By: Frederick Forsyth Published: Fri, August 29, 2014 Boris Johnson is RIGHT: If you go to Syria or Iraq you MUST tell Britain why youre going I AM frequently surprised by the docility with which our media accept complete claptrap so long as it comes from a lawyer. Some days ago Boris Johnson proposed that we British have a right to change our law to decree that someone who secretly slips away to Syria without explaining why may be presumed to have gone there to volunteer to enlist in the forces of the Islamic Caliphate. That being so, he proposed, we could decide that he (as it would almost certainly be a male) had chosen to forfeit his British nationality and that it could and should then be withdrawn. At once, Left-wing luvvie lawyer Geoffrey Robertson denounced the blond one, rabbiting on about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law being a legal tradition that was completely inviolable. Then the former Attorney General Dominic Grieve joined in with the same nonsense. Their view is a common fallacy. There are, to start with, three areas where the accused has to prove innocence or non-responsibility. If you are accused by the Inland Revenue of owing them money, and you deny it, you have to prove that you don’t, not the other way round. If you refuse to prove it and refuse to pay up, you will be judged to be in arrears, then a tax evader and could be jailed. The burden of proof is on you. There is a swathe of traffic violations of which you can be accused and again imprisoned if you do not pay the fine. The authorities do not have to prove you were at the wheel of the photographed speeding car; you have to prove that you were not – the Liberal Democrat former MP Chris Huhne got into a spot of bother about that one. And if you are accused of being the father of an unborn baby, the burden of proof is on you (the male) to prove otherwise. Nowadays, of course, a simple DNA test will settle the matter beyond doubt. But if you refuse to supply that DNA sample, no one has to prove that you are the father; a judge will award a paternity maintenance order against you if you cannot prove you are not the father. And there is more to it than that. The United States, which is not a dictatorship, has a law that says if you enlist in the armed forces of a state or force hostile to the US, you forfeit your citizenship. Boris Johnson was not proposing that anyone going to Syria lose their British statehood – only that those refusing to explain why should do so. We have as a cornerstone of British law the concept of “reasonable”. A jury is not charged to come up with a verdict of absolute certainty; only of having come to a viewpoint “beyond reasonable doubt”. The criterion of “reason” within the mind of the “reasonable man” (or woman obviously) is the key. So if a young Muslim slips away from home and job, flies to Turkey, takes the long, hard journey right across from Istanbul to the Syrian border, slips across that border between official crossing points and enters Syria, what has he gone for? As a BBC cameraman? No. As a freelance correspondent? No. As an aid worker? No. Then to enlist with Islamic State. It is beyond a reasonable doubt. If he still has a viable alternative reason, let him present it. The forces of Jihadism have repeatedly declared war on the West; on Christians and Jews; on our society. After 1945 we hanged Brits who had fought for the Nazis. Removal of citizenship is a lot less than that. Let volunteers for Jihadism settle in the Islamic State and take their chances with it.
Posted on: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 09:51:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015