There, cops happily – one might even say obsequiously – issued a second mugshot of Farishta Jami shortly after she was convicted of preparing to join the most hateful and psychotic army on Earth.
The problem with the original mugshot? It showed her face and hair. And the release of such a haram image of her womanly features apparently caused her ‘considerable distress’. So the police dutifully put out a second mugshot, this time showing Ms Jami swaddled in a niqab.
Try to take this in. In England, in 2025, police are pandering to the religious whims of an aspiring Islamic State soldier. Like a sad tribute act to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, they replaced a ‘sinful’ image of a female terrorist with a halal one in which her features were hidden beneath black cloth in the fashion of hardcore Islam. We all know Britain’s cops have lost the plot, but doing the pious bidding of an extremist who dreamed of joining the mass murderers of ISIS? That’s a new low.
Farishta Jami was convicted at Leicester Crown Court last Thursday. She was found guilty on two counts of preparing acts of terrorism. She sounds like a real piece of work. She was the administrator of various encrypted Telegram channels that spread Islamic State propaganda. And she was making plans to go back to Afghanistan – where she was born – to fight for Islamic State in Khorasan (ISK). That’s the most active wing of what remains of the lunatic ISIS movement. It is so ideologically rabid that even the Taliban and al-Qaeda think it is a bit much.
Worse, Ms Jami planned to drag her four kids on her jihadist journey. She wanted them to become ‘martyrs for [the] Islamic State’. The court heard that she had a ‘clear interest in the use of children in warfare’. She’d even looked up those sick videos of innocent kids carrying out executions at the behest of ISIS militants. She wanted to ‘indoctrinate and sacrifice her children for the cause’, the court was told. Her case summed up the murderous misanthropy of those who throw their lot in with the Islamic State.
Naturally, police issued an image of Ms Jami shortly after her conviction. That’s what happens in civilised countries with an open system of justice: we the people get to see who has been convicted in our name. But then Jami’s lawyer complained. His client was horrified by the cops’ unholy image, he said. They pressed the police to release a better, purer, more Islamic one. And they did. They complied. They bowed and scraped before the eccentric religious beliefs of a woman who loves ISIS, issuing a new mugshot showing her cloaked in that bleakest of garments, the niqab. Now all we could see were her eyes. Allah might be pleased, but Justice will be furious.
Amazingly, Ms Jami’s lawyer complained about the media coverage, too. ‘Reports of the verdict yesterday used [the] image of my client… in which her head wasn’t covered. This caused her some considerable distress’, he said. He ‘requested’ that the new image be used in news reports instead. Excuse my language, but: get to fuck. This is not an Islamic country. We do not believe it is wrong for men to see a woman’s face and hair. And we certainly don’t believe that someone just convicted of a very serious offence should have her likeness hidden from the public behind religious sackcloth. The judge said she could not issue an order telling the press which image of Ms Jami to use – ! – and that journalists should ‘decide’ for themselves. We will, don’t worry.
This case raises so many troubling questions about 21st-century Britain. It reminds us there are people in our midst so consumed by hatred for the UK, and the West more broadly, that they dream of joining our implacable foes in the Christophobic, misogynistic, savagely intolerant army of IS. And it confirms that our institutions of state are now so far down the well of self-hating moral relativism that they’re willing to appease the feelings of a woman found guilty of terror offences. A woman who wanted to submit to the Islamist tyranny. A woman who even fantasised about sacrificing her own kids in the name of Islamo-fascism. In what kind of messed-up country do the nutty sensitivities of a woman like that trump the hard-won right of ordinary citizens to see the face of a person convicted of terror?
In a country like ours, sadly. What this case really confirms is that the problem we have today in Britain is not ‘Islamophobia’, but officialdom’s fanatical dread of Islamophobia. In their deranged crusade to avoid the charge of ‘Islamophobia’, our rulers have arrested people for dissing the Koran, turned a blind eye to the abuse and rape of working-class girls, and now obediently covered up a convicted terrorist’s face in keeping with that terrorist’s extreme religious beliefs. Free speech, female safety, open justice – all now play second fiddle to the elites’ mad obsession with protecting Islam from ‘blasphemous’ rebuke. Enough is enough. Our liberty should override Islamist sensitivity every time.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and blogs regularly on Spiked where this article was sourced.
Try to take this in. In England, in 2025, police are pandering to the religious whims of an aspiring Islamic State soldier. Like a sad tribute act to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, they replaced a ‘sinful’ image of a female terrorist with a halal one in which her features were hidden beneath black cloth in the fashion of hardcore Islam. We all know Britain’s cops have lost the plot, but doing the pious bidding of an extremist who dreamed of joining the mass murderers of ISIS? That’s a new low.
Farishta Jami was convicted at Leicester Crown Court last Thursday. She was found guilty on two counts of preparing acts of terrorism. She sounds like a real piece of work. She was the administrator of various encrypted Telegram channels that spread Islamic State propaganda. And she was making plans to go back to Afghanistan – where she was born – to fight for Islamic State in Khorasan (ISK). That’s the most active wing of what remains of the lunatic ISIS movement. It is so ideologically rabid that even the Taliban and al-Qaeda think it is a bit much.
Worse, Ms Jami planned to drag her four kids on her jihadist journey. She wanted them to become ‘martyrs for [the] Islamic State’. The court heard that she had a ‘clear interest in the use of children in warfare’. She’d even looked up those sick videos of innocent kids carrying out executions at the behest of ISIS militants. She wanted to ‘indoctrinate and sacrifice her children for the cause’, the court was told. Her case summed up the murderous misanthropy of those who throw their lot in with the Islamic State.
Naturally, police issued an image of Ms Jami shortly after her conviction. That’s what happens in civilised countries with an open system of justice: we the people get to see who has been convicted in our name. But then Jami’s lawyer complained. His client was horrified by the cops’ unholy image, he said. They pressed the police to release a better, purer, more Islamic one. And they did. They complied. They bowed and scraped before the eccentric religious beliefs of a woman who loves ISIS, issuing a new mugshot showing her cloaked in that bleakest of garments, the niqab. Now all we could see were her eyes. Allah might be pleased, but Justice will be furious.
Amazingly, Ms Jami’s lawyer complained about the media coverage, too. ‘Reports of the verdict yesterday used [the] image of my client… in which her head wasn’t covered. This caused her some considerable distress’, he said. He ‘requested’ that the new image be used in news reports instead. Excuse my language, but: get to fuck. This is not an Islamic country. We do not believe it is wrong for men to see a woman’s face and hair. And we certainly don’t believe that someone just convicted of a very serious offence should have her likeness hidden from the public behind religious sackcloth. The judge said she could not issue an order telling the press which image of Ms Jami to use – ! – and that journalists should ‘decide’ for themselves. We will, don’t worry.
This case raises so many troubling questions about 21st-century Britain. It reminds us there are people in our midst so consumed by hatred for the UK, and the West more broadly, that they dream of joining our implacable foes in the Christophobic, misogynistic, savagely intolerant army of IS. And it confirms that our institutions of state are now so far down the well of self-hating moral relativism that they’re willing to appease the feelings of a woman found guilty of terror offences. A woman who wanted to submit to the Islamist tyranny. A woman who even fantasised about sacrificing her own kids in the name of Islamo-fascism. In what kind of messed-up country do the nutty sensitivities of a woman like that trump the hard-won right of ordinary citizens to see the face of a person convicted of terror?
In a country like ours, sadly. What this case really confirms is that the problem we have today in Britain is not ‘Islamophobia’, but officialdom’s fanatical dread of Islamophobia. In their deranged crusade to avoid the charge of ‘Islamophobia’, our rulers have arrested people for dissing the Koran, turned a blind eye to the abuse and rape of working-class girls, and now obediently covered up a convicted terrorist’s face in keeping with that terrorist’s extreme religious beliefs. Free speech, female safety, open justice – all now play second fiddle to the elites’ mad obsession with protecting Islam from ‘blasphemous’ rebuke. Enough is enough. Our liberty should override Islamist sensitivity every time.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and blogs regularly on Spiked where this article was sourced.
2 comments:
NZ is just as bad as the UK. After going on and on about terrorism, Jacinda imports ISIS member, Suhayra Aden with her kids, to live here on welfare, without her ever facing charges for her crimes. In other countries Aden would have got 10 to 20 years, even if she didn't behead anyone or physically planted any bombs. But not in NZ. In NZ, "terrorism" just means disagreeing with Jacinda.
Just can't wait for Madame Blavatsky's reply , she must be absolutely incandescent with rage just now. Hurry , hurry please Madame B.
Post a Comment