THE latest London Bridge attacker, Usman Khan, was attending, unsupervised, a conference on criminal rehabilitation as a supposedly rehabilitated criminal.
It is extremely troubling to know that the so-called professionals working in the justice system charged with protecting the public from Islamist terrorism seem to have little understanding of Islamist ideology and how Islamists differ from ordinary criminals. There is a world of difference between criminals who steal cars for profit and crazed Islamists who steal cars so as to drive over infidels in the street to please the prophet.
Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Islamic extremism will know of the Islamic command of taqiyya, which is an instruction that allows for deception and dishonesty to advance the cause of Islam. Usman Khan was clearly engaging in taqiyya when he hoodwinked the entire justice establishment in to believing he was a repentant Islamist. Do any of those who worked with Khan and still do with other dangerous Islamists have an understanding of taqiyya? I don’t know which is the more disturbing, that they don’t know the nature of the ideology it is their jobs to root out, or that some of them do know but decided to give Khan the benefit of the doubt.
Back when I penned the Orwell Prize-winning pseudonymous blog, ‘Winston Smith – Working with the Underclass,’ I worked with both young adult and young offenders in a variety of contexts.
Some of the offenders I worked with were violent, others were not. Many of them told you exactly what they thought you wanted to hear. I could see through the insincere ones a mile away. Unfortunately, I worked alongside a lot of naive, well-intentioned but delusional bleeding heart types who believed that inside every offender, no matter the severity of their crime, lay a misunderstood soul. The pathway for rehabilitation, which was both policy and an article of faith, was to bombard said offender with empathy, compassion and understanding, in the hope we could heal whatever purported hurt was driving him to behave in a severely recidivist and often violently criminal fashion.
Usman Khan would have encountered a variety of workers with either no understanding of Islamism or a naivety regarding the entrenched Islamist mindset. Too many people in positions of authority were keen to take Khan at his word that he was repentant. It confirmed their naive view of human nature and bolstered their belief in the social policies their careers depended upon. In only wanting to see the good in people they were complicit in their own deception. Sadly and tragically two of them paid for that naivety with their lives.
In my time working with offenders, pointing out that some of them were just evil people who would never rehabilitate was seen as blasphemy. I was a prolific blasphemer. Unfortunately for Britain and many other western countries, the justice system has a lot fewer people like me working in it but is dominated by people who believe that deep down inside the London Bridge attacker Usman Khan was a decent human being who if repeatedly exposed to the wishful thinking inside the Guardian’s society section would one day transform into a model citizen.
Many of those in authority are just as ideologically indoctrinated as the most ardent Islamist. I would like to think that after the latest terrorist attack there will be a complete overhaul of the justice system in relation to all kind of violent offenders and special provision outside of the justice system to deal with jihadism. However, the ideology that goes soft on violent offenders that I have outlined is so deeply embedded through all layers of the justice system that I am cynical whether we will see any meaningful reform any time soon. Usman Khan is far from the only jihadi that has duped them and unless Islamist terrorists are locked up indefinitely he won’t be the last.