“Why is so much time, money and effort spent in these cases? Why not just let them go?”
A High Court judge has questioned if an “extraordinary level” of state intervention was justified in stopping a 17-year-old boy from travelling to Syria amid fears he would wage jihad.
Mr Justice Hayden said he had wondered whether or not the “huge resources” deployed in the case were “proportionate”.
He said people often asked why time and taxpayers’ money was spent preventing teenagers from joining terror groups in the Middle East, adding that he considered the argument: “Why not just let them go?”
But the judge concluded that in the case of the boy, who had an uncle held in Guantanamo Bay, a young man’s life had been saved by the local authority’s intervention.
Mr Justice Hayden last year barred the teenager from travelling abroad following a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court after police and social workers raised concerns about him heading to Syria.
He made the teenager a ward of court – a move which bars him from leaving the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
And the judge said he has analysed the benefits of state intervention after reviewing the case at a follow-up hearing in London.
Mr Justice Hayden had been told that the boy’s two elder brothers had been killed waging jihad in Syria.
He said the teenager, who has joint Libyan and British nationality, could not be named.
But he said the local authority that had applied for the teenager to be made a ward of court was Brighton and Hove City Council.
Mr. Justice Hayden decided that it was right that vast amounts of time and money were spent on the case of a 17-year-old Muslim boy who apparently wanted to join the Al-Nusra Front – a branch of Al Qaeda — in Syria. The money, the time, the attention were all worth it, he said, because the boy’s life “was saved.”
And how was it saved? Not by changing his mind on the duty of Jihad, that is, fighting the Infidels, nor about the glory of dying while conducting Jihad, as had his two older brothers (while a third brother, though severely wounded, survived), fighting with the Al-Nusra front in Syria.
No, the boy’s life has been “saved” by Mr. Justice Hayden’s insistence that the boy be made a “ward of court,” and not allowed to leave the jurisdiction of England and Wales, and thus prevented from emulating his “martyred” brothers in Syria. And for how long can he remain a ward? Until he turns 18, or 21? For the rest of his life? The news accounts do not say, but one assumes he cannot be a “ward” forever. But while he is a ward, in order to prevent him from leaving the country, he will have to be watched around the clock, which will require at least four or five policemen to conduct the surveillance necessary. And that’s just for one potential Jihadi. For the British taxpayer, that’s an expensive proposition.
And it is reasonable to think that this boy, far from having his enthusiasm for Jihad dampened, will be even more eager to join the Al-Nusra Front precisely because the Infidels (British Division) are trying to stop him, and if he isn’t allowed to conduct it in Syria, he will attempt to conduct Jihad where he can, that is, in England or Wales? There is no reason to think he will be grateful for having his life “saved,” but rather, he will be furious that Infidels are preventing his “martyrdom” in Syria and all the good things, beginning with those dark-eyed houris, that Muslims are promised as a result.
The very few cases where Muslim terrorists have changed their minds have occurred not when they were prevented from taking part in violent Jihad, but when they did participate, saw the Al-Nusra Front, or the Islamic State, or similar groups, up close and personal, and became disenchanted because of the atrocities they witnessed. A handful of these ex-terrorists even became ex-Muslims as a result. But the boy here is not being given that chance. He will continue, one suspects, to idolize, and attempt to emulate, his three older brothers and his uncle (still in Guantanamo). At some point the boy will be deemed too old to be kept as a “ward.” And if he hasn’t already conducted some form of violent Jihad in Great Britain by that point (and been imprisoned or killed as a result), he will certainly head off somewhere – to Syria or Iraq or even family’s native Libya – to wage Jihad against those he considers to be Infidels.
Does the British government have a duty to save the lives of people whose sole reason for being is to kill Infidels? Mr. Justice Hayden is not alone in thinking that it is a good idea to keep this boy, whose desire to take part in violent Jihad is deep, in Great Britain, and under surveillance, in order to keep him and others like him alive. But this boy, and those others like him, are the very people who, if they could, would kill Mr. Justice Hayden and all other Infidels. It’s a kind of madness, a diseased sympathy, shared by those governments in the West that try so hard to save the lives of murderous Jihadis by preventing them, the truest of true believers in their midst, from going off to Syria or Iraq to conduct Jihad. Will their remaining in Western Europe make them less of a threat?
Why, when there exists the perfect honey-pot of the Islamic State (or other variations on the fanatical theme, such as the Al-Nusra Front) to attract the most dangerous Muslims, those most eager for “martyrdom,” should any Infidel of sense want to prevent these Muslims from joining such groups? Wouldn’t you be delighted to hear that a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand Muslims from your country had gone off to join the Islamic State, or the Al-Nusra Front? Wouldn’t you want them to attain their desired end, to become “martyrs” for the cause, whether disposed of by Syrian or Russian bombs, or by Kurdish fighters, or from the bullets of any of a dozen rival Islamist groups?
Mr. Justice Hayden, again: “Why is so much time, money and effort spent in these cases? Why not just let them go?” But he was wrong to be satisfied with the answer his inquiry provided, that “at the end of the day…they [these huge resources] have saved a human life.” That is the kind of sentimentalism, where distinctions between the life of a potential killer and a likely victim of that killer are effaced, that creates moral confusion.
The Al-Nusra Front, and the Islamic State, have helped attract so many dangerous Muslims to Syria (and Iraq), where they have participated in martyrdom operations and achieved their desired end. They will disturb us no longer. Far from trying to keep people from leaving Western Europe on such missions, we should quietly cheer them on and at the very least, certainly do nothing to stop them. They want to die as “martyrs,” and we Infidels should hope that far from Western Europe, and ideally at the hands of others like themselves, they will get their wish. It’s not “lives” we want to save, but the “lives of Infidels.” There is, Mr. Justice Hayden should try to understand, a difference.
SteveFinSC says
Excellent article. But, when they let them go, they need to make damned sure that they don’t come back. EVER!
Larry says
That’s exactly the stance that should be being taken. ISIS claims it is a State, they have shown that they want to become part of the State.
Let them go, rip their citizenship off them, and tell them not to come back. As simple as that.
I’m pretty sure that if someone of German heritage had rushed off to Germany to enlist during WWII that the then British Govt wouldn’t have welcomed them back with open arms while the War was still going on.
Islam the religion of killers says
Purely from an economic point of view the govt. should pay their air fare,,,,, when they cancel their citizenship and all rights to the country they are stabbing in the back ..
Think of the savings, (also savings on downstream effects)
Council for the victims (the innocent people a jihadi action will effect for the rest of their lives)
Social welfare, how many people are the sate supporting (and you have to quote the average reproductive rate here 8.5%)
Housing, (taking up accom a law abiding, non threatening family would love to have)
Courts, police, incarceration, transport (these all cost money)
the list & extra expenses goes on & on, so yes lets just let them get out & get on with it
DFD says
I read recently about a case in Germany, or rather Germoney, there’s a guy with four wifes and a wagon load of kids, I forgot how many. He draws annually between €250,000 and €500,000 a year in welfare, again, I forgot, somewhere between these two amounts. Details are not so important, IMO. A € and a $ are roughly equal… Have your pick. Amaizingly even the government propaganda rags, sorry, the mainstream media reported on this. Well, not exactly pocket money, isn’t it?
Norell says
I read that. He had 4 wives and 20 kids AND he was unable to work. ” Castrate this looser and them all back home. I think that was Sweden.
DFD says
I think we are both right! ‘Mine’ was definitely in Germany, I think in the NRW region.
HOWEVER:
=========
I am not surprised if there’s another one like that in Sweden. What would surprise me is if there were *not* a lot more such free loaders all over Europe.
Do they have similar welfare (theirs, not ours/for us) arrangements in the US? If so, those leeches will also be in the US.
Mubarak says
Here again an obvious case where it makes sense to blame the victim: Mr. Justice Hayden is a victim of his humanistic ideology to the detriment of his community.
DFD says
Are you from earth?
Mubarak says
No, I’m from Mars. –
Are you excommunicated from the fire department?
DFD says
Mubarak says “No, I’m from Mars. – ”
— I thought as much…
Mubarak says “Are you excommunicated from the fire department?”
— How witty a reply. I gather, you lost your job as a stand up comedian in Teheran…
gravenimage says
Mubarak has “blamed the victim” before–the victims of Muslim rape, specifically:
Mubarak says
February 16, 2016 at 4:27 am
I know it is not political correct, but I’d like to explicate the sex assaults by refugees in Cologne by blaming the victims, because if you believe, that in order to protest against rape and sexual harassment the freedom of the West should entail standing totally naked in a public square under cover of being a “performance artist”, there is something rotten in the state of your mind, and this freedom of yours ought rightfully to be turned against you in order to harass you…
So thank God for Muslims who migrate or immigrate to the west…
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/02/prosecutor-overwhelming-majority-of-cologne-new-years-eve-sex-assault-suspects-are-refugees#comment-1379853
Lots more ugliness from him on that thread.
Mubarak says
PS:
Robert Spencer makes very much sense here when he blames the victim:
https://youtu.be/r2SBoSRaR3M
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer is–quite rightly–criticizing the willful denial in so much of the West over the threat of Islam.
The idea that he is blaming the victims of Muslim savagery is just utterly grotesque.
That Mubarak is trying to claim that *Robert Spencer* agrees with him that we need to be raped by Muslims because we dare protest Muslims raping us is the most sickening calumny.
Mubarak says
What is sickening is, that the protesters are “men” in miniskirts – fittingly complimented by hysterical nude women.
Mubarak says
PS:
– or is it the other way round?
gravenimage says
The vile Mubarak wrote:
What is sickening is, that the protesters are “men” in miniskirts – fittingly complimented by hysterical nude women.
……………………….
Mubarak has said this before–that the problem is not Muslims raping us, but people *protesting* Muslim rape if wearing silly garb.
He has also said before that women protesting Muslim rape are “hysterical”–because, really, what is more irrational than opposing being raped? *Ugh*.
Ernie says
Mubarak , men protesting in mini-skirts : it is a PROTEST , not a exhibition of sexual identity…..and even if it were an exhibition of sexual identity….. . You , even me and many others might not LIKE it , but that is what FREEDOM means in the Western world . I hold that freedom dearly to my heart . We in the West , have found ways to live with a lot of diversity , with high regards for individual freedom of expression . We even respect those who don’t like our Western and democratic ways : they can express themselves freely…….You yourself are an example of that . But……… there are still boundaries , and we have LAWS to make clear what is permissable and what is not permissable . These laws have been established by ourselves through more or less democratic processing ,and through revolutions , wars etc . Lots of people sacificed their lives for the freedom we enjoy today , and we should honor all those people who fought for our freedom . But the battle for freedom is not over , it is a continuum . A living process so to say . In our society violence is regarded as a big no-no by most citizens , and with good reasons . We have the right to be free of menace by others , yes , that is a right Mubarak . You are completely free to think what you want to think , but you’re not allowed to act violently against fellow citizens . Self defence is an exception , If needed we are allowed to use violence under certain conditions , and even in such cases the violence used must be proportional . Self-preservation : I think it is a bare necessity to change our laws regarding certain forces that want to destroy our way of life . Among those certain forces is Islam , and , it might be a taboo to say so , the people acting out according to this violent ,undemocratic system . The law of self preservation exceeds the laws of freedom of religion in this case . We must ban this ideology completely , whipe out this cancer from our society . This is no time to be ” soft ” and ” civilized “. Radical therapy is needed these days . We are at war with Islam , and fighting for our lives , our existence . Islam declared war on us , not the other way around . And that is where we have the right / plight to crush and destroy it completely . Within our lands , and abroad . Containing it is a first step ,
Ernie says
P.S. The Law forbids it , but we should send jihadis/would be jihadis directly to Syria , and inform the authorities there in advance . They ( Assads Baath regime ) know what to do . That would certainly save a lot of innocent lives .
Mubarak says
Do you mean to say, Ernie, that pride parades, slutwalks, public nudity, pornography, feminism and abortions are radical and appropriate means “to destroy it [Islam] completely”? (And add to this candlelights and piano playing.)
It sure put Christianity on the defensive, but do you believe that it also can be imposed on Muslims and force them to submission?
Ernie says
No Mubarak , I don’t mean to say that at all , and I will not explain it again or in other words to you . I did my best to explain it to you in plain English . But maybe another person bothers explaining to you what our freedom means to us and why , or/and why islam should be crushed/destroyed completely from this earth . One of your problems is that you don’t want to understand . TROLL .
gravenimage says
Good posts, Ernie.
gravenimage says
More from the vicious Mubarak:
Do you mean to say, Ernie, that pride parades, slutwalks, public nudity, pornography, feminism and abortions are radical and appropriate means “to destroy it [Islam] completely”? (And add to this candlelights and piano playing.)
It sure put Christianity on the defensive, but do you believe that it also can be imposed on Muslims and force them to submission?
………………..
The idea that we are trying to “force [Muslims] to submission” by objecting to them raping and murdering us is simply grotesque.
But then, it is not surprising–Muslims do not think in terms of equality–just in terms of who is forcing whom into submission. *Ugh*.
Ernie says
Dear Gravenimage , thank you for the compliment , and for exposing the strange mental acrobatics of this satan worshipper . You are doing this consistently , and your persistence is admirable . Thank YOU Gravenimage !
gravenimage says
Thank you so much for your kind words, Ernie.
Angemon says
Mubarak posted:
“PS:
Robert Spencer makes very much sense here when he blames the victim:”
How, exactly, is Mr. Spencer blaming the victim?
gravenimage says
Of course, Robert Spence is *no such thing*, Angemon.
But if Mubarak can get anyone here to believe that Robert Spencer himself is blaming the victims of violent Jihad, then he can characterize our resistance to violent Jihad as morally compromised.
That will make Muslim conquest of us *much* easier.
Angemon says
Not that the British taxpayer will ever be asked if they’re OK with it…
Peggy says
Who cares if he lives or dies? Why prevent him from getting killed when he will most definitely kill innocent people in Britain.
The blood of those innocent people will be on this judge’s hands.
James Wills says
As soon as he’s 18 he is no longer a ward of the English Court and if he tries to go then he can be locked up under the Terrorism Act.
Anne Smith says
Why should the poor tax payer keep him in a life of ease and warmth? As the British prisons no longer have hard labour ( a concept which is not well known among Muslims) it would be a lot better to let this creep go to ISIS. With any luck the Russians will soon polish him off.
Problem solved.
gravenimage says
I could not agree with you more.
mortimer says
Mr Justice Hayden may be an expert on British law, but he knows nothing about the JIHAD DOCTRINE, the KAFIR DOCTRINE or the TAQIYYA DOCTRINE.
How then is he qualified to make rulings about JIHADISTS? Why not just admit he needs the help of a JIHAD EXPERT like Robert Spencer?
Larry says
Don’t be silly, judges and lawyers are experts on everything.
Just ask them, they’ll tell you they are. They are the most qualified people on earth, on any subject, anytime, anywhere.
Frank Courtney says
Let ’em go. Just don’t let ’em back in.
dumbledoresarmy says
Exactly.