Mohammed Emwazi, the brutal Islamic State murderer known as Jihadi John, came to Britain in the 1990s from Kuwait with his parents and one sibling. They were granted indefinite leave to remain and, eventually, British citzenship. Life was kind to the Emwazis and so was the British state. They had four more children here, received a range of welfare benefits, most notably housing benefit, as well as using the taxpayer-funded health and education systems.
Why were they here? The Emwazis are Bedoons, a stateless minority who emigrated from Iraq to Kuwait, mainly after the first Gulf War. Although tens of thousands of ouns continue to live in Kuwait some, like the Emwazis, sought economic advantage — including access to benefits — elsewhere. Jasim Emwazi, the father, has since moved back to Kuwait, which suggests strongly that more questions should have been asked of the family at the time.
The fact that Mohammed Emwazi grew up in this country and evolved into a sociopath meant that our hospitality and generosity were thrown back in our faces. To add insult to injury, apologists for this brutal killer blame the British state for his actions.
It is all part of a pattern. Abu Qatada, a thorn in the side of successive home secretaries, arrived in Britain on a forged passport around the time when the Emwazis were admitted and was granted asylum on the grounds of religious persecution. Abu Hamza, imam of the then notorious Finsbury Park mosque in north London, spread his messages of hate for years until his eventual extradition to America in 2012, followed by conviction and life imprisonment.
It goes on. “J1”, an associate of Emwazi and the July 21 failed London bombers and a member of al-Shabaab, the al-Qaeda affiliate, apparently cannot be deported because his lawyers are using the Human Rights Act to prevent it. Lawyers used similar methods to prevent the deportation to Pakistan of A Naseer, who had plotted to blow up Manchester’s Arndale shopping centre.
Advertisement
Britain failed twice on Naseer. He was not deported to Pakistan and, to the police’s chagrin, the Crown Prosecution Service failed to prosecute him for the Arndale plot. The fact that he is now in prison — in America — is due to the perseverance of the US authorities, who uncovered his involvement in a New York subway plot. Left to Britain, he would still be a free man.
We have a proud tradition of opening our doors to persecuted people. But, like some naive Lady Bountiful, we are too often taken for a ride by those who would harm us and reject our values and by their publicly funded lawyers. And if that is not enough, there are also the professional do-gooders.
Amnesty International, a charity with a proud tradition stretching back more than half a century, tarnished itself badly with its links to Cage, the controversial Islamic rights group whose director described Emwazi as “a beautiful young man”. The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust reluctantly stopped funding Cage only on Friday.
Britain gives every appearance of being a soft touch. At the very least, ministers should be asking if the legal authorities are mounting prosecutions for terrorism with sufficient vigour. Why is it so difficult to deport undesirables? Why do we give succour — and money — to those who would destroy what we stand for? Successive governments have lost control of our borders. We need to get it back.