“£200,000 spent on protecting hate preacher Abu Qatada human rights

Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May has likened me to Abu Qatada, a leading member of al-Qaeda who was once considered “Osama bin Laden’s top man in Britain,” saying: “I kicked out Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada. I stopped Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Pastor Terry Jones – because Islamophobia comes from the same wellspring of hatred.”

This was a revolting comparison, as I am not and have never been a member of a terrorist group, have never been the assistant to or representative of a mass murderer, and have never called for, condoned, or approved of any violence. But May was busy propagating the fiction that there is a “far-right” threat equivalent to the jihad threat, and she opted to defame Pamela Geller and me as if we were the other side of the coin of jihad plotters Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada.

And now it comes out that the British government has spent $250,000 “for the cleric to have appointments with human rights workers and doctors for three years.”

Yet despite likening me to Abu Qatada, May has not directed her government to pay me a red cent. In light of her equating me with this jihadi, I am going to present the British government with a bill for $250,000 for my medical care and other expenses, and given that May has smeared me as a terrorist, it would only be in her interests to pay up, right? To refuse to do so would be to retreat from her comparison, and she isn’t about to do that.

“£200,000 spent on protecting hate preacher Abu Qatada human rights,” by Paul Morgan-Bentley, The Times, January 4 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Britain has spent almost £200,000 protecting the welfare of the hate preacher Abu Qatada since he was deported to Jordan in 2013, The Times can reveal.

Under terms agreed by Theresa May when she was home secretary, the government has paid for the cleric to have appointments with human rights workers and doctors for three years. The payments were agreed despite Mrs May telling parliament in 2013 that “significant costs” to the taxpayer relating to the Abu Qatada case were “not acceptable to the public and not acceptable to me”.

The “welfare visits” were to ensure that he was not tortured after he was removed from Britain for being a threat to national security, details released under freedom of information laws show….