I have a question. Why is Britain, or any other country for that matter, accepting asylum seekers from Jordan? What's so wrong with Jordan? Its not a dictatorship, its not in the throes of a civil war, its not crippled by poverty, it doesn't stone people to death.
Jordan is not perfect, of course, but nor is Texas. Does Britain accept asylum seekers from Texas? If not, why Jordan?
I dunno, beats me too. Jordan does have honor killings legalized in their Penal Code, any man can kill not just his wife but any of his close female relatives if he catches them doing something inappropriate. Texas doesn't have that. I do support giving asylum to any potential victim of honor killing, but giving asylum to terrorists or rabble rousers? Thats' totally unneccessary, and puts Britain's own citizens at risk. Not to mention that the people who could die from terrorist attacks masterminded by such scums have as much right to their safety as these people do. IMO, its due to certain far left politicians and viewpoints, who go all out to support the human rights of terrorists and the most extreme fundamentalists, but forget the rights of their victims.
Here's another such man, Mullah Krekar, apparently the "darling" of Norwegian leftists, who oppose his arrest or deportation. This man supports harsh Shariah punishments in Kurdistan, IMO the rights of the women to life whom he'd sentence to stoning for adultery far outweigh his right to asylum in Norway. Unfortunately some Leftists blur the distinction between the victimizer and victim.
http://www.pwhce.org/krekar.html