Deportation not fair, says extremist (on benefits)
An extreme Muslim cleric whose family have been living on benefits in Britain for 20 years says it would not be ‘fair’ to deport him.
Speaking after the Prime Minister announced his clampdown, father-of-seven Sheik Omar Bakri said: “I have wives, children, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law. It would be hard on my family if I was deported.”
Since Syrian-born Bakri settled in Britain, he and his extended family have raked in benefits amounting to at least £300,000.
Bakri, who lives in a £200,000 home in North London, tops up his £250-a-week benefit payments with an extra £50 incapacity allowance.
He has praised the September 11 terrorists as ‘magnificent’, called Israel ‘a cancer’ and said homosexuals should be ‘thrown from Big Ben’.
In January, he declared that Britain had become a ‘land of war’, and called on Muslims to unite behind Al Qaeda. He has supported suicide bombings and urged his followers to kill non-Muslims ‘ wherever, whenever’.
He also claimed he has no wish to stay in Britain, but his family would suffer if he was deported.
Not only does this guy and his family get cash – - he also got a car. I mean we wouldn’t want him to miss his terror meetings or anything like that.
How is deporting him unfair? It isn’t.
He has clearly stated he supports terrorism, not only against the US, Great Britain but also the world . I say let Osama, the Taliban or Al Qaeda pick up the tab for him and his family.
For some reason my trackback isn’t coming through. I’ve linked this story to my post here:
http://joscafe.com/2005/08/07/linking-love-from-jo/
This cleric is lucky he isn’t just plain lynched.
Such a tough situation, certainly we want him gone, but at the expense of free speech? If this were in the US, you would have to apply this to the White power freaks that say things no less repugnant, then where?
Trouble is that if you put a limit on what you can say and what you cant these people are not stupid, they will say what they can and not a word more, the message still gets through.
Unfortunately the war on terror is fraught with these dilemma’s and impasses. The target is never standing still the enemy is so fluid, so adaptable, it is not hindered by conventional forces or laws. Actions like those of the copycats London bombers may well be stopped by these measures, but not the 7/7.
3, Fred, the galling thing is that the man exists solely on money taken from the very victims of this violence. He is an ingrate and should be, in the very least, cut off from the dole. Let him take his family back to his country of origin if Britain is so bad.
Yep, I admit it is indeed galling. Trouble is do you really want to change the laws of the land on a case by case basis?
5, I have always thought that when you are on the dole, the society funding you has a right to demand you modify your behaviours to conform with the accepted norm. In this case, the man preaches sedition and treason. There is no need to change the laws. Just give him the boot to his former country.
See there you and I disagree, your reliance on a society should not infringe on your rights. Are we not all created equal? You would chose to disenfranchise those genuinely in need or suffering from permanent or temporary disability just to shut up this idiot. More so would his spouting be any more palatable if he was holding down a job and paying his own way? If we are passing laws to legislate against his kind of rhetoric but then only applying it to the ones who are disadvantaged then already we are guilty of not upholding the principle intent of this new law, which is to eradicate the terrorist threat.
7, should society support the drunkard without demanding his reform? Should society demand that the slacker take work to earn his keep? Look at it from that perspective.
Last time I checked a right to drink or to not work were not protected rights in either the UK or the US constitution.