The Supreme Court in London has sentenced the infamous Abu Hamza to seven years imprisonment accused of inciting hatred and violence. The truth is that Abu Hamza is innocent if we take into consideration that the real guilty party is that of various British officials in consecutive British governments since the arrival of Abu Hamza and those like him in the UK in the early 1990’s. They are the ones who should be charged for admitting extremists with dangerous criminal records, who adopt clearly antagonistic cultures and hazardous political programs into the country and allowing them to work.

These brutal monsters who have been chased by the British government, some of whom have been imprisoned even for life, are the very people who were admitted to the country by the British government and received financial support as well as legal and security protection. Why?

We all well know that the extremists who have come from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Algeria and Pakistan seeking asylum hold serious criminal records, similar to the case of Abu Hamza who is wanted for crimes in Egypt. Even those free from criminal records held antagonistic political stances that called for violence and forcible change of the status quo. The first question that the defendant’s lawyer should have posed is, “Why did Britain agree to allowing this man, whose notorious record and ideas were well-known, to stay in the country?” Meanwhile, British authorities would refuse thousands of peaceful immigrants who held bachelor degrees and higher qualifications, as well as others who had no interest in politics and those who held high aspirations who wanted to live independently without having to rely on the social security scheme. How can a monster be punished if he was let loose on the streets of London to feed off his victims? What is this logic?

The British authorities were warned a number of times about the major mistake that they were committing allowing such brutes to enter Britain under the pretext of human rights and the empty laws of political asylum. It would not have been hard to reject their entry as they could have justified this action by stating that other countries have also rejected such asylum seekers.

It is for this reason that despite any crime that Abu Hamza has been charged with, he is not guilty. He simply carried out the actions that he promised he would and practiced what he considered his political rights for which he was pursued in Egypt and Yemen, which both demanded that he be extradited due to the crimes that he had committed previously.

If Britain does not resort to a quick policy in expelling all active extremists with political programs, it will be destined for everlasting problems. What happened in what was intended to be peaceful protests against the blasphemous Danish caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, was a violation of state rules when some irresponsible demonstrators called for violence, corruption and mutiny. Why would someone who is granted the freedom of speech exploit such a privilege?

The unfortunate fact is that the lenience of British authorities towards extremists perplexes us all. The United Kingdom has not yet handed over any of the wanted extremists to the United States, whilst it has extradited approximately twenty wanted criminals to Islamic countries.

Remember…extremists understand the situation well.