Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/6/2005 1:09:36 AM EDT
Deportation not fair, says extremist (on benefits)
by GRAEME WILSON, Daily Mail
6th August 2005
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=358382&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
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.

He is registered disabled because of an injury to his leg during his childhood, and was recently supplied with a £31,000 Ford Galaxy under the Motability scheme.

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.

"If they want to change the law and say that people who are here must live within the framework of those rules, then that is fine," said the 45-year-old cleric.

"But they cannot punish people by backdating it for 20 years or so.

"That is not a smart or fair system. Tony Blair should have charged me years ago if that was the case. He did not because I had done nothing wrong."

Bakri also claimed he had tried to dissuade affected young Muslims from carrying out terror attacks in Britain, by telling them that under Islamic law it would be wrong to target a country in which they were living.

'You're going to go back'

Blair unveiled the tough crackdown on those who inspire Islamic terrorism and pledged to amend the Human Rights Act if the courts try to use it to block deportations.

Speaking in Downing Street, Mr Blair said he is ready to recall Parliament next month to drive the new laws through as quickly as possible.

He declared: "Let no one be in any doubt that the rules of the games are changing. People can't come here and abuse our good nature and our tolerance.

"They can't come here and start inciting our young people in communities to take up violence against British people here. And if you do that, you're going to go back."

The proposals include:

• Deporting foreigners who foster hate, or advocate or justify violence.

•Throwing out those linked to extremist websites, groups, bookshops or centres.

• Banning foreign extremist preachers from Britain.

•Closing mosques and places of worship if used for 'fomenting extremism'.

•Outlawing worldwide the condoning or glorifying of terrorism.

• Refusing asylum to anyone linked to terrorism.

• Stripping citizenship from extremist naturalised Britons.

• Banning extremist Islamic groups Hizb ut Tahrir and Al-Muhajiroun.

Previous attempts to deport Islamic hardliners have been derailed because judges have ruled they could face torture in countries such as Jordan, Algeria or Lebanon - and that would breach the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Blair said he hoped the courts would allow deportations if Britain can get pledges from the ten countries involved that deportees will not be maltreated. French and Spanish courts allow such deportations.

And he made clear he is ready for a 'battle' with the courts. "Should legal obstacles arise, we will legislate further, including, if necessary, amending the Human Rights Act in respect of the interpretation of the ECHR."

Why was action not taken sooner?

In addition, ministers will introduce laws to allow appeals against deportation to be heard after a person has been thrown out.

And a maximum time limit will be imposed on cases to extradite terror suspects from Britain to other countries.

Mr Blair highlighted the case of Rachid Ramda, wanted by the French for the Paris bombings in 1995, but still in a British jail. It was 'totally unacceptable' that his case had dragged on for ten years.

The Government's intelligence and security co-ordinator Bill Jeffrey will head a unit of senior officials who will drive the crackdown through. Mr Blair also entered the debate on multi-culturalism, saying it is vital different communities are properly integrated.

He said he was 'worried' when he heard about people who had lived in Britain for 20 years but still did not speak English.

"There is a problem when people withdraw from the common culture and become separate in a very deliberate way - that's unhealthy," he said.

He was confident most Muslims would accept the new measures. "They know perfectly well these people are a menace to their own community, never mind to the rest of us."

His message contrasts with that of his lawyer wife Cherie last week, when she warned it would be "all too easy to respond to such terror in a way which undermines commitment to our most deeply-held values".

And Mr Blair ducked questions about why ministers had not acted sooner against hardliners.

He instead argued that Labour had faced fierce resistance in Parliament and the courts against previous anti-terror laws. "If I had come forward with these measures three or four months ago, I think it would have been a little more difficult."

But concern about failure to address the issue sooner was voiced earlier by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair. "It may have been better if it was done before - but let's do it now," he told GMTV.

Last night, shadow home secretary David Davis said of the proposed clampdown: "It is vital that the Home Secretary is able to use his powers to deport or exclude non-UK citizens who threaten our national security - we have been calling for him to use these for some time. There is no reason why they cannot be applied as soon as possible."

But Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy criticised the lack of consultation - and warned that Muslims could be alienated.

The Muslim Council of Britain said it could support some of the proposals, but criticised the decision to ban Hizb ut Tahrir as "undermining our own democratic values".

Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil liberties group Liberty, condemned the deportation plans.

"You do not deport people to places where they would face torture, and self-serving agreements and statements by governments that are not democratic are not going to cut it," she said.

Bruce Holder, chairman of the Bar Council's public affairs committee, criticised Mr Blair's pledge to amend the Human Rights Act.

"There can be no justification for suspending basic human rights when even other countries in Europe who are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights are bound by the decisions of that court," he declared.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 1:12:08 AM EDT
Makes sense to me...

Link Posted: 8/6/2005 1:16:21 AM EDT

"That is not a smart or fair system. Tony Blair should have charged me years ago if that was the case. He did not because I had done nothing wrong."


I am gussing that logic is not one of the areas in which he excels
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 1:16:50 AM EDT
Good ideas in general.

I just hope they don't go too far in restricting what Civil Liberties British subjects have left.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 1:30:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GiggleSmith:
Good ideas in general.

I just hope they don't go too far in restricting what Civil Liberties British subjects have left.




He has praised the September 11 terrorists as 'magnificent'


Do people like that really deserve any"civil liberties"?

cus if they do, I am just completely missing it
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 1:36:59 AM EDT
I knew there was something about Tony Blair I liked!
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 1:44:59 AM EDT
Who was it that said, "Everybody has the right to be an idiot. Right up until they start hurting somebody else”?

Talk is cheap.

As for me, I look at Britain’s Gun Control laws.
I may be in error here, but aren’t French Gun Control laws less restrictive than British Laws?

There is a fine line here.

How often do we see somebody’s posting deleted on the DUm-DUm site because it offended somebody? Or because it wasn’t Left Leaning enough?
Nearly the same situation over there.

Remember the old saying about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 1:59:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/6/2005 6:03:50 AM EDT by MrClean4Hire]
Even Britain has problems with Kennedy's.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 2:12:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/6/2005 3:27:13 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
When you verbally declare war against the country you are living in, and support a terrorist organization.............................

Deporting him would cause a hardship because family memebers live there............................... deport them all.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:02:46 AM EDT
Okay so it would be hard on the POS's family if he was deported? No problem. Deport all of them.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:07:50 AM EDT
we need to make a "new" australia... (or maybe just use the one that already exists?)

send the worlds unwanted to an island and let them fight it out or whatever.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:17:05 AM EDT
North or south pole? Im game for whichever.



Originally Posted By RED_5:
we need to make a "new" australia... (or maybe just use the one that already exists?)

send the worlds unwanted to an island and let them fight it out or whatever.

Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:47:36 AM EDT

But Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy criticised the lack of consultation - and warned that Muslims could be alienated.


As opposed to the Islam goal of eliminating non-muslims?

No sympathy here.

Eddie
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 5:21:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RED_5:
we need to make a "new" australia... (or maybe just use the one that already exists?)

send the worlds unwanted to an island and let them fight it out or whatever.



I think we need to send them to the last frontier, its time to colonize the sun. Make sure they pack their asbestos Turbins and bed sheets.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 5:38:28 AM EDT


Write when you find work.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 6:07:16 AM EDT
The Europeans are starting to wise up.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 6:12:42 AM EDT
The Brits have woken up and we have too to a lesser extent. I'd love to see more deportations from our own country. Funny if the plane blew up mid-air (of course it'd be on auto-pilot) or simply vanished off the radar screen.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 6:28:55 AM EDT
I remember a story my Mom told me when she worked as a teacher in the NYC Board of Education about Jehovah witnesses parents who would not allow their children to say the Pledge of Allegiance, when my mother investigated these people they were all on public assisitance, Medicare, food stamps. NOT EARNING A FUCKING DIME!
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 6:36:25 AM EDT
I think this "cleric" never heard of the saying - Don't BITE the Hand that Feeds You
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 6:40:03 AM EDT
The only thing I have to say the the gimp Sheik Omar Bakri is... .308
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 4:56:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/6/2005 4:57:18 PM EDT by 22bad]

Originally Posted By GiggleSmith:
Who was it that said,
"Everybody has the right to be an idiot. Right up until they start hurting somebody else”?
Talk is cheap.

As for me, I look at Britain’s Gun Control laws.
I may be in error here, but aren’t French Gun Control laws less restrictive than British Laws?

There is a fine line here.

How often do we see somebody’s posting deleted on the DUm-DUm site because it offended somebody? Or because it wasn’t Left Leaning enough?
Nearly the same situation over there.

Remember the old saying about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.



I agree with your assessment of where the line should be drawn.............
"But Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy criticised the lack of consultation - and warned that Muslims could be alienated."
People like that are obviously traitors to their country...........
but a "muslim" ADVOCATING TERRORISM doesn't seem like a borderline case to me
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 5:01:37 PM EDT
He's right, it isn't fair to deport them. It's not fair because it allows the enemy to get away and have a second chance. If you ask me, they should just shoot people like that on sight.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 5:03:02 PM EDT
OUT

FRIGGEN

STANDING

PRI­ME MINISTER BLAIR !!!!!!

President Bush------------>

HS1
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 5:03:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
He's right, it isn't fair to deport them. It's not fair because it allows the enemy to get away and have a second chance. If you ask me, they should just shoot people like that on sight.



Stole the words RIGHT out of my mouth

-Storm
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 5:04:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HighStrung1:
OUT

FRIGGEN

STANDING
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR !!!!!!

President Bush------------>

HS1



On the OPEN BORDER situation he is even worse
[bush]what border problem?[bush]
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 5:29:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HighStrung1:
OUT

FRIGGEN

STANDING
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR !!!!!!

President Bush------------>

HS1




Except that our Constitution guarantees that we do not do this sort of thing. Want to go and change that, do ya? Think about what it will mean once Hitllary gets into office (because she will).
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 5:35:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/6/2005 5:37:32 PM EDT by Charging_Handle]

Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:

Originally Posted By HighStrung1:
OUT

FRIGGEN

STANDING
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR !!!!!!

President Bush------------>

HS1




Except that our Constitution guarantees that we do not do this sort of thing. Want to go and change that, do ya? Think about what it will mean once Hitllary gets into office (because she will).



We can deport people now. Being an enemy of this nation would be reason enough, would it not?

Think about it this way. What if we'd gotten into a war with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. If there were Soviets living in this nation, as citizens, yet they are known to be supporting the enemy, do you think we would have just let them stay and done nothing? Hell no, we would have rolled their asses up.

So what makes terrorists and terrorist supporters any different? The enemy is the enemy. Once you become a sworn enemy to the nation in which you live, that means it's time for that citizenship to go bye-bye. I wouldn't want any enemy to be allowed to live in my nation at a time of war. That applies in this case just as much as any in history.

We gotta remember here that these people only pledge allegiance to their religion, not any nation. Therefore we need to be mindful of that fact and act accordingly.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 5:45:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 5:47:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mojo:


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."


Uhhh....Not really. If they go with you then it won't be hard at all.

I guess, Brit. taxpayers are really PO at this report about all the benefits (free $$$$$$) that this family is enjoying...and use these resources for terrorist activities. Damn free loaders.



That is just one mulla(and his family)British taxpayers are probably supporting thousands of them
American taxpayers are probably supporting tens of thousands of them.............
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 5:43:59 PM EDT
He decided to go on vacation........to lebanon..........

Labour's shambles
(Filed: 10/08/2005)
www.telegraph.co.uk
One minute, the Government and prosecuting authorities are telling the public they are thinking of charging Islamic extremists such as Omar Bakri Mohammed with treason. The next, it emerges that Bakri was allowed to leave the country last Saturday, for a four-week visit to his friends and relations in Lebanon.

Bakri, the Syrian father of seven who arrived in Britain in 1985, with indefinite leave to stay, is the man who set up al-Muhajiroun. This was the organisation whose spokesman hailed the hijackers of 9/11 as "the magnificent 19".

Last month, Bakri announced that the British people were to blame for the suicide bombings in London on July 7, in which 56 people were killed. He has also declared that he would "never, ever" tell the police about any Muslim planning a terrorist attack.

At a press conference yesterday, John Prescott tried to make a joke of Bakri's departure. The Deputy Prime Minister, who is in charge while Tony Blair is away, told him: "I just say 'Enjoy your holiday. Make it a long one'." Mr Prescott made it clear that he hadn't a clue whether or not Bakri had been given permission to leave or whether he would be allowed back.

"Well, there's a huge range of things we are looking at," he said. "I don't know whether the security people knew or not … He gave his passport, they saw it. I suppose that is where the checks take place. So I don't know whether he was leaving or not."

Meanwhile, yet another "eye-catching initiative" was being discussed: the possibility of secret hearings by judges to decide how long terrorist suspects could be held without charge. The Government is in shambles, too paralysed by terror of upsetting Muslim voters to do anything practical to protect the public.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 5:52:23 PM EDT
Screw him, screw him, screw him.

'Bout time we started the same here in the U.S., or we could just go ahead and build some internment camps.

Or gas chambers. We'd save more time that way, eventually we are going to have to kill them all anyway.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 5:55:53 PM EDT
"Deportation unfair. Do you realize how many camels I lost to get here last time. Now I have no more camels to make love to because of evil infidels. I mean do you realize how heavy those bomb vests are? All we want to do is kill you and your children."
Top Top