The Case Against Asma al-Assad: A Darker Motive Behind Calls for Her Citizenship to be Revoked…?

Posted: April 24, 2017 in (All Things) CULTURE, (Politics) CURRENT AFFAIRS
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

I posted up an old video of Asma al-Assad last week, because I thought her sentiments in the recording really resonated with what has been going on in Syria and the Middle East in recent years.

I didn’t know, however, that a couple of days later the UK newspapers would feature sudden articles calling for the British-born Syrian First Lady to be punished for her marriage to Syria’s President and her contradictions of the Western narratives on the Syrian crisis.

The manner in which most of the newspapers appear to have covered this story presents an incredibly one-sided picture, some even asking whether Asma al-Assad should be considered a ‘War Criminal’. Some of this is almost comically misguided in terms of the language used; but there is a more serious, worrying aspect to this story, which I will come to at the end.

Essentially, this is simply another element in the continuing propaganda jigsaw of Syrian regime-change. The Syrian president is already widely denounced as a butcher and tyrant, so it makes sense to also denounce everyone around him and to try to resolve the slightly awkward issue of his British-born wife and her failure to renounce her husband.

But I would respect the idea more if they simply suggested Mrs Assad should have her citizenship revoked on account of being an Enemy Agent or an ‘enemy collaborator’ or something like that: instead of trying to couch the idea in more of the same regime-change propaganda, unproven claims and woefully one-sided portrayal of the War in Syria.

Typifying this woefully simplistic, child-like narrative, Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi wrote a few days ago, ‘Asma al-Assad is a cheerleader for evil. Her UK citizenship should be revoked’.

It continues, ‘As one of her husband’s chief cheerleaders in his murderous campaign of oppression, Asma al-Assad is no longer worthy of British citizenship. Not when she has used her platform on social media to defend her husband, deny his use of chemical weapons and attack the West…’

All of this is framed, of course, as if Bashar Assad is absolutely, categorically responsible for the Idlib chemical attack – a narrative that has already been widely undermined. At any rate, there hasn’t been any independent investigation of the Idlib attack yet – but the newspapers don’t mention that when they cite Asma al-Assad ‘denial’ of the chemical attack.

Asma al-Assad, we should note, hasn’t actually committed a crime, so far as we know. And there is no argument being made that she is any kind of threat to British citizens or British society. What’s also highly significant is that Asma al-Assad is British by birth – she was born in London, not a foreign national who was granted British citizenship.

Aside from this issue of Asma al-Assad, we should also be more broadly concerned about the ability of a government official or office having the power to arbitrarily strip someone of their citizenship. Particularly as we have a government that just passed the highly criticized Investigatory Powers Bill and a Prime Minister who has previously authorized the arrest and detainment of journalists under the ‘Terrorism Act’.

Barrister and immigration law specialist, Colin Yeo, has assessed this subject on his website.

The legislation by which someone like Asma al-Assad could be stripped of citizenship is very broad, giving the Home Secretary absolute power to remove citizenship from someone if it is deemed to be ‘conducive to the public good’. As Mr Yeo points out, the criteria for this has lessened substantially since 2006 and it is now much easier for it to be done.

He describes the notion of using this legislation against Asma al-Assad as ‘a dangerous path down which to go. All previous public good deprivation cases seem to have involved personal involvement in very serious crimes or terrorism. There is no suggestion that Mrs al-Assad has any such involvement, only that she has voiced her support for the Syrian government and its actions.’

He continues, ‘Expressions of political opinion or political loyalty should not be sufficient for citizenship to be taken away… She is British by birth, not by later naturalisation or registration.’ He adds, ‘Her children should also be British citizens by virtue of section 2(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981.’

I also wonder, however, if this call to revoke Asma al-Assad’s citizenship may signal something to come in regard to Western intervention in Syria.

And this, as I hinted at earlier, is where this whole matter could get a lot darker than just silly propaganda in newspapers.

Although, so long as Russian support for the Syrian government continues, it probably won’t happen, I’ve been wondering what would happen if regime-change in Syria went ahead. Forgive me for being a little grim here, but, assuming that President Assad and the regime would never surrender, a forced regime-change via military action could go the Libya way, with Assad himself and other regime figures being rounded up or executed by Western-backed rebel opposition forces, or it could go the Iraq way, with a more orderly removal of the state, ending with Bashar Assad and others undergoing trials and, like Saddam Hussein, being put to death for their alleged crimes.

Were that to ever be the outcome, the revoking of Asma al-Assad’s British citizenship would leave her in an extraordinarily vulnerable situation.

I’m only speculating, but I imagine that, after the fall of Damascus, the British government would not want Asma al-Assad coming back to the UK and potentially giving interviews, writing a book, or generally saying anything about what has gone on in Syria since 2011. They would not want her to be a sympathetic figure or to help humanise the Syrian presidency to Western audiences.

And I tend to wonder if this talk of her British citizenship now might be a signal of very bad things to come.

The actor – and pretend Foreign Secretary – Boris Johnson said something worrying in parliament on Tuesday. Briefing MPs on the situations in Syria and North Korea, he was asked what would happen if the American administration went to war in Syria – specifically, whether British parliament would take the same position as it did in 2013 and vote against involvement in regime-change.

Johnson’s answer wasn’t very encouraging. Essentially, if President Trump was to declare a military intervention to oust Assad tomorrow and he asked for British involvement, according to Boris Johnson’s statement, “it would be very difficult for the United Kingdom to say no.”

There’s also the issue of parliament. Ed Miliband isn’t there anymore to vote against intervention like he did in 2013.

Bear in mind also that Theresa May’s sudden, ‘snap election’ on June 8th could – if pundits are to be believed – see a decimation of the Labour Party across the country and May’s party completely dominate both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. This would re-shape parliament drastically, meaning that there might not be anything like the numbers of opposition ministers necessary to oppose a Syrian intervention.

Someone already suggested to me on Tuesday that a planned or foreseen action in Syria might be Theresa May’s motive for calling this surprise election – specifically so her government can avoid the problem that Cameron’s government had in 2013 when he was thwarted on military action against Assad’s government.

While I personally don’t think this would be the sole reason for her calling an election on June 8th, I do think it may be a factor in her decision.

______________

Advertisements
Comments
  1. ebehere says:

    England = Rothschild Zionism

    Like

  2. truthaholics says:

    Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
    “The actor – and pretend Foreign Secretary – Boris Johnson said something worrying in parliament on Tuesday. Briefing MPs on the situations in Syria and North Korea, he was asked what would happen if the American administration went to war in Syria – specifically, whether British parliament would take the same position as it did in 2013 and vote against involvement in regime-change.

    Johnson’s answer wasn’t very encouraging. Essentially, if President Trump was to declare a military intervention to oust Assad tomorrow and he asked for British involvement, according to Boris Johnson’s statement, “it would be very difficult for the United Kingdom to say no.””

    Like

  3. migarium says:

    There is a famous woman in Syria history, my Earthling friend. Her name is Zenobia, I guess it is pronounced as Zennubia. She knows as Queen mother of Palmyra, lived in 250’s AD. She is kind of hero for Syrians at history. Because she never accepted to be defeated. Even, when the Romans couldn’t defeat her, they use some tricks, and with Roman emperor Aurelian’s cheats she was captured and taken captive. For her many stories have been told by historians. Common point of them, which is we can be sure this knowledge is true, is that she was led away inside of cage and she was exhibited for the advertisement of Aurelian’s victory at the cities when she passed. Also, it is being said that, she was enchained with golden chain in the cage. Why she is kind of hero? Because it is being said for her captivity years in Rome, when Romans asked her why she didn’t accept some privileges which were offered by Romans and why she didn’t accept to surrender, she replied them: “…If you remain stateless, you will live without honor. To die is more honorable than a stateless and dishonored life.”

    As far as I’ve heard and read, Syrian people in todays, they see Asma al-Assad as today’s Zenobia. It is important I think. The people of the region identify the attacks of the western imperialism with the likes of the past. Because after then it means that any assault verbally to Asma al-Assad would be perceived as the assault against the Syrian people. Even, I am saying just as a foresight, after these times, Asma al-Assad could be a new president for new Syria, if these attacks goes on to her, and as long as her husband is showed as loser, countinusly. The west may have created new hero without even realizing.

    Also, I think that if these people with authority, the people who came with the support of the public or the votes of the people, act through such a small accounts with cheap acts, also try to drive Asma Al-Assad or any person into a corner, shows that they are very small people.(not size, as character:))

    Like

  4. I think you’re right again – the push for war is more than likely another hugely important factor in calling this snap election. Not that May is necessarily on board with that part of the programme – being an opportunist combined with the other issues such as the charges of election fraud is enough to account for her own decision.

    But for the powers behind the throne I think there is something altogether sinister behind this move. A sense that is being picked up almost unconsciously by our increasingly bonkers news media. So, at the weekend the BBC was seriously asking Corbyn if he would launch a nuclear war and then today, when Fallon was saying how he’d love to start one, it was reported matter of factly just as though pushing the button is what any rational politician should be preparing to do. That’s some measure of the insanity we currently face.

    It’s also why I believe it’s more important than ever to get behind Corbyn in determined efforts to avert disaster or even (here’s hoping) to reverse it – certainly, I don’t think we should give up on the election too easily, Corbyn is a far better candidate than Miliband was and I feel sure he’d win hands down if it wasn’t for the complications over Scottish independence (Blair’s fault), Brexit and the non-stop treachery within his own party (Mandelson was whining on Newsnight earlier – I couldn’t watch it to be honest).

    Thanks again for another excellent piece – hope you don’t mind me adding my two cents.

    Like

    • No, WoC – always add your two cents, please. I am actually beginning to think Corbyn may be in with a better shot than it first appeared. I actually also thought Miliband was a decent candidate too; though, in terms of countering the prevailing programme, Corbyn is obviously better.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. sand49 says:

    Reblogged this on sand49.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s