The move to strip citizenship of terrorists by some Arab and foreign countries sparked a fierce debate over the legitimacy of such a move.
There are some Islamic jurisprudents who say anyone who commits such gave crimes should face deportation or banishment within the country or deprivation of some rights such as housing and financial privileges. There are different punishments based on the laws prevailing in each country. The Netherlands and Britain have started stripping citizenship of terrorists. Britain considers citizenship a privilege and not a right.
Apart from the legal complexities, the scourge of terrorism is deemed as a violation of the terms and conditions that qualify an individual for citizenship. Posing any threat to the security of one's country is a valid reason for divesting his right to citizenship.
The most important condition to enjoy citizenship, acquired either by birth or residence, is for the concerned citizen not to have taken part in any activity that undermines the country's security.
Some Muslims in Europe might have been subjected to these procedures because of their alleged affiliation to terrorist organizations. Of course, their association with terrorist outfits would be a threat to the security of those countries that granted them citizenship as a privilege.
Taking action against such individuals will lead to enduring problems. This happens especially when the country of origin strips such individuals of their citizenship or slaps a ban on their return to the country. In such a scenario, no other country would be willing to grant them political asylum or even temporary stay.
Every country has a right to ensure its security in line with the criteria envisaged in its constitution and laws of the land, even if human rights organizations condemn it for rights violations. The issue is a thorny and complicated one. We can see that some countries, such as Britain, earlier harbored terrorists as well as those who were opposed to the country on the basis that their constitution guarantees protection to refugees who are driven away from their countries and those who will be subjected to persecution and even death in the event they are sent back to their country of origin. But these justifications have no validity when considering the fact that such people are posing a threat to the security of the host countries in the name of personal freedom.
We do not know how Britain or other countries will scrutinize the identities of refugees in the future. Britain recently announced its decision to raise terror alert level from substantial to severe. Here, the tragedy is that there is no precise definition about who is a terrorist and there is no general consensus on the features of terrorism.
Israel is an example of a country that sponsors and carries out state terrorism. Iran is another country that discriminates against its citizens who are of Arab origin regardless of whether they are Sunni or Shiite. Countries like Iraq and Syria also come under the definition of harboring some forms of terrorism. Is it possible to take punitive measures against such countries? We know that there are several countries that have misused both individuals and organizations for espionage or to take revenge on the pretext of serving national interests and protecting their security. Britain, Germany and the United States were behind the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood. Similarly, the erstwhile Soviet Union supported leftist extremists who engaged in kidnapping, killing and other disruptive activities . No doubt, uprooting rights of an individual by stripping him of his citizenship will have serious psychological impacts. But no country can defend such rights of an individual by putting the country's security at stake. The state has to uphold its security interests above all else.
