13.2 C
Monday, June 27, 2022
HomeAll ArticlesBan MQM-A in UK : 10 Downing Street Demonstrators

Ban MQM-A in UK : 10 Downing Street Demonstrators

(By Shahid Qureshi – London Post Report)  A large demonstration in front of 10 Downing Street, the official residence of the British Prime Minister was held against the MQM-A terrorist organization (according to Canadian court) chief Altaf Hussain based in London today. The participants were mostly of Pakistani origin who came in large numbers with their families and children. The demonstration was arranged by political activists Mr Habib Jan and Tariq Mahmood both have been raising voice on this issue. Both presented petitions to the British PM and Metropolitan Police.

Dr Shahid Qureshi senior journalist talking to media at No 10 Downing Street
Dr Shahid Qureshi senior journalist talking to media at No 10 Downing Street

While talking to the media senior journalist Dr Shahid Qureshi said: “UK Government should keep in mind the victims of MQM-A who are threatened as well as  brutally murdered and killed by its terrorist wings including The London Post web editor Faisal Qureshi, Wali Khan Babar (GEO TV), Salahudin (editor of daily Ummat)  . Dozens of Pakistani journalists and their families are threatened by the MQM-A terrorist in Pakistan”.

He further said: “Altaf Hussan has never worked in Britain since 1992 and not paid any taxes, now own properties worth millions? Surely British authorities are very well aware with this and not protecting a ‘toxic asset’ by legal loopholes and also complicit?”

“A terrorist and mass-murderer is at large in the north London suburb of Mill Hill, according to Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. She (Ms Bhutto) refers to him publicly as a “cowardly rat”, and her government has asked Interpol to issue warrants for his arrest and return to Pakistan, where he faces more than 100 criminal charges, ranging from arson to murder and torture. (Altaf) Hussain was born in Karachi in 1953, the son of an Indian Muslim who had been the station master in Agra under the (British) Raj, and who fled to Pakistan at the time of partition. He grew up in a comfortable middle-class household, something he now downplays, preferring to describe himself as Pakistan’s first lower-middle-class politician”, reported Jonathan Ford of The Independent on 13th July 1995.

While Talking to ‘Asia Week, during her visit to Malaysia,’ “Benazir Bhutto said He (Altaf Hussain) has been charged with kidnapping, torture, and murder. We do not believe that it is advisable to talk with him in the initial stage. If he is innocent, as he claims, he should come back and face a trial. His No. 2 man, Azim Tariq, called him a fascist and [Altaf] had him killed.

We have just arrested the people who were involved in that murder. They have described in graphic detail how [Altaf] ordered the murder and how it was carried out. We have now asked Interpol to arrest him and extradite him to Pakistan. But if the process of negotiations leads to peaceful conditions and confidence is built and peace is maintained and sustained, the government could review its position vis-a-vis Altaf Hussain.

Ms Bhutto further said, ‘Our conditions are that [MQM] should surrender their weapons and renounce terrorism. If they do so, they can join the political mainstream. But if they insist on violence, then their cadres will have to spend their lives underground, separated from their families, and be killed in shootouts with the police.”

It is shameful what Zardari regime is doing in ignoring national interests of Pakistan and its people just for a political coalition with a ‘mercenary group’. MQM has caused human and billions economic loss to Pakistan and supported ‘Dictator’ General Musharraf and supported his uniformed presidency.

There is a growing feelings in Pakistan that Britain is supporting and exporting terrorism by harbouring Altaf Hussain with his full fledge 40 plus staff HQ in London.  After the terrorism of 12th May 2007 allegedly unleashed by MQM in which more then 50 people lost their lives and 150 injured. Those killed were from all over Pakistan including a large numbers of Awami National Party members mainly Pakhtuns. An eye for an eye is Pakhtuns tribal tradition as in Iraq too. There is a possibility that relative or relatives of who killed in Karachi, bomb Altaf Huusain and his international Secretariat in Edgware London.

On 16th May 2007, Haji Muhammad Adeel Additional Secretary General of Peshawar based Awami National Party (ANP) alleged that, ‘Altaf Hussain had taken political asylum to obtain British citizenship and had planned a conspiracy in London to kill Pakistanis in Karachi.

“The ANP leader demanded the British Government put the MQM chief on trial for conspiring to kill Pakistanis, wound hundreds of others and to destroy property worth billions of rupees.”  He further said it was amazing that the British Government had banned the activities of organisations like Al-Qaeda, the Khalistan Movement and other militant groups, but had allowed Altaf Hussain to give directives to his “party terrorists” by telephone.”

Imran Khan said, ‘The British government has shown double standards. On the one hand it is fighting a war against terrorism and on the other it has given British citizenship and protection to the number one terrorist of Pakistan.

Altaf Hussain declined interview to this writer on many occasions even an emailed Q&A but he gave an interview to Daily Telegraph London on 15th May 2007 titled “Running Karachi-from London”, “the man in charge of Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi, was at his usual command-and-control post at the weekend, a sofa in north London”. The paper said, “As his fiefdom descended into brutal violence, with the deaths of at least 40 people reported amid the worst political bloodshed Pakistan has witnessed in years, Altaf Hussain directed his followers by telephone from a safe place more than 5,000 miles away”.

The recent Karachi fires and bombings in Ashura processions in 2009, attended by approximately 50,000 people have caused deaths and destructions of innocent people and properties. The targeted killings of opposition group Haqiqi is alarming as MQM has issued thousands of arms licenses to it workers and sympathizers in past few years.

On the basis of probability there is clear evidence that Altaf Hussain is involved in exporting terrorism to Pakistan from British soil, using British resources. His recent telephone speech from London in which he asked his party workers to, ‘get arms and licenses’, for personal protection’. MQM’s ‘Jean Bike Clean Shave Taliban’ has already been issued thousands of licenses and permits by the Sindh government. Critics say MQM and Altaf is a mercenary force protecting foreigners and foreign interests.

Altaf Hissain and many members of his team are British Citizens surely they must have a ‘good moral character’ then British taxpayers ‘Harrods’ owner and businessman Mohammed Al-Fayed father of Dodi Al-fayed whom UK government denied British Nationality!

I asked Amjad Malik a famous British lawyer who represented a religious cleric Shafiq ur Rehman in the House of Lords. In this case cleric was alleged to have exported terrorism in Indian held Kashmir and becoming threat to British National Security by collecting funds for an organization based in Pakistan, fighting against the occupying Indian Army.
It is strange that if Altaf Husain asks ‘people in Pakistan to buy arms’, buy houses worth millions, never paid any taxes for past 17 years and British government don’t act? British government should review its decision and should not harbour terrorists on its soil in the name of freedom speech and let any one abuse British values.

Q: Can British government strip off Altaf Hussain’s British Nationality?

Mr Mailk said, ‘put it this way if a fire brand, campaigns in a negative way which results in mass killings and entails crimes or Acts committed at any time as part of a widespread or systematic attack, directed against any civilian population with knowledge of the attack. This would include offences such as murder, torture, rape, severe deprivation of liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law and enforced disappearance of persons, or involvement in Genocide,  Terrorist activities, or Organisations concerned in terrorism  to advance political aims, the answer is yes, he can be charged and tried here in UK under existing Terrorism laws, and can be stripped off his nationality and may be extradited to the state where those crimes have been committed or the country of his origin subject to some conditions.”

When asked by “Daily Telegraph” why Mr Hussain was not deported to Pakistan before he was granted citizenship, a British diplomat said: “He has not committed a crime on British soil.”

Q: Can Altaf Hussain British Citizen be tried for crimes committed (exporting terrorism) in Pakistan and can his nationality be taken away?

Mr Malik, The answer is yes, Under s.7 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, the Secretary of State had the power to ‘revoke’ a certificate of naturalisation granted by him if he was satisfied that it had been obtained “by false representation or fraud, or by concealment of material circumstances, or that the person to whom the certificate is granted has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty …” This section was a corresponding section of the BNA 1948 was s.20 (deprivation of citizenship) and The deprivation provisions are now contained in s.40 of the BNA 1981.

Mr Malik said, ‘If one is British and or dual national then under s.4 of Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 which amends earlier laws of Nationality Act 1981(s.40)now empowers secretary of State for Home Affairs to deprive a citizen of his citizenship if he is satisfied that the person has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of  the United Kingdom, on accounts of his activities which create danger to public good and or in the interest of national security and being involved in international terrorism is a very serious matter which has repercussions and carry retaliation. A fire brand Muslim Cleric Abu Hamza has been the first victim of this law when then Home Secretary David Blunkett told the media on 5 April 2003 that he has written a letter withdrawing his (Abu Hamza’s) citizenship. Now the question arises if a criminal is wanted by host state and guarantee is given by way of ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ that he will be offered a due process of law in the country of origin and a fair trial and he will not hanged without due process, can he be removed from UK. In theory the answer is yes and it has happened, in practice it is a long exhaustive exercise and involves a long legal battle, but the accused may be detained whilst this all is pending to curtain his criminal activities which occurred on last few cases in UK.”

Q: What options Altaf Hauissain has if Nationality is striped and how can they be challenged?

Mr Malik, ‘in those circumstances one may be charged and asked to face criminal prosecution and a trial before judge and jury in UK and or he may leave UK immediately voluntarily before action is taken like Abu Bakri did, or if any such decision is taken to deprive someone of his nationality, one has the right to appeal before the SIAC (Special Immigrations Appeals Commission) and claim human rights protection under article 3,8 that one may be killed in Pakistan if returned or if sentenced one may face death penalty.

Q: Are you foreseeing any reaction i.e. bombing of his Altaf Hussain’s International Secretariat in Edgware from victim’s families allegedly killed by MQM?

Mr Mailk, “yes, there is a real possibility and fear of reprisals in London as a result of 12th May 2007 terrorists incidents in Karachi which resulted loss of many innocent lives on that day and Britain has only provided lip service to those victims and may be the victims and other groups take retaliatory action to invite British Government’s attention towards taking a stern action to rule out Britain’s position as a safe haven for international terrorists.”

They submitted following petition to the PM house today 15th August 2015.

Mr Habib Jan and Tariq Mahmood presenting petitions
Mr Habib Jan and Tariq Mahmood presenting petitions




Your Excellency,

1.    Due to the widespread shock and anger felt among the Pakistani community in the UK and Pakistan as a result of the leak to the social media of a police document wherein it is revealed that India gave substantial funds to the MQM party over a period of many years ( presumed to be  still ongoing ) – funds which the MQM party used to enable it to carry out its terrorist activities in Pakistan;

We the signatories to this Petition seek that the MQM Political Party of Pakistan be declared a proscribed organisation under  the Terrorism Act 2000 and banned from the UK in line with the decisions by a Canadian Federal Court in the matters of Mohammed and Samimifar v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2006, wherein  the MQM was declared to be a Terrorist Organisation.

We the signatories to this Petition believe that the MQM satisfy the criteria for being declared a Proscribed Organisation by the Home Office according to UK legislation.  We refer you to Schedule 1 to this Petition regarding Proscribed Organisations.

2. Altaf Hussain as Leader of the MQM, a British citizen is able to control MQM’s terrorist activities while sitting in London. Evidence had been given by  Saulat Mirza in relation to allegations of murders committed at the directions of Altaf Hussain.  Evidence has been forthcoming recently from at least 2 MQM workers in relation to the direct orders from Altaf Hussain for the arson and murder of over 260 Factory workers in Baldia Town Karachi, Pakistan in  2012.  The aforementioned clearly need to be properly investigated and will require the arrest and interview by the Metropolitan  Police of Mr Hussain. In addition there have been First Incident Reports filed against Mr Hussain recently in Pakistan in relation to his hate speeches which have been deemed to amount to treason by the Government of Pakistan. Consequently,  Mr Hussain is a ‘wanted man’ in Pakistan.  By staying silent and not doing anything about the outrageous, criminal activities of Mr Altaf Hussain the British Government will be regarded as being complicit in those activities by Pakistanis and the international community.

We the signatories to this Petition seek that Mr Altaf Hussain the MQM Party Leader, residing in London be arrested by the Metropolitan Police and investigated for terrorism offences.

That Altaf Hussain be prosecuted and Indicted for the offences contained in Schedule 2 to this Petition  :
To assist you Prime Minister we the Petitioners’ would urge that you bear in mind the following;

The report of the Home Office Steering Committee’s Review of Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction which includes the following list of criteria which should be used by the Government in deciding whether or not to take extra-territorial jurisdiction in respect of particular offences:

1. Against this background, it is suggested that consideration should be given to taking extra-territorial jurisdiction only where at least one of the following tests was satisfied:

2. Where the offence is serious (this might be defined, in respect of existing offences, by reference to the length of sentence currently available);

3. Where, by virtue of the nature of the offence, the witnesses and evidence necessary for the prosecution are likely to be available in UK territory, even though the offence was committed outside the jurisdiction;

4. Where there is international consensus that certain conduct is reprehensible and that concerted action is needed involving the taking of extra-territorial jurisdiction;

5. Where the vulnerability of the victim makes it particularly important to be able to tackle instances of the offence;

6. Where it appears to be in the interests of the standing and reputation of the UK in the international community;

7. Where there is a danger that the offences would otherwise not be justiciable.

The fact that an offence satisfied one or more of the above guidelines would not positively determine the extension of jurisdiction. But it would suggest that action might be justified, particularly if the practical enforcement issues did not appear to be insurmountable.
We the Signatories to this  Petition ( Schedule 3 ) humbly request that our Petition be actioned

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if Home Secretary believes it is concerned in terrorism. For the purposes of the Act, this means that the organisation:

commits or participates in acts of terrorism;

• prepares for terrorism;

• promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or

• is otherwise concerned in terrorism.

“Terrorism” as defined in the Act, means the use or threat which: involves serious violence against a person; involves serious damage to property; endangers a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the act); creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public; or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. If the statutory test is met, there are other factors which the Secretary of State will take into account when deciding whether or not to exercise the discretion to proscribe. These discretionary factors are:

• the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities;

• the specific threat that it poses to the UK;

• the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas;

• the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK; and

• the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism.

Proscription makes it a criminal offence to:

• belong, or profess to belong, to a proscribed organisation in the UK or overseas (section 11 of the Act);

• invite support for a proscribed organisation (and the support is not, or is not restricted to the provision of money or other property) (section 12(1));

• arrange, manage or assist in arranging or managing a meeting in the knowledge that the meeting is to support or further the activities of a proscribed organisation, or is to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation (section 12(2)); or to address a meeting if the purpose of the address is to encourage support for, or further the activities of, a proscribed organisation (section 12(3));and

• wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such a way or in such circumstances as arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of the proscribed organisation (section 13). The penalties for proscription offences under sections 11 and 12 are a maximum of 10 years in prison and/or a fine. The maximum penalty for a section 13 offence is 6 months in prison and/or a fine not exceeding £5,000. Proscription can support other disruptive activity including the use of immigration powers such as exclusion, prosecution for other offences, encouraging removal of on-line material, messaging and EU asset freezes. The resources of a proscribed organisation are terrorist property and are, therefore, liable to be seized.
1. Inciting terrorism overseas

(Terrorism Act 2000 s.59)

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he incites another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, and

(b)the act would, if committed in England and Wales, constitute one of the offences listed in subsection (2).

(2)Those offences are—


(b)an offence under section 18 of the Offences against the [1861 c. 100.] Person Act 1861 (wounding with intent),

(c)an offence under section 23 or 24 of that Act (poison),

(d)an offence under section 28 or 29 of that Act (explosions), and

(e)an offence under section 1(2) of the [1971 c. 48.] Criminal Damage Act 1971 (endangering life by damaging property).

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to any penalty to which he would be liable on conviction of the offence listed in subsection (2) which corresponds to the act which he incites.

(4)For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether or not the person incited is in the United Kingdom at the time of the incitement.

(5)Nothing in this section imposes criminal liability on any person acting on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown.
2. Preparation of terrorist acts

(Terrorism Act 2006 s.5)

(1)A person commits an offence if, with the intention of—

(a)committing acts of terrorism, or

(b)assisting another to commit such acts,

he engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to his intention.

(2)It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsection (1) whether the intention and preparations relate to one or more particular acts of terrorism, acts of terrorism of a particular description or acts of terrorism generally.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
3.  Information about acts of terrorism

(Terrorism Act 2000 s.38B)
(1)This section applies where a person has information which he knows or believes might be of material assistance—

(a)in preventing the commission by another person of an act of terrorism, or

(b)in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another person, in the United Kingdom, for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
4. Fund-raising.

(Terrorism Act 2000 s.15)

(1)A person commits an offence if he—

(a)invites another to provide money or other property, and

(b)intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.

(2)A person commits an offence if he—

(a)receives money or other property, and

(b)intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.

(3)A person commits an offence if he—

(a)provides money or other property, and

(b)knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

(4)In this section a reference to the provision of money or other property is a reference to its being given, lent or otherwise made available, whether or not for consideration.
5. Conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm / conspiracy to wound with intent to cause GBH
S.1A of the Criminal Law Act 1977  and Section 18 Offences

against the persons act 1861 :

1A of the Criminal Law Act 1977 which provides that where (a) that act or

event would be an offence by the law of that other country and (b) it

would also be an offence here (but for the fact that it takes place outside

the jurisdiction), then a person in England and Wales who becomes a

party to the agreement or, being a party, does anything in pursuance of

the agreement (even before its formation) can be charged with

conspiracy contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.



- Advertisment -

Most Popular

Recent Comments

    WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com