Mark Ockelton at Omar Bin Laden‘s immigration tribunal:
Ockelton said a person’s parents should not count against them in deciding whether they were allowed into Britain or now, but said Omar’s view that his father was not a terrorist “might cause concern.”
“It seems to me that the presence in the United Kingdom of a person closely related to Osama bin Laden and expressing the views that the appellant does express would be likely to cause public disquiet and
perhaps public disorder,” he said.
So according to Ockelton, if you are coming into Britain and saying Bin Laden wasn’t a terrorist, your views might cause tensions.
What if you went further?
What if you were the head of an organisation, that actually saw Bin Laden as a martyr, and his opponents as in league with Satan?
From Raed Salah’s Islamic Movement in Israel:
America, the Mother of Woes
On Monday the Islamic Movement released a statement condemning the assassination operation against Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, which was carried out by the USA in Pakistan. The statement says:
We in the Islamic Movement condemn the assassination operation against the sheikh, the martyr Osama Bin Laden, if [reports are] true, at the hands of the American security arms.
The assassination, if true, proves collusion of mercenaries who have sold their consciences to cursed Satan.
Muslims’ and Arabs’ blood isn’t a lever for US election candidates, and the killing of Sheikh Bin Laden, if true, will not end Muslims’ hatred of America’s oppression, the mother of woes.
“Allah has control over his affairs but most people do not know” [apparently a citation of Qur’an 12:21, referring to the story of Joseph]
Raed Salah himself doubts Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, sympathises with his politics, and claims 4000 Jews did not turn up to work on 9/11.
Ockelton on Raed Salah (Point 90):
“[T]here is no lawful basis for the Secretary of State to implement the exclusion order”
Where’s the logic?
Where’s the consistency?
