
I tend to agree that his sentence was too light. However the reasons for him being charged under OAPA and not terrorism are possibly due to him acting alone and not part of a conspiracy. Plus the maximum sentence under OAPA is life so it is hardly an easy act to try him under. he has been given an indefinite sentence as well but the minimum term is too low. Perhaps comparing him to groups of Al Qaeda inspired individuals conspiring to mass murder civilians is a bit wrong. This guy was one oddball with a grudge, he did not have access to 500ibs of fertilizer with which he intended to carry out mass murder.
Whether an act of terrorism is committed by an a group or individual, the punishment should be the same!
Hmm, someone it isn't too bad if it only involves a 'lone' psycho! What tosh!
Of course the media would have a frenzy if this animal had been a 'Muslim'!
Double standards at play me thinks!
Zara, where did I say that 'it isn't too bad' if committed by an individual? I pointed out that he was not conspiring with others to commit mass murder thus it is a different matter. He was not convicted of attempted murder either he was convicted under the OAPA. He was a wacko sure but he never tried to kill anyone it seems. Nonetheless I agree with you the sentence is too light. Thus it is inaccurate to compare him to Al Qaeda individuals in the UK or indeed a nutter acting alone as i the case of the 'Una' bomber in the US as he was never charged with attempted murder. Thus legally there is a difference.
Young lads who go on the internet to read what is happening in iraq and how the resistance is destroying the attackers.
young lads who go onto internet sites and read how gureilla warfare is carried out, get years in jail.
yet a man ran a bomb factory and lets of 8 or 9 bombs all over the U.K,terrorising people is told he has to serve at least 5 years before being considered for parole.
as i have said before laws maybe equal but who applies them are never equal,there are racist-prejudicial and bigoted people within the police-cps-media and government.
James: I made that assertion in a general sense - not directed at you per se.
Yes, he is a nutjob, but a very dangerous one at that! A 'bomb factory' is not a joke!
Just because he was not convicted of attempted murder does not make the sentencing any more 'ethical'.
It is true: one law for one...
It seems Britain only takes 'group terrorism' seriously!
Surely he came into contact with some muslims in his life? does that warrant a tougher sentence? can he not be part of a wider wider nerdic jihadi group conspiricy? and what makes you think the indoctronation of harry potter into little kids is not helping recruit more nerdic jihadists?