Although Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), a Tier-III terrorist organization at the direct instruction of convicted terrorist Tarique Rahman has been continuing subversive and terrorist acts in Bangladesh, Bangladesh High Commission in the United Kingdom, including High Commissioner Saida Muna Tasneem, who has been serving in the role since November 2018 and other members of the mission are totally reluctant or at least lethargic in taking any steps by raising concern with the UK authorities as well as interacting with the members of the media in London showing evidences of how innocent people are being regularly murdered by Tarique Rahman’s men in Bangladesh.
It may be mentioned here that, inciting violence in another country from the UK’s soil can potentially lead to legal repercussions. UK law prohibits actions that could incite violence or promote terrorism, regardless of where those actions are carried out or directed.
The UK has laws that address activities related to incitement to violence, terrorism, and hate speech, among others. The Terrorism Act 2006, for instance, criminalizes actions that encourage or incite terrorism, including actions that might occur outside the UK but are orchestrated from within the country.
Moreover, the UK’s laws regarding hate speech and incitement to violence are comprehensive. If an individual residing in the UK incites violence in another country through public statements, online activities, or any other means, they might face legal consequences under UK law.
However, legal issues that span international boundaries can be complex and may involve diplomatic and jurisdictional challenges. Investigations and legal actions in such cases may depend on various factors, including the nature of the incitement, the targeted country’s laws, and the evidence available.
It’s essential to note that each case is unique, and legal advice from a qualified attorney with expertise in international law and related areas would be crucial for understanding the specifics and potential legal implications in a particular situation.
It may be further mentioned here that, in the United Kingdom, inciting violence, promoting terrorism, or engaging in hate speech are considered serious offenses and are addressed under various laws. When it comes to actions inciting violence in other countries from the UK’s soil, several legal references and statutes come into play:
Terrorism Act 2006: This legislation makes it an offense to encourage, glorify, or justify terrorism, including actions that take place outside the UK. Section 59 of the Terrorism Act 2006 specifically addresses acts committed outside the UK by UK nationals or residents and can lead to prosecution in the UK.
Serious Crime Act 2007: This act provides measures to prevent people from encouraging or assisting the commission of crimes, including violent offenses, whether committed in the UK or abroad.
Public Order Act 1986: This act includes provisions that address incitement to racial hatred, religious hatred, and stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. Such offenses are prosecutable in the UK irrespective of where the incitement is directed.
Communications Act 2003: The Communications Act addresses malicious communications, which includes the sending of threatening, offensive, or menacing messages. If such communications incite violence or promote terrorism, they can be prosecuted under this act.
These legal provisions are designed to prevent individuals from using UK territory to incite violence, hatred, or terrorism in other countries. The laws are broad and cover various forms of communication, including online activities, public statements, and other means of dissemination.
When investigating cases involving incitement to violence in other countries from the UK, law enforcement agencies may collaborate with international authorities. However, legal complexities can arise due to jurisdictional issues and the differences in laws between countries.
Each case will be examined based on its individual circumstances, and legal advice from an attorney with expertise in international law or criminal defense would be necessary to understand the specific implications and potential consequences.
It may be further mentioned here that, few years ago when a Pakistani named Altaf Hussain was running similar terrorist activities under the banner of Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), Islamabad brought the matter to attention of the UK authorities as well as leading media outlets. Subsequently, Altaf Hussain was compelled to stop his dangerous acts of terrorism, while he also faced legal consequences in Britain.
Though BNP kingpin and convicted terrorist Tarique Rahman’s actions are similar to those of Altaf Hussain, it is essential to ask – why Bangladesh High Commission in London is totally silent on this matter. Through this silence, are they trying to skip BNP and Tarique Rahman’s rivalry?
