So Abu Hookhand's family get benefits do they?
Civil Liberty
There was growing anger last night that Abu Hamza's family are continuing to be bankrolled by the British public.
Are they British citizens?
Then they have the same access to the public purse as every other British citizen, don't they?
Which is the end of the matter, there's nowt else to say.
previousSure national insurance is a bad tax but….
nextRitchie still doesn't understand the tax system, does he?
37 thoughts on "So Abu Hookhand's family get benefits do they?"
bloke in france May 21, 2014 at 7:14 am
Nowt else to say? I think you'll find, Tim, that the readers will have quite a lot to say.
Andrew M May 21, 2014 at 7:23 am
Which raises the question, how on earth did they obtain citizenship? It is insane to admit any immigrant who, by themselves or through their family, will be a net drain on public finances.
JuliaM May 21, 2014 at 7:27 am
What Andrew M said…
Bloke with a Boat May 21, 2014 at 7:37 am
Yes, but as Raedwald says, immigrants aren't to blame for immigration policy.
Ironman May 21, 2014 at 8:09 am
Yep, nowt else to say. I've a feeling it will be said though.
bloke in spain May 21, 2014 at 8:15 am
Let's look at this another way. You go build a house on a flat bit of ground, next a river. The river floods. You get washed out. Who's to blame? The land? The river?
You come to a country. You apply for citizenship but you contribute nothing & live on benefits. Shit happens. Who's to blame?
So Much For Subtlety May 21, 2014 at 8:38 am
Bloke with a Boat – "Yes, but as Raedwald says, immigrants aren't to blame for immigration policy."
No but they are to blame for abusing the system if they do, in fact, abuse the system. Abu Hamza lied and lied. He has some share of blame for that.
Ironman – "Yep, nowt else to say. I've a feeling it will be said though."
Actually there will be a lot to say. Like, why the f**k do we have an immigration system that lets such people in and can't get rid of them again? And why on Earth should we treat people who want another billion like him as anything other than insane?
Geoffers May 21, 2014 at 8:40 am
There's certainly an argument about whether these people should have been granted citizenship at all, and about what that says about wider immigration policy.
But, by hook or by crook (did you see what I did there?), these folks are now British citizens, so they have the same rights as everyone else. I'm with Tim; in this specific case there's really no more to say.
James May 21, 2014 at 8:45 am
The only argument is whether we, as taxpayers, should be suing the officials who decided to grant citizenship for the cost of that decision.
Geoffers – "But, by hook or by crook (did you see what I did there?), these folks are now British citizens, so they have the same rights as everyone else. I'm with Tim; in this specific case there's really no more to say."
I disagree. They have given aid and comfort to Her Majesty's enemies overseas. They hate us. They have been involved in inciting violence against the rest of us.
They ought to be stripped of said citizenship and deported.
Human Rights are not a suicide pact. We should not allow the Guardianistas to make them so.
James – "The only argument is whether we, as taxpayers, should be suing the officials who decided to grant citizenship for the cost of that decision."
Suing? Hanging more like. Remember it was the Blair Government's policy to rub the noses of the British public into diversity by sending people all over the world to recruit scum like Hamza to come here and destroy Britain as it was. Very successfully.
I see no moral obligation to accept that decision or those policies at all.
Ian B May 21, 2014 at 8:54 am
They're citizens. Relatives of felons do not bear any guilt for their felonies. If a woman's husband turns out to be a serial killer, he is punished, not her.
We do not apply guilt by association. Even if the tabloid press and the Hang 'Ems would like to. It is barbaric to even consider it. The fact that they are immigrants or whatever is neither here nor there.
Tim is absolutely right.
Tim Worstall May 21, 2014 at 8:56 am
Err, Hamza came here under Thatcher. And married an Englishwoman which I assume is the source of his UK passport. Divorced and then remarried to the current, Moroccan born wife. Who may or may not have UK citizenship in her own right but would most assuredly gain it as a result of being married to a UK passport holder since 1984.
Anonymous Coward May 21, 2014 at 8:59 am
@"So Much For Subtlety"
@"Ian B
Well she committed council house fraud (she obtained one by saying she was scared of him and then he went to live with her) so she should be prosecuted for that.
dearieme May 21, 2014 at 9:01 am
We should learn from those great pioneers of democracy, the classical Athenians. Let's vote to ostracise people. Out they go! This shower and Tony Blair would be a good start.
British citizens do not stop being British citizens when they commit a crime. We have a criminal justice system to deal with that sort of thing.
I think we need to value British Citizenship more highly and not grant it quite so generously; once it is granted I do not believe anyone should EVER have the power to revoke it. If they can revoke one person's citizenship then the precedent is set and they can revoke mine. Or yours.
Ian B – "They're citizens. Relatives of felons do not bear any guilt for their felonies. If a woman's husband turns out to be a serial killer, he is punished, not her."
This is more than a felony though isn't it? The only solution found to suicide bombing so far involves big walls. The British government has given up its responsibility maintaining the borders which usually do this, so we are gradually retreating into private walled enclaves. But when ethnic conflict reaches serious proportions the solution everyone resorts to – including the British – is ethnic cleansing. Build a new wall, move communities on either side to the right side. Sort of worked in India. Worked well in Cyprus. Didn't work too well in Ireland.
But if you like, let's deport his sprogs one at a time as they break the law. What happens if you're raised on a diet of justifying theft from and rape of British people?
On 28 May 2009, three of Hamza's sons were sentenced to imprisonment by Southwark Crown Court for a two-year fraud involving stolen cars. Hamza Kamel, then aged 22, and Mohamed Mostafa, then aged 27, both from Acton, London, ran the scam operation with Abu Hamza's stepson Mohssin Ghailam, then aged 28. Four other men were jailed on related charges.[36] In July 2010, it was reported that another son, Yasser Kamel, then aged 20, was sentenced to twelve months in youth detention after pleading guilty to one count of violent disorder at anti-Israel protests in January 2009.[37] In January 2012, Imran Mostafa (another of Abu Hamza's sons) was convicted for his part in an armed robbery on a jewellers in King's Lynn, Norfolk, and for illegally possessing a firearm with intent to commit an offence.
Tim Worstall – "Err, Hamza came here under Thatcher. And married an Englishwoman which I assume is the source of his UK passport."
I thought he paid a waitress to form a fake marriage? Oh well. A Bill of Attainder ought to do it.
ukliberty May 21, 2014 at 9:11 am
AFAIK his children aren't immigrants, they were born here. His wife was born in Morocco, I don't know whether/how she is a British citizen – a cursory Google doesn't answer this question.
Hamza obtained citizenship two years after applying for it in 1984 on the basis he had lived here for five years. He worked several jobs after arriving in the UK and continued the civil engineering studies he began in his home country of Egypt, eventually obtaining a degree from Brighton poly. AFAIK there is no indication he was at that stage into terrorism.
Geoffers – "once it is granted I do not believe anyone should EVER have the power to revoke it. If they can revoke one person's citizenship then the precedent is set and they can revoke mine. Or yours."
So I take it you opposed the US stripping John Demjanjuk of his US citizenship? Not just once, but twice actually. You really think that all Americans are under threat because this man was deported to Israel, and then to Germany, with the State Department revoking his passport both times?
Steve May 21, 2014 at 9:18 am
Looking at those pictures of Hook and his retarded offspring brought to mind the wise words of the Sage of Brookside:
"I'm making the point that people are the same wherever they come from. Migration is for the young and talented; the ageing and the losers will naturally oppose it."
ukliberty – "Hamza obtained citizenship two years after applying for it in 1984 on the basis he had lived here for five years."
CNN reports that the British government stripped him of his citizenship in 2004. I can find no other evidence of it though. So maybe they got it wrong – or more likely he appealed and won on appeal.
"AFAIK there is no indication he was at that stage into terrorism."
And so there is no way to keep terrorists out except to keep them all out.
I'd never heard of that case, but some admittedly quick Googling suggests that the whole thing was a travesty. SMFS, are you really saying that revocation of citizenship should be a tool employed to force citizens abroad to face kangaroo courts? That's a remarkable thing to desire.
Also, SMFS-
It's not terrorism that is the problem. It's demographics. But both are besides the point in this case. Once a citizenship has been awarded, it should be inviolable. If an immigrant acquires citizenship, they are entitled to the same conditions as all other citizens, and if they commit crimes, be treated just the same. And anyone born here, of whatever notional "ethnicity", is British, and that is the end of it.
He won on appeal. UK gov tried to strip his British citizenship but that would have rendered him stateless because the Egyptians had already stripped him of Egyptian citizenship.
Richard Gadsden May 21, 2014 at 9:54 am
"And so there is no way to keep terrorists out except to keep them all out." All human beings? Given that people born in the UK have turned out to be terrorists, I can't see how this them can mean anything else.
There is one legitimate ground for withdrawing citizenship, which is that it should not have been granted in the first place (either through an administrative error, or fraud, or honest error). For instance, if he'd been in the UK two years and lied that it was five, then that would be fraud; if he'd been in the UK two years, said it was two years, but citizenship was granted anyway, that's administrative error. I can't see honest error applying in that case (not being able to add up? Genuinely thinking you moved years before you actually did? Nah.)
[Honest error would be something like genuinely believing you were your mother's husband's child and then finding out you weren't through a DNA test years later]
Ian B May 21, 2014 at 10:36 am
It's also worth noting that beloved phrase of the press "there was growing anger last night"- which translates into, a few shouty people are being shouty, and maybe a newspaper or two.
See also- "growing clamour", "growing excitement" and "growing outrage".
Richard-
I think children gain the legal status of, er, offspring whatever, regardless of paternity. If you're legally your parents' child, that's the end of it. Considering there are estimates that as high as 10% of us are not "our mother's husband's child" (these estimates vary wildly due to a lack of reliable stats of course) it would be mayhem otherwise.
IMV only fraud should be grounds for withdrawal of citizenship, not administrative or "honest" error.
Luke May 21, 2014 at 11:04 am
Dearieme,
Ostracism was only temporary. And you got to keep all your property. So the family would presumably keep a council house and benefits under a modern form. And Blair his various houses.
bloke in spain May 21, 2014 at 11:38 am
I'd remind everyone, laws are worth exactly the paper they're written on & the ink they're written with. Not one cent more.
Their value is in the consent to live under them.
I live in a country not my own. Being a national of another member of the EU theoretically gives me much the same rights as a Spanish citizen. Theoretically. But I behave as a guest & as a guest, I prefer not to wear out my welcome. I don't want to find out how theoretical that theoretical is.
I recommend this to all.
Anonymous Coward May 21, 2014 at 12:00 pm
@"Geoffers
I think we need to value British Citizenship more highly and not grant it quite so generously; once it is granted I do not believe anyone should EVER have the power to revoke it. If they can revoke one person's citizenship then the precedent is set and they can revoke mine. Or your"
If you get something through fraud you should lose it when the fraud is found out.
I am not saying that he did but others have and I hope that they lose it at a later date.
dearieme May 21, 2014 at 12:00 pm
"ostracism was only temporary": aye, but ten years is a jolly good start.
"And you got to keep all your property". True.
"So the family would presumably keep a council house and benefits under a modern form." Balls: happily those are not property.
"And Blair his various houses." Indeed; but I'd be relaxed about that because his ostracism would be a temporary measure until we could hang the loathsome wee twat.
PS Although it is possible that he did and if he did, he should lose it as should all those who gained it through his fraud.
If my Dad stole a car and gave it to me, I would have to give it back when the rightful owner came.
Bloke with a Boat May 21, 2014 at 12:35 pm
I'd be happy for people who are granted citizenship if they break the law (and it needs to be proportionate eg not speeding etc) as long as it is made clear at the time the citizenship is granted.
Can't see how it can be applied to their offspring though.
On the subject of offspring…..
I don't see how they should be given special status in jail because of their religion (but I'll bet they did) as they've clearly don't adhere to the religion of peace.
The Other Bloke in Italy May 21, 2014 at 12:59 pm
Don't I recall that for strict muslims, nationality is an artificial western construct? They belong to Islam, so for them nationality is an irrelevance.
And, what BiS said. Brits living abroad tend not to push the envelope of local law, as a basic courtesy. It is why we are generally welcome elsewhere in Europe.
Hooky and his sort go the opposite way. He should hang as either a traitor or as an enemy agent, depending on which side of the above argument you fall.
ukliberty May 21, 2014 at 6:44 pm
But it's not an irrelevance to nations. In the absence of hanging or dropping them into international waters some country or other must host them.
IIUC he's likely to be sentenced to die in Club Fed Supermax.
johnny bonk May 22, 2014 at 12:03 am
I still get the impression he's a little man with a big mouth and not at all a major terrorist.
Tomsmith May 22, 2014 at 12:25 am
The problem is western governments importing large numbers of culturally different and often hostile people, often from the 3rd world, that indigenous populations don't want to share their countries with. In some cases the numbers involved amount to population replacement. Why governments have done this is unclear, but it has happened and people are unhappy about it.
Open borders are fine with tiny government and robust property rights, but they are extremely damaging with a lavish welfare state and large, intrusive government.
As someone said the demographics mean that government immigration policy is likely to fundamentally and permanently change the culture and ethnic makeup of the population of many western countries rather soon. Is it acceptable for governments to have done this? I would say it is not, which surely means that the indigenous population is justified in trying to do something about it before they become a minority and lose political power. Is this really beyond the pale?
I have the impression that:
He was 'converted' to the idea of jihad while translating for some wounded Afghan mujahedeen being treated over here. UK gov didn't mind that he joined them in Afghanistan, his subsequent Bosniak adventure or even his preaching of violent overthrow of ME govs. UK authorities took an interest and thought he might be useful. At some stage foreign security services (particularly the French and US) advised we get rid of him – even complained that we hadn't. By the time UK gov came around to that idea they found a number of hurdles…
Blog - Adam Smith Institute Added: 10 hours ago
Bloke in China (Germany province) on Calling BiG
Bloke on M4 on Quite so Polly, quite so
ken on Calling BiG