The British press is aflutter with the news that the Queen of England personally requested of her government an explanation as to why it seemed unable to arrest and deport Abu Hamza, a convicted seditionist who was involved in the London bombings of July 7, 2005, and is wanted in several countries. By all accounts, what so vexed Her Majesty was the public spectacle of Hamza’s denouncing Britain so violently while employing its court system and government services to ensure that he could remain at large — and, it might be added, out of the hands of the United States, where he is wanted on suspicion of terrorism.
There is a legitimate debate to be had about how liberal societies should treat illiberal types — certainly, the manner in which outliers are treated is one of the hallmarks of a free country. But there are no such questions when it comes to whether or not they should be provided with generous welfare payments while inciting rebellion; it is this, perhaps, that is most damning about the case. Per James Delingpole in the Telegraph:
Abu Hamza is the terrorist who our legal authorities refused to extradite to Yemen for his involvement in a bomb plot (for which his sons were convicted), continued to preach hate against the adoptive country which was paying him £500 a month in incapacity benefits (for his hook hand) and ended up radicalising the 7/7 bombers thus indirectly causing the deaths of 52 innocent people.
According to the Taxpayer’s Alliance this charming father-of-eight has so far cost us all £2.75 million in welfare payments, council housing, NHS and prison bills, trials and legal appeals.
Yet for years he has been playing the system, abusing the generosity of the British taxpayer, exploiting EU-driven Human Rights law and almost literally getting away with murder.
Remember, though: Government is just the name we give to the things we do together! Things like providing welfare, health care, council housing, and incapacity benefits to known enemies of the state while they jolly along preaching for the destruction of the country.
Regardless of the propriety of her having involved herself in the matter, the Queen’s concern here is wholly justified. The apparent inability of the British government to distinguish between the genuinely needy beneficiaries of the welfare state and the insidious games of suspected terrorists — in concert with the ersatz European conception of ”human rights” that aids and abets such equivocation — is, sadly, a symptom of a sick society. With yesterday’s rejection of his final appeal, Britain has finally managed to get rid of Hamza. It might look also at removing the obstacles that allow such a man to remain at large for almost a decade, and, at the very least, change the rules so that future Abu Hamzas do not have their business expenses paid for by the British public.