Twenty-seven bodies have been found in the Radisson Blu hotel, as a hostage situation has officially ended in Mali’s capital Bamako. Here’s the breakdown of what you need to know to understand the recent Mali Attacks.
Al-Mourabitoun claimed responsibility for the Mali Attacks. They are an Islamist militia group associated with Al-Qaeda. They have made sure to point out that they are not in alignment with ISIS, and some analysts are interpreting the timing of this attack as an attempt to get some of the attention back to Al-Qaeda and away from ISIS.
You can actually trace Al-Mourabitoun’s roots back to a civil war not in Mali but in neighbouring Algeria in the 1990s.
To cut a really complicated story short, France used to control both Algeria and Mali, along with a bunch of other countries. These two enormous countries neighbour each other across North and West Africa, and both countries are majority Muslim in religion. Mali got independence in 1960, but France was much more reluctant to let go of Algeria because it saw the North African country as being literally part of France, a bit like how England sees Scotland or Northern Ireland. Independence movements were in full swing across the world in the 1950s. Campaigns for independence from Algerian groups led to the Algerian War of Independence against France 1954-1962, which saw terrible violence and torture used by both sides. This war ended with Algerian independence, but not everyone was satisfied.
As early as 1964 militant Islamic movements were demanding that the newly independent Algerian state incorporate Islam even further into its laws, even though Islam was already a central part of Algeria’s constitution. Throughout the 1970s, this militant form of Islamism spread throughout universities, where students were also frustrated by the privileging of French-speaking over Arabic-speaking graduates in terms of scarce jobs. What we saw then, was a continuing resentment of France, whose colonialism and violence in the war was blamed for the bad state things were in, which included for some a wish for stricter Islamic rule. The Algerian government actually encouraged fundamentalist Islam for a time as a counter to left-wing views amongst students, but either way the situation escalated and turned into an all-out extremely violent civil war between Islamist groups and the Algerian government in the 1990s.
The most hard-line of these groups was the Armed Islamic Group (GIA being the French acronym). Their ambitions involved totally overthrowing the Algerian government to establish a full-blown Islamic state, and terror tactics targeting civilians to try to get what they wanted. Fast forward to 1999, and we see the Islamist rebels lose their popular support after years of violence, particularly when the newly Algerian president offered amnesty and forgiveness for those who laid down their weapons.
Most did lay down their weapons, with the exception of a splinter group from the hard-line GIA, because some people just don’t quit. This group was known as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC).
GSPC maintained their presence in the North African region known as the Maghreb, and in 2003 became Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), pledging their allegiance to Al-Qaeda to fight their joint enemy: former coloniser France.
This is a story about militant Islamic groups splintering off from one another and basically taking all the opportunities they can get.
In 2011, a group separated off from Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and became known as the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa. The goal was to focus on spreading their violent interpretation of the normally peaceful Muslim notion of jihad further into West Africa. The group still shared an affinity with leading figures in Al-Qaeda like Osama bin Laden, despite their split from AQIM.
Both AQIM and Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa (MOJWA) were involved in the armed conflict in Mali that began in 2012, and which continues sporadically to the present day.
In 2012, a rebel group led by Tuareg people began fighting the Malian government for independent control of northern parts of Mali.
Tuareg people traditionally lived and moved around the Sahara desert in North Africa, crossing back and forth through international boundaries including northern Mali with their herds. Like many people in Mali, the Tuareg mostly have Muslim beliefs mixed with traditional religions. When Mali and neighbouring African countries became independent around 1960, the land the Tuareg people were used to moving through with their livestock, was divided among the newly independent nations of Nigeria, Mali, Algeria, Libya and Burkina Faso, disrupting their mobile way of life.
Rebellions from certain Tuareg groups had been violently suppressed by the Malian army in the past. However, as more weapons flowed into the region as a consequence of the Libyan civil war in 2012, a Tuareg rebel group was able to lead a military campaign to occupy northern parts of Mali which they wanted independent control over.
This armed Tuareg insurgency was backed by a number of Islamist militant groups, including AQIM and MOJWA. Another important Islamist militant group was Ansar Dine, headed by a Tuareg leader who had been active in earlier unsuccessful Tuareg uprisings, and who is suspected of having links with Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb. MOJWA is also reported to be led by a Tuareg man from Mauritania.
Each of these groups is linked through individuals who are associated with more than one group, but each group tends to have its own ambitions. We can see this in what happened next. These groups worked together to take over northern parts of Mali, and then to successfully drive back the Malian government’s armed forces. After this, however, the Islamist militia groups set about imposing strict Sharia law in the towns they had captured. Sharia law is drawn from Islamic texts. While the Malian constitution draws heavily on Sharia law for its own legal system, the Sharia law imposed by the Islamic militia groups included banning football, music and bars and imposing the wearing of headscarves for all women.
This is not what the Tuareg had in mind for their newly independent country. The Tuareg now began fighting against the Islamic militant groups who had backed the Tuareg insurgency. Eventually, it was a combination of the Islamic militant groups who had control of the northern Mali territories, and not the Tuareg rebels.
Mali’s government had been destabilised by its own army who mutinied over the president’s handling of the crisis in the north. The government now requested France’s help in light of the radical Islamist takeover. France responded by sending in troops in January 2013, earning Hollande great popularity among much of the Malian population. The French-led operation was largely a success and much of the territory was regained within a month. Some analysts are holding up the successful French operation against radical Islamists as a model for how to combat ISIS.
Explore: 7 suggested ways to combat ISIS.
It was also in 2013 that Al-Moubaritoun – the Islamist militant group taking responsibility for the recent Mali attacks – was formed. Instead of a split, this came from a merger between Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa (MOJWA), and another group called the Masked Men Brigade. It was announced in a statement that the merger would “unify the ranks of Muslims around the same goal” and would “rout” France and its allies. This group is mainly made up of Tuareg people.
Mali was able to hold peaceful elections in 2013, and Malian governance resumed a normal state of affairs with the swearing in of current president Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta.
Peace deals were signed in 2013 and then again in February 2015. However, sporadic fighting and terror attacks continued to take place, mainly from the hobbled but still present Islamist groups in the region and associated Tuareg groups who remain poorly integrated in the country.
All in all, between 1,000 and 1,500 people were killed in Mali between 2012 and the present day as part of the conflict started by the Tuareg insurgency. Most casualties being on the side of Islamist militias, and around 500,000 people were displaced.
On 20th November 2015, 170 were taken hostage in the Radisson Blu hotel in the capital of Bamako. Two gunmen have been killed, and twenty-seven bodies have been found.
Al-Mourabitoun, an al-Qaida-affiliated group whose members are mostly Tuaregs and Arabs, has claimed responsibility for the attack. If this turns out to be true, according to the Guardian it will be the “first high-profile such attack by al-Qaeda for some time. The group is trying to steal back some of the limelight and news agenda again, as it once did so effectively.”
ISIS is a breakaway group from Al-Qaeda, and if this is indeed an attempt to upstage IS in light of recent events in Paris, it will be evidence of how the deep rivalry between the group is “responsible for a wave of violence across much of the Islamic world and, as we found out, last week, beyond.”
I skipped to the end, why did these Mali attacks happen?: Violent groups who want to see a stricter version of Islamic rule in North and West Africa and who follow Al-Qaeda’s cause of violent jihad have joined with nationalist causes when the opportunity has arisen. This has do with France’s involvement in countries like Algeria and Mali – where some see France as a continuing Western colonial interference, and others see it as a handy powerful ally. That explains the violence over the years. Some people explain the violence now as an attempt to upstage ISIS who broke away from Al-Qaeda to wage a more violent and more ambitious version of jihad.
Right now your human rights in the UK are protected by the Human Rights Act, passed in 1998.
The act reinforces your right to life, meaning the state is required to investigate suspicious deaths and deaths in custody. It also protects against torture, slavery, unlawful detention and discrimination. It gives you a right to privacy, freedom of speech and a family life, plus a bunch of other stuff.
It means no worries, for the rest of your days.
But it’s no problem free philosophy, because the Conservative government wants to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.
Scenes of Reason made the boring not boring for you. We also spotted something the poster campaigns missed.
The Human Rights Act was passed to bring Britain into line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Let’s be clear – this has nothing to do with the European Union. This is an agreement of the basic rights that all European citizens should have. It was created, with Britain leading the way, after WWII to make sure atrocities such as the Holocaust did not happen again. It’s the job of the European Court of Human Rights to make sure that participating countries like Britain toe the line. This is the bit that the government doesn’t like – we’ll get to that in a minute.
If your human rights have been violated, the Human Rights Act means your case can be heard in the UK courts, rather than having to go straight to the European Court of Human Rights.
Under the Human Rights Act, it is illegal for any UK public authority – including police officers, local authorities, government departments, prisons and social care providers – to ignore your human rights. You can take your case to court if they do so. With one catch, these guys can ignore your human rights if Parliament has passed a law saying that they can.
UK courts can decide that UK legislation is not in line with the human rights contained in the European Convention, but Parliament does not legally have to do anything about it. It’s up to Parliament whether or not to amend that legislation. Similarly, when deciding how UK law fits with the European Convention, the UK courts are not required to follow what the European Court of Human Rights thinks. Instead UK courts just have to “take into account” any decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights.
There is wiggle room in this act.
According to the Conservative party, the wiggle room currently allowed by the Human Rights Act is not enough.
Basically the current UK government doesn’t like being told what to do, or being stopped from doing what it wants to do. The argument is that the European Court of Human Rights has too much power, and tends to interpret human rights law much more loosely than the UK likes.
The previous government was especially annoyed by how long it took to deport Abu Qatada to face terror charges in Jordan, because the European Court of Human Rights ruled that he risked torture and inhumane treatment.
Here are four reasons the Conservatives have put forward for scrapping the act, translated into plain English.
The European Court of Human Rights has developed ‘mission creep’: The Strasbourg Court has gone human rights loco, interpreting the European Convention beyond what the original authors of the Convention ever had in mind. For example, a 2007 ruling required the UK to allow many more prisoners the right to go through artificial insemination with their partners, in order to uphold their rights to a family life under Article 8. According to the Conservative party, “this is not what the originators of the Convention had in mind when they framed that article.”
The Human Rights Act undermines the UK courts. In a nutshell, the government doesn’t like that UK courts have to “take into account” the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights, as it means that “problematic Strasbourg jurisprudence is often being applied in UK law.”
In practice, the Human Rights Act undermines the authority of Parliament. The Conservative argument is that UK courts have sometimes preferred to follow the lead of the European Court of Human Rights when deciding whether UK law complies with human rights or not. This has sometimes meant that the court’s decision went against what Parliament intended when they were writing the law in the first place, and Parliament is supposed to be sovereign.
The Human Rights Act goes beyond the UK’s obligations under the Convention. Decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights are supposed to be binding, meaning that the court can tell the UK to change its laws if they don’t properly fit with the European Convention. There was nothing in the original European Convention that allowed for this. The UK’s authority to control its own law should not be undermined by a European court, it is argued.
This last point is up for debate though. The European Court of Human Rights ruled a decade ago that Britain should allow its prisoners to vote, in order to fit with Article 3 allowing free and fair elections. The UK has seriously contested this ruling and so far no changes have been made to the law. So it’s not true to say that the European Court of Human Rights has the all-out power to force the UK to change its law, because so far it hasn’t been successful in changing Britain’s law on prisoners’ voting rights.
The Conservative party manifesto promised to scrap the Human Rights Act and bring in a British Bill of Rights.
Nobody knows yet what exactly this will involve. We’re expecting a draft this Autumn.
Here’s what the manifesto promised to do:
“The Bill will remain faithful to the basic principles of human rights, which we signed up to in the original European Convention on Human Rights. It will protect basic rights, like the right to a fair trial, and the right to life, which are an essential part of a modern democratic society. But it will reverse the mission creep that has meant human rights law being used for more and more purposes, and often with little regard for the rights of wider society. Among other things the Bill will stop terrorists and other serious foreign criminals who pose a threat to our society from using spurious human rights arguments to prevent deportation.”
If you live in London, Manchester or drive around major motorways, you’ve maybe seen the “I Needed the Human Rights Act” poster campaign.
If you’re like us, you don’t have time to read everything on the posters because the escalators go too fast. So here’s the campaign in full.
The gist is that anyone can need human rights law, and the Human Rights Act was intended to make that more secure for people.
But the poster campaign has missed those who will be most affected. Most affected by the bill will likely be terror suspects and foreign criminals. Like it says in the Conservative manifesto, the plan is to make it harder for these people to appeal to the right not to be tortured or inhumanely treated, or to the right to a family life as grounds not to be deported from the UK.
Put plainly, the British Bill of Rights is likely to make it a lot easier to deport people to places the European Court has judged dangerous or likely to treat their criminals inhumanely.
Even though terror suspects, foreign national prisoners and migrants will see the biggest changes once the Human Rights Act is scrapped, they are not very often included in otherwise very good campaigns like the posters or like this one.
This is understandable: they are what we call the Unpopular Humans. Very few people in society are willing to stand up for the rights of terror suspects or foreign criminals. They don’t make very good poster boys. Some would argue they don’t deserve this kind of fair treatment, or that they are abusing human rights to get around the system.
But for some, it’s how we treat terror suspects or foreign criminals which is a marker of our commitment to humanity. Are these people less deserving of their human rights?
For others, the opportunities these people have had to appeal to their human rights has been an obstruction to Britain’s national security and Britain’s authority to make its own decisions.
Here’s a letter you can sign if you are concerned about this. If you reckon the government is doing the right thing, sit back and relax.
Subscribe below to Scenes of Reason as we’ll be decoding as and when updates come in.
Sign up to our weekly news roundup, The Week: Decoded.
Located in a “legal black hole” on the south eastern coast of Cuba, Guantánamo Bay detention camp is a place most people have heard of, but that’s about it. Finally, an article that answers all your questions on Gitmo in one place.
Guantánamo Bay is not a prison, it’s a detention camp in a US military base. It’s not on US territory – it’s based on the south eastern end of Cuba.
The US and Cuba have a funky relationship. In 1898 domestic pressures and the mysterious sinking of a US battleship pushed the US to get involved in the Cuban fight for Independence from Spain (who used to have an Empire). The result of this war was a US-Cuban treaty allowing the US extensive involvement in Cuba’s international and domestic affairs to protect their independence. So a big country gets a lot of control of a smaller country to ensure that smaller country is independent, doesn’t sound too independent really…
The way it works is that Guantánamo Bay is leased, or rented, to the US who get “complete jurisdiction and control” over the 45 square mile area. It technically belongs to Cuba, but the US can do what they want. According to one source, the total rent for this space as of 2015 adds up to $372, 460. So far Cuba has not cashed any of the US cheques (apart from one by accident in 1959). This is because it doesn’t recognise the US lease. Now the two countries are ‘normalising’ their relationship after decades of the cold shoulder, Cuba wants Guantánamo Bay back. Like we said, funky.
The Guantánamo Bay detention camp was set up in 2002 under President George W. Bush. This came straight after the attack on the World Trade Center. The detention camp was created especially for people caught during President Bush’s new fangled War on Terror and the US invasion of Afghanistan. Lucky them.
As of October 2015, there are 112 detainees. All in all 779 people have been detained there, and all of them are Muslim men and boys. Their ages have ranged from 13 to 89 and around 20 people under the age of 18 have been held there.
As of 2013, only 3 had been convicted of terrorism, and only 6 others were facing charges. The rest have been released or held without being charged with any crime. In most democratic countries, the law says you can only be held for a few weeks without being charged with a specific crime and getting to appear before a judge. It’s part of what is called habeas corpus. Some Guantánamo detainees, of the current 112, have been held without charge for nearly 14 years. The big thing to understand about Guantánamo detainees is that they do not have access to the regular rights that most prisoners get, like having to be charged with a specific crime, having access to a lawyer or getting a fair trial. More on how the hell that’s OK below.
35 detainees have been labelled as too dangerous to be released, but cannot be charged because there is not enough evidence against them. This means they have been designated for ‘indefinite detention’. We’re getting to how this is legal, we promise.
More than half of current detainees were cleared for release over 5 years ago. This includes Shaker Aamer, the last UK resident of Guantánamo Bay. He was only released a few days ago, 5 years after they said he didn’t need to be detained any more and 8 years after he was cleared of charges. This gives you an idea of how slow the process is. This Guardian article does a good job of explaining why it took so very long for Shaker Aamer to be released. The short answer is (1) bureaucracy (crazy paperwork) and (2) government officials who just want to keep Gitmo going. According to a law professor, these officials “believed their own overblown rhetoric about Guantánamo inmates being the worst of the worst.”
That was the claim when Gitmo was set up – that the detention centre was to deal with the US’ number 1 enemies. The thing is, a report published in 2006 by the Centre for Policy and Research found that 92% of Guantánamo detainees had not been Al Qaeda fighters. A 2003 memo, from the same guy (Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld) who was saying these detainees were the “worst of the worst”, stated “We need to stop populating Guantánamo Bay (GTMO) with low-level enemy combatants.”
Yes: Torture was used under the Bush administration, and possibly under the Obama administration. Senior Bush administration officials have said themselves that torture has been used. Former judge Susan Crawford was among the first to say this publicly, when she concluded in 2009 that “the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold.”
A report released in 2014 from the US Senate showed that torture by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was more widespread than that, and not only in Guantánamo bay. “Enhanced interrogation” techniques include waterboarding, keeping the prisoner naked in a cold cell and dousing him with cold water, forcing the prisoner to stand shackled for hours on end (often including sleep deprivation), shaking the prisoner, and two types of slaps to the prisoner. These were authorised by the Bush administration shortly after the attack on the World Trade Center, and were practised in ‘black sites’ across the world, which include Guantánamo Bay. Aaandd again we’ll explain the legalities of this in a bit.
So there is official evidence of torture being used under the Bush administration, although three of these practices were banned whilst George W. Bush was still President. What about Obama?
The remaining three of these “enhanced interrogation” techniques were banned when Barack Obama became US President. He also banned procedures for force feeding hunger-striking detainees, describing them as “torture”.
But throughout his administration, Obama was criticised for allowing a similar force-feeding practice to continue. The criticism came for the United Nations Committee Against Torture and other leading human rights groups, including Reprieve. The celebrity formerly known as Mos Def volunteered to undergo the procedure of being strapped to a chair and fed through a nose-tube, in solidarity with the 45 hunger-striking Guantánamo detainees in 2013.
Guantánamo Bay is renowned for its degrading treatment of detainees. Released detainees have accused the detention camp of ongoing torture, sexual degradation and religious persecution. The last British resident detainee to be released, Shaker Aamer, has announced he won’t be pressing charges against the British government for the maltreatment and torture he claims to have suffered in Guantánamo. These claims include sleep deprivation and being shackled to the floor in sub-zero temperatures. Alex Salmond, the former Scottish first minister, told the Guardian it’s reasonable to believe that the British government knew about this treatment. Not everyone accuses Guantánamo Bay of maltreating its prisoners. According to the Wikipedia page however, a United States House Committee on Armed Services complimented the quality of the food in June 2005.
But then there are quite a few other people, a lot of them lawyers, judges or human rights groups, who are looking at what is (or has been) going on there and saying “Hhmmm I don’t know man it still doesn’t feel all that legal to me.”
There’s just one (super interesting) legal concept you need to wrap your head around to understand the entirety of what’s gone down at GuantánamoBay. Here it comes:
Guantánamo Bay detainees are classed as “unlawful enemy combatants”.
Back-track and let’s explain. After WWII, the countries who had been involved in the war got together to agree the Geneva Convention. This defines the rights people have during war time, particularly if they are prisoners of war (POW).
If you are a prisoner of war, then your rights are covered by the Third Geneva Convention and you have basic rights like humane treatment, being able to communicate with relatives and not being compelled to give any information other than name, age rank and service number.
You don’t get this POW status if you are an unlawful enemy combatant. An unlawful combatant is someone who engages directly in combat in violation of the rules of war. These rules include trying your hardest not to harm people (civilians) who are not directly involved in the war.
If you don’t follow these rules of war, then the Geneva Convention states that a “competent tribunal” (an impartial court that does its job properly) can determine whether you count as a prisoner of war or as an unlawful enemy combatant. Until you are judged to be an unlawful combatant, you have to be treated as having the same rights as a prisoner of war. Innocent until proven guilty?
Once you are judged to be an unlawful enemy combatant, the Bush administration has argued, you have essentially only the rights your captors are willing to allow you, and you can be detained and tried under the domestic law of whatever state has a hold of you.
What this means: If Guantánamo detainees are unlawful combatants then, as far as the US administration is concerned, it’s completely fine (legally speaking) not to give them any rights.
There are a few problems with this.
First, some interpreters argue that if you are not a prisoner of war then you have to be given the rights of a civilian, even if you are ‘unlawful’. Secondly, a whole bunch of courts reckon the Guantánamo detainees have not been properly classified as unlawful combatants, and therefore have been denied rights they should have had.
To be fair, the government did try to do things by the book.
The Bush administration set up Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) in 2004 to determine whether Guantánamo detainees were unlawful combatants. But it didn’t work so well, at least not in the eyes of a few judges. First a US District Court Judge ruled that the CSRTs did not qualify as the competent tribunals needed to make the process lawful. Then a three-judge panel said the CSRTs did qualify as competent. Then a US Supreme Court judge ruled again that they did not qualify as competent tribunals. The conflict kept on going in this happy vein, with another federal district judge ruling in January 2005 that the detainees should have access to the rights granted in the US constitution, including access to a lawyer and the right to see evidence used against them. If this is confusing to you, that’s because if it’s confusing to everyone. If all these judges disagree, is it legal for the US to have detained all these people without access to basic rights?
As for the torture. Torture is against international law. The US is one of the countries to have signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which does what it says on the tin and bans torture.
“Enhanced interrogation techniques”, which is the name given to the methods used by the CIA later recognised as torture by the US authorities, were authorised by the US justice department. These techniques have been alleged to constitute “severe pain or suffering” under the UN convention, which would be a violation of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and thus a violation of US law, because US law is supposed to be in line with the convention. So a US decision saying “enhanced interrogation” was OK violated a US law that said torture was not OK… Were those interrogations legal?
Sorry folks, we’ve not really learned whether this stuff is legal or not. What we have learned is that law has great gaping holes in it, and if a mega powerful country like the US wants to do controversial things in the name of national security, there’s not that much to be done about it.
Yeah he did…
…but, you know how it is. You get elected as US president with all these ideas, and then both the Senate and the Congress (separate houses in US parliament) keep voting against plans to transfer detainees to American soil because they “don’t want them in their backyard“, because a handful of released detainees have re-engaged in terrorist activity, and because the torture and abuses that went on there are “a thing of the past”. Then other countries refuse to accept former Guantánamo detainees, and then terror threat briefings arrive on your desk daily, and you just kind of get tired. Then you sign a few bills which some reckon make it more difficult to close Guantánamo because of restrictions on where to transfer detainees to. The man had good intentions.
The efforts are being stepped up once again though, and new goal is to get it closed before the end of Obama’s administration in 2017. The short-term goal is to get the number of detainees down to under 100 by the end 2015. The release of a number of detainees in recent months is a good sign? Or should national security still be the number 1 priority?
You may be feeling shaken and conflicted after this listicle, but there is one thing you don’t have to feel conflicted about: Subscribe to our newsletter and let us do the explaining. Also Like and Follow for regular decoded news.
The organisation Stop Hate UK defines a “Hate Crime” as a crime “motivated by hostility or prejudice towards any aspect of a person’s identity”
These aspects can include; Race, Disability, Faith, Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation. Why can’t people just learn to get along?
For an act to be classed as a Hate Crime it has to break criminal law.
So if a physical attack is made because of a person’s skin colour, yes, it is a hate crime because the law has been broken.
However if a racist comment is made, it may be categorized as a Hate Incident.
If the police decide no law has been broken then it’s defined as an incident not a crime, but still motivated by hate.
Even though no laws are broken, you’ll still get in trouble. If reported to police they would still record this as a Non Crime Incident. Sorry, there’s no escape for being a racist.
Terrorism; the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Terrorism causes harm to life, buildings and infrastructure, resulting in fear within communities. If acts of terror specifically target a certain group within recognised hate crime strands (Disability, Faith, Gender Identity, Race or Sexual Orientation) then you could define these as Hate Crimes.
In an interview with KCUR.org Professor Steve Dilks from the University of Missouri-Kansas City states; that Terrorist attacks are often planned attacks to draw attention to a political cause, rather than a spontaneous attack for personal reasons. Terrorist attacks are often part of a larger plan.
Even when Hate Crimes are committed by a group, the aim is usually to send a message to people of a certain race, sexuality or gender, not make a specific political point.
In 1999 bombings in Soho, London; targeted the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgender community (LGBT). Because the attacks targeted the LGBT community and ethnic minorities specifically this could be classed as a Hate Crime.
However the bomb set off by the rebel group the IRA (Irish Republican Army) in Manchester’s Arndale shopping centre in 1996, was an Act of Terrorism. This is because it wasn’t aimed at a specific group of people; it was designed to scare and injure as many people as possible, and to make a political statement.
The Small Print: the definition of a Hate Crime is based on perception. Any incident or crime could be reported as being hate motivated by the victim or any other person. Some might argue the IRA attack could be interpreted as a Hate Crime against all British people.
So, can a terrorist attack be a hate crime? Potentially, though usually the motivations behind the attack make it one or the other. Basically, neither is very nice.
Yesterday in South Carolina, America; a white man opened fire on an African-American church, leaving nine people dead. The church’s pastor Senator Clementa Pinckney is among the dead.
At the moment very few details are known. The police have arrested a suspect, Dylann Roof and are investigating the incident as a Hate Crime.
On social media some people are already commenting on how the media is reporting this incident. Many people think that because the shooter was white, the media will report differently than they would if he was of another ethnic group.
Don’t be hatin’
Two West Yorkshire teenagers are the latest in a line of stories in the news about UK teens escaping to Syria to fight on both sides of the conflict with Islamic State. But how are they doing it?
*This is us officially stating, this is in no way a tool, a guide or endorsement. Simply investigative and explanatory journalism.*
IGNORING THE UK GOVERNMENT
The UK’s foreign and commonwealth office advise against ALL travel to Syria.
There is widespread fighting in the majority of the country, air strikes and high threats of kidnapping and terrorism.
It’s not illegal to travel there, just very, very dangerous.
But anyone who has left for Syria and whose activities amount to terrorism under UK law could be prosecuted on return by the UK government.
But hey, what do these guys know? So far it’s thought 600 people from the UK have travelled to Syria and Iraq.
KNOW WHERE YOU’RE GOING
Syria is in the Middle East, next to Iraq and Turkey.
Many of the Brits that have travelled are flying to Turkey and slipping through the border into Syria, which is infamously easy to slip through undetected. Mini-buses shuttle people to remote parts of the country where the border is less well maintained.
Others have gone to the island of Cyprus and then sailed across.
You could always ask an expert: Not everyone has the best knowledge when it comes to these matters – so one individual posted on the Lonely Planet Traveler website asking for information on which borders were open to them.
As S.o.R. reported earlier the UK is bringing in exit checks at all borders. So you’d better have a good reason for travelling.
Some people have claimed they were going on holiday or staying with relatives, whilst others say their reason for travelling is Humanitarian or Charity work
The two West Yorkshire teenagers who travelled to Turkey on 31st March told their families they were going on a school trip. They are now believed to be in Syria fighting with Islamic State.