A US jury has recently delivered a unanimous ‘guilty’ verdict on all 11 charges against terrorist leader Mustafa Kamel Mustafa, a.k.a. Abu Hamza Al-Masri. In consequence, there is now every chance that the Islamist will spend the rest of his life in prison.
Much has already been written about the unusual length of time, the incredible efforts and inordinate expenditure that were needed to reach this result. Provided with good lawyers, the terrorist used every trick in the book, not necessarily to prove his innocence – that would have been impossible – but to impede, obstruct and delay the course of justice. There is nothing interesting that we can add to what has already been said about that – we can only register our sneer at the ridiculous ‘legal’ system that allows a proven terrorist to mock justice for so long.
But, of course, the only reason Abu Hamza could abuse all those ridiculous ‘protections’ was that he was a British citizen. Needless to say, in his native Egypt he would long ago have faced an execution squad, at best after the formality of a trial. The question is – how and why has this man been allowed to reside in Britain – let alone become a British citizen?
Let’s review the facts: the future Al-Qaeda supporter arrived in Brighton on a student visa in 1979, coming from Egypt (where he had experienced neither oppression nor hardship – or at least no more than any other Egyptian). He was awarded British citizenship the next year, after marrying a British woman – a convert to Islam. It is not known who converted her – or how many British passport-holding converts has Abu Hamza himself later delivered, to provide his fellow Jihadists with the ‘protection’ of a country they hated and despised.
Whatever the truth about his marriage, we may never know; it is very doubtful that the Home Office knew, before bestowing British citizenship upon 22-years-old Mustafa Kamel Mustafa. The fresh couple had no children and were soon divorced – which of course did not affect young Mustafa’s citizenship rights. He proceeded to marry a Moroccan woman, with whom he had seven children – four of whom have already spent time in prison, as did Abu Hamza’s stepson. The latter, along with Abu Hamza’s eldest, has been convicted for attempting to blow up churches in Yemen.
As for the pater familias himself, he was implicated in crimes ranging from the abduction of Western hostages (four were killed) to recruiting terrorists for Al-Qaeda. Endowed with the freedom of speech of a British and European citizen, he proceeded to use it to preach hate at the Finsbury Park Mosque, teaching his disciples – among other things – that:
Allah likes those who believe in Him who kill those who do not believe in Him. Allah likes that. So if you Muslims don’t like that because you hate the blood, there is something wrong with you.
It is impossible to calculate how much the decision to welcome this criminal into Britain has cost, in blood and suffering. As for money, it is known that the state-funded defence for just one of the Jihadist’s ‘legal battles’ cost in excess of £ 1 million. And while he will now avail himself of the warm hospitality of the US Federal Bureau of Prisons, his family – convicted felons and all – will continue to live in their £1.25million five-bedroom council house in Shepherd’s Bush, West London, and receive from taxpayers like myself tens of thousands of pounds in various benefits.
Abu Hamza’s case may be recent and prominent; but it is neither the first, not – there is every reason to suspect – the last of such cases. Cynically exploiting legal loopholes and a climate of tolerance, Jihadists have turned London not just into a safe haven – but into a genuine command and control centre for their operations.
The case of Abu Qatada is almost as famous as that of Abu Hamza. Less well remembered is perhaps Khalid al-Fawwaz, sent to London in 1994 by Osama bin-Laden and appointed to head one of Al-Qaeda’s media outlets — the ‘Advice and Reform Committee’. Abu Musab al-Suri also operated from London – in between terrorist attacks that he perpetrated in Spain.
The list could continue and expand over many pages. But what good is looking into the past, except for learning a lesson for the future? While you are reading this, a fresh batch of Jihadists are working their way towards British residency and perhaps citizenship: since the latest turn in Egyptian politics has reduced them again to the status of hunted outlaws, many Muslim Brotherhood militants have – either through HM Government’s connivance or through its negligence – removed their abode to London.
Even the organisation’s ‘Supreme Guide’ Gomaa Amin has found shelter in London. According to The Telegraph,
He is now residing at an undisclosed address from which he is trying to orchestrate the Muslim Brotherhood’s response to the coup.
The newspaper proceeds to inform that
The presence of Mr Amin in London is a potential headache for British authorities who may be obliged to provide protection for such a senior and controversial figure.The Muslim Brotherhood supports a caliphate, a unified Islamic state under Sharia law, and has been accused of fuelling religious tensions in the Middle East, particularly with the Christian minority.
What I don’t quite understand is: why are the British authorities ‘obliged to provide protection’ to the leader of an organisation which, at the very least, can only be described as ‘extremist’ and ‘an enemy of democracy’ in its designs and aims?? Who exactly ‘obliges’ the British authorities? Last time I’ve looked, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was still a sovereign state, master of its own ways, laws and decisions.
One of the most basic duties of a government is to protect its citizens’ security – among other things by preventing enemies from infiltrating and harming the country from within. Her Majesty’s Government obviously needs reminding of that basic duty. Let us just hope that that reminder will be a resounding ‘Enough!’ collectively uttered by the British public – and not the reverberations of another Jihadist attack.