While America reels from the Islamic terror attack in Manhattan on Tuesday, the United Kingdom is planning not to prosecute hundreds of ISIS fighters arriving on its shores.
Max Hill, a top government adviser who oversees anti-terrorism laws for the British government, told BBC last week that an estimated 400 ISIS militants have already returned to the UK — and authorities have decided to not do anything about it.
Speaking on the fact that the UK is hosting such a large number of known jihadis, Hill said, “That means that the authorities have looked at them, and looked at them hard, and decided that they do not justify prosecution, and really we should be looking towards reintegration and moving away from any notion that we’re going to lose a generation thanks to this travel.”
It seems government officials in the UK are far more troubled by losing a “generation” to ISIS than having that generation’s return to their nation’s shores. Those jihadis just need to be reintegrated and everything will be a-okay.
The authorities’ ideas for reintegrating these foreign jihadis include giving them free housing and other taxpayer-funded support. What a way to punish terrorism.
This proposal of letting in hundreds of hardened Islamic militants in the country without any consequences for the returnees has sparked vigorous debate in Britain.
Unfortunately, plenty of British commentators think the proposal is a brilliant idea.
Self-proclaimed feminist journalist Sirena Bergman recently argued on a television panel that most of these jihadis were simply too naive to understand ISIS barbarism.
“We want those people [British ISIS fighters] to come back. We want to encourage them to reintegrate into society,” Bergman said, before ranting about “divisive rhetoric” that calls for killing the militants.
The journalist also takes the peculiar stance that the only reason the UK wants to kill, or at least disenfranchise ISIS militants is because most Britons “don’t agree” with their ideology.
Writing for The Guardian in September, United Nations consultant Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini argued the best weapon to de-radicalize returning jihadis was with “our humanity.”
Naraghi-Anderlini asserts that many of these hardcore militants are victims as well, and urges a humane approach that seeks to rehabilitate them into their old communities.
“As we face the prospect of Isis returnees to the UK, we must challenge our own perceptions. It would be easy if they were all one-dimensional, Bond-movie bad guys – but they are not. If we fall victim to this sort of thinking, we become that which we abhor and fear,” the UN consultant writes. “Instead our collective task as a nation is to find our own deep well of decency and humanity, to be fair and compassionate, just and kind, and perhaps above all to care.”
The message here is that Britons can win over ISIS returnees with their superior values of tolerance and compassion, values that apparently didn’t win over these militants when they previously dwelled in the UK.
Militants with British passports have already experienced the benefits of the welfare state and the “superiority” of modern progressive values. They rejected all those things in favor of religious war against the West. Giving them more benefits and a gay pride parade will do little to soothe the alienation that convinced them to join ISIS in the first place.
The UK already has thousands of known radicals within its borders and currently lives under a “severe” terror threat level. Welcoming more terrorists into the country does not seem like a brilliant idea.
It is interesting that British elites and government officials preach tolerance when it comes to members of a group that butchered, raped and enslaved thousands of people, but turn into zealous crusaders when it comes to politically incorrect Facebook posts.
As previously mentioned, Prime Minister Theresa May and her government believe the best way to tackle terror is through internet censorship. However, the usual targets for British police crackdowns on internet malfeasance are those who criticize Islam, not those who want to kill in its name. (RELATED: Theresa May’s Answer To Terror: Restrict The Internet)
Whenever an attack occurs, police spokesmen come out to say that mean comments about Islam will not be tolerated — in sharp contrast to the loving tolerance shown for returning soldiers of the caliphate.
After British soldier Lee Rigby was beheaded in broad daylight by a jihadi back in 2013, multiple people were rounded up by British police for “insensitive” social media posts reacting to the horrific crime. (Rigby’s murderer is now reported to be converting a number of his fellow prison inmates to Islam.)
Conservative commentator Katie Hopkins was investigated by London police for allegedly hateful tweets in response to the Manchester bombing in May.
The British government has also explicitly stated that they will target “far-right propaganda” in their campaign against internet extremism, which is supposed to be primarily concerned with Islamism. (RELATED: UK Wants To Jail People For Years For Viewing ‘Far-Right Propaganda’)
Considering how broad of a definition “far-right propaganda” can constitute, it’s reasonable to think that British officials will abuse their power designed to counter terror to silence politically incorrect dissidents instead.
The UK has a serious problem with terrorism, one that is greater than the US. However, their preferred method for solving it will do little to stem the tide, while their idiotic immigration policies and friendliness toward ISIS returnees only guarantee future attacks.
And conservatives are the ones (supposedly) in charge in the UK.
Regardless of party, it’s clear that British elites would rather infringe upon the freedoms of their own citizens than even consider limiting the inflow of “diverse” individuals from around the globe.