Compare and contrast the case of 34-year-old Prince Saud bin Abdulaziz bin Nasir al Saud, a grandson of the King of Saudi Arabia, with the case of Abu Hamza al-Masri, the imam who injured and blinded himself in some incident of terror and who is therefore fitted with steel claws instead of hands. Both Arabs are putting Britain and its law to the test.
Prince Saud recently stayed in an expensive London hotel. With him was a man called Bandar Abdulaziz, described as his slave and lover. Security cameras in the hotel show the prince hitting and kicking Bandar, who made no effort to protect himself. When Bandar was then discovered dead, the prince admitted to killing him but not to murder. The distinction is not clear. In the trial that followed, it emerged that the prince had about forty thousand dollars in cash in a safe deposit box, that he was in the habit of taking Bandar to restaurants, bars and gay clubs, as well as involving him and a range of other men in homosexual practices.
Found guilty, Prince Saud was sentenced to a minimum of twenty years in prison. No doubt prompted by officialdom, the media at once put it about that the Saudis are likely to make diplomatic moves to bring him home, stifling the facts about his conduct for which an ordinary Saudi would pay with his life. A Saudi source is quoted, “If it is still the wish of the father and the king, the prince will be brought home. It will be very quiet.”
Egyptian-born Abu Hamza arrived in Britain on a student visa in 1979 and was granted British nationality in 1986. The London mosque where he preached was a rallying point for jihadis. He sent some young men, including a step-son, to fight for al-Qaeda in Yemen, others to Afghanistan. Convicted on multiple charges of terrorism and hate speech, he is currently in prison. The law stipulates that he cannot be sent to the United States where he is also wanted on charges of terrorism and might face the death penalty. He is further claiming that he lost his original nationality when he became British, his native Egypt disowns him, and anyhow to send him there would breach his human rights.
So the Saudi is likely to escape justice by hitting on a privileged way of vanishing surreptitiously from the country, while on the contrary, the Egyptian is likely to escape justice by hitting on a privileged way of staying in the country.