“But she denied being an extremist and maintained she was simply a ‘a politically engaged, articulate and devout person who believed that observant Muslims should aspire to live in a caliphate’ and had the right to express views critical of foreign and domestic policy.”
Oh, is that all! Carry on, then. We wouldn’t want to appear “Islamophobic,” eh wot?
“Council drops bid to take children of two known Islamist extremists into care,” by Patrick Sawer, Telegraph, August 12, 2018 (thanks to Paul):
Social workers dropped plans to take the children of two known Islamist extremists into care after a council said they could find no evidence they were in danger of radicalised.
The London council had applied to the courts to take the five young children into care, fearing they risked suffering emotional and psychological harm because of their parents’ extremist views.
The children’s father, described as “a leading figure” of the banned terror organisation Al-Muhajiroun, has been on a terrorist watch list and their mother attended extremist meetings calling for jihad against non-Muslims.
But the council has now been allowed to drop the care proceedings after it said it could not demonstrate the children had been damaged.
Following a seven-day High Court hearing Mrs Justice Knowles agreed, saying there was no evidence that they had been harmed.
The case is thought to be one of a number in which councils have dropped plans to take the children of known extremists into care after being unable to prove they were in danger.
Earlier this year the Metropolitan Police’s recently retired former Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, Britain’s leading counter terrorism officer, said convicted terrorists should be treated like paedophiles and have their children taken away from them.
Mr Rowley said that all too often parents who were convicted of terror offences were permitted to retain custody of their children, leaving them open to the possibility of being radicalised.
The father in the current case, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the children, was found by police to have encouraged others to join Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) and had discussed throwing gay men to their deaths from high buildings.
He he had until recently been subject to a Terrorist Prevention and Investigation Measure (TPIM) – used where someone is believed to be involved in terrorism but cannot be prosecuted or deported – and is facing trial later this year for breaches of the TPIM.
The couple separated in 2013, and the children lived with their mother in east London until their eldest, a girl known as Child A, went to live with her father outside the capital.
In June 2017 Mr Justice Nicol made a series of findings against the father, including that he had exchanged messages with extremist leader Anjem Choudary and spoke at Al-Muhajiroun public meetings.
When he was arrested police discovered pro-Isil material on his laptop and mobile phone and found he had been in contact with Siddhartha Dhar – the British Isil executioner known as Jihadi Sid.
The mother was said by police to be an active member of a women’s circle closely associated with ALM and had been seen in the Channel 4 documentary Isis: The British Women Supporters Unveiled.
She spoke in support of “one brother” who had travelled to Syria and her laptop contained a speech promoting violent jihad.
The woman, who had an unrelated police caution for assault committed in front of her children, admitted they would sometimes go into the meetings.
But she denied being an extremist and maintained she was simply a “a politically engaged, articulate and devout person who believed that observant Muslims should aspire to live in a caliphate” and had the right to express views critical of foreign and domestic policy.
She said that “at a time when there was limited information about the nature of Isil, she, like other Muslims, had an interest in the political events occurring in Syria but she now recognised Isil’s lack of legitimacy”.
In June the council had submitted documents to the court stating that “the children were suffering significant emotional and psychological harm arising from exposure to their parents’ extremist and radicalising views and were likely to adopt those same extremist and radical views”.
However, a social worker told Mrs Justice Knowles that the mother met the children’s basic needs, they were developing appropriately, and the children had not themselves expressed any hateful or extremist views.
In her judgment Mrs Justice Knowles said the council would be unable to meet the threshold required by the law to take the children into care.She wrote: “There was an absence of any evidence that the children had been significantly harmed by their parent’s alleged extremist and radicalised beliefs.”…
StellaSaidSo says
‘…the council would be unable to meet the threshold required by the law…’
The kiddies are yet to slit a kuffar throat, so no worries, eh Mrs Justice Knowles?
KWJ says
Wonderful. A gaggle of five kids and parents who aspire to live in an Islamic caliphate. I don’t think anyone should accuse others of being “Islamophobic” when millions aspire to the same. Ordinary Muslims, imams, and Islamic governments want Western countries-actually all countries-to be an Islamic hellhole.
Next time some “journalist” says the Muslim Brotherhood’s wanting sharia is a “debunked conspiracy theory” I’ll read them the riot act. I should have kept a list of all the Muslim politicians who have said they want sharia.
These kids are probably young. Many would-be jihadis ate born in Europe. The future isn’t looking great…talk about devolving.
Anne Smith says
Why the hell don’t these wretched people move away to live in an Islamic caliphate? They could try Turkey – Erdogan is busy turning it into a caliphate with himself as chief Caliph.
Rather ;proves the point that they are trying to change our beloved country into the more familiar shithole they came from.
gravenimage says
UK: Council drops bid to take children of two jihadis into care, children not “radicalized”
………………….
More suicidal insanity.
Chris Brownlow says
I would tell this devout Muslima that there is room for her and her kids in a very nice calphiphate called Iran. They just love women and will welcome her with open arms, I am sure.
James Lincoln says
It certainly could be argued that Muslim parents who instill Islamic values in their children is, in and of itself, child abuse.
Jim says
Teaching children that they should aspire to live in a Caliphate, while living in UK, means, what? That they should aspire to move to ISIS territory? Or that they should aspire to overthrow the British government? It should not be acceptable to British authorities that children be taught to turn UK into a Caliphate. If that is her belief, she should be allowed to move to a Muslim country, not allowed to stay in UK while teaching subversion to her children.
Phil Copson says
“Social workers dropped plans to take the children of two known Islamist extremists into care after a council said they could find no evidence they were in danger of radicalised…… father, described as “a leading figure” of the banned terror organisation Al-Muhajiroun…..mother attended extremist meetings calling for jihad against non-Muslims……father encouraged others to join Islamic State……discussed throwing gay men to their deaths…..subject to a Terrorist Prevention and Investigation Measure…….facing trial later this year for breaches of the TPIM……in contact with Siddhartha Dhar – the British Isil executioner……” etc etc
————————————————————————————————————–
At least the social workers tried to do their job by attempting to protect those children – and the rest of us – from being indoctrinated into violent jihadism, by removing them from the influence of their appalling parents.
That their efforts have been overturned by others within by the local council applying to the court to halt the application is concerning – what pressures are at work here ?
Will these social workers ever attempt to do the right thing ever again? Will they now be pushed out of their jobs ? And will social workers across the rest of the country take note of this case and also decide that no matter what evidence they produce, they won’t be able to protect muslim children from exposure to violent influences ?
By contrast, when it comes to indigenous white Britons, there are numerous cases of social workers being eagerly supported by local councils, professional witnesses, and secret “Family Courts” that decide to take children from their families on the flimsiest of pretexts without taking the views/evidence from the children into account, or even allowing the parents to attend.
Similarly, once children are in “care”, there have been cases where the prejudices of social workers have trumped all concern for the children – denying them the opportunity of being placed with foster parents or adopted, on the grounds that supporting Brexit is proof of “racism”. One couple were rejected for having “too many books in the house.”!
In one case, a couple were bringing-up their drug-addicted daughter’s two children with the approval of all concerned. The social workers decided that they were “too old” to be bringing-up young children – (the couple were only in their ’40s!) – and placed the children with a pair of homosexuals. The distress of the children, and the “emotional harm” they were caused, were strangely irrelevant in that case.
It’s a tragedy that the effort they put into protecting children from Brexit / “too many books” / and a loving home with their own grandparents, didn’t extend to protecting children in care from the racism of local rape gangs, or being forced into prostitution.
Giacomo Latta says
Not ”radicalised” you dumb-ass reporter. ”fundamentalised”. They are just doing what the koran tells them to do. Don’t bother looking for a link to ISIS when there’s a koran in the house.