Despite Facing Charges Under UK Terror Financing Laws, Jihadi Jack’s Parents Found Time To Criticize Andrew Scheer

This will only make Scheer more popular.

In a move that is likely to backfire, the parents of Jihadi Jack (Jack Letts) – the British man being held in Syria and accused of fighting for ISIS – are criticizing Andrew Scheer.

John Letts – the father of Jack – sent out an open letter claiming Scheer was spreading ‘lies.’

Part of the letter said “I am writing to you because I have to do something to challenge the misinformation that has appeared in the Canadian media recently — lies repeated and exaggerated by Mr. Andrew Scheer. Mr. Scheer confidently claimed that Jack is ‘a known jihadi fighter’ — a blatant lie that he knows is untrue. Simply repeating a lie four times does not make it true.”

Of course, Scheer is not the first to call Jihadi Jack an ISIS terrorist.

Numerous newspapers all around the world have said it, and UK papers dubbed Jack Lett as Jihadi Jack in the first place.

What makes this all so ironic is that the Letts face charges under UK anti-terror laws:

“His parents say he wanted to come home in late 2015 and their attempt to transfer him money ran afoul of Britain’s anti-terror financing law. They were charged under that law in 2016; they maintain their innocence, but the case is still pending.”

They’ve been having a tough time in court:

“Sally Lane, 56, and John Letts, 57, from Oxford, are due to stand trial at the Old Bailey for allegedly breaching section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000. They are charged with sending money overseas, or arranging to do so, when they knew or had reasonable cause to suspect that it would or might be used for the purposes of terrorism.

In a unanimous judgment, five supreme court justices ruled that it was not a strict liability offence but nonetheless “an accused can commit this offence without knowledge or actual suspicion that the money might be used for terrorist purposes”.

The hearing revolved around the meaning of “reasonable cause to suspect”, which appears in section 17(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Both the crown court trial judge and the court of appeal concluded that it was sufficient, based on information known to the accused, that “there exists, assessed objectively, reasonable cause to suspect that the money may be used for the purposes of terrorism.”

Instead of criticizing Scheer, perhaps the Letts should focus on dealing with those charges against them.

This will likely boost Scheer’s popularity. After all, getting attacked by the parents of someone dubbed a Jihadi is probably beneficial politically.

Why the hell should any Canadians listen to what they have to say?

Of course, this is all a distraction from the real issue: The absolutely disgraceful move by the Trudeau government to let ISIS fighters return and keep their Canadian Citizenship, despite treasonously fighting for an enemy of our nation.

Spencer Fernando

Photo – Screengrab