The Walid Saadaoui case in Manchester presents a disturbing question: what happens when the act of publicly shaming a potential terrorist not only fails to deter, but actually amplifies their message? Saadaoui, accused of plotting a terror attack against Jewish people in Manchester, has denied being a "shameless liar," claiming he was merely "playing along" with an undercover operative. (This, of course, is the claim of someone facing serious charges.) But the larger issue here isn't just Saadaoui's guilt or innocence; it's the potential for individuals to exploit the very mechanisms designed to expose and condemn them.
The problem, as I see it, lies in the psychology of individuals who are already deeply entrenched in extremist ideologies. For someone like Saadaoui, who allegedly identifies with ISIS, public condemnation might not be a deterrent, but rather a form of validation. The attention, even negative, can be twisted into a narrative of persecution, reinforcing their sense of being a righteous outsider fighting against a corrupt world. Consider the prosecutor's claim that Saadaoui knew a great deal about ISIS. If true, does exposure shame him, or does it provide a stage?
We often assume that public shaming works because it targets an individual's reputation and social standing. But what if the individual has already rejected mainstream society and built their identity around a counter-narrative? In Saadaoui's case, his alleged ties to ISIS suggest a pre-existing rejection of societal norms. Exposing him might simply solidify his position within that extremist community, turning him into a martyr or a symbol of resistance. It's like trying to bankrupt someone who already lives on the street; the threat loses its power.
The article "You can’t shame the shameless" touches on this point, arguing that naming and shaming is only effective when the person has something to lose. The author writes, "For the pundit, the provocateur or the online 'influencer' whose entire brand is built on performative bigotry, your outrage is their oxygen." Is Saadaoui, in a sense, a terrorist influencer? Is he trying to gain clout within his circle?
The trial hinges on Saadaoui's claims that he was threatened by a Syrian man, Hamdi Almasalkhi, and that he was merely playing along with the undercover operative. However, the prosecution presented evidence that Almasalkhi died in 2021, two years before Saadaoui moved to Wigan. Saadaoui's response—that Almasalkhi faked his death, an "Isis classic"—raises serious questions about his credibility.
But let's consider a methodological critique: how reliable is the evidence of Almasalkhi's death? Could the death certificate be falsified? While unlikely, it's a question that needs to be addressed. If Saadaoui's claims are indeed false, it suggests a calculated attempt to manipulate the narrative and portray himself as a victim. This raises another question: is he trying to manipulate the court, or is he trying to signal something to his potential supporters?
And this is the part of the case I find genuinely disturbing. Saadaoui's alleged plot involved targeting a mass gathering of Jews in Manchester. This wasn't a random act of violence; it was a deliberate attempt to incite terror and division within a specific community. The potential for such an attack to spark further hatred and violence is significant. So, is publicizing his trial, even with the intention of condemning his actions, inadvertently giving him a platform to spread his hateful ideology?
The "Dissenting Opinion" article also points out that "wasting community synergy attacking an individual while people are desperate for volunteers and resources is the peak of performative outrage." Instead, the author suggests focusing on "bolstering mutual aid networks, organizing our workplaces, developing popular education materials and creating the structures of care and support that make our movements strong from the ground up." This is a valid point. Is our outrage being directed effectively? Are we focusing too much on individual cases and not enough on addressing the root causes of extremism?
The wealth disparities in the U.S. were displayed in dystopian fashion at Trump's recent gathering of elites, argues another article. While seemingly unrelated, it highlights the performative aspect of wealth and power. Similarly, is Saadaoui's trial becoming a performative display of justice, overshadowing the deeper issues of radicalization and community safety?
In this case, it's not about whether Saadaoui is a "shameless liar." It's about whether our efforts to shame him are actually feeding the very beast we're trying to defeat.
IEA Data: AI Impact vs. Global Outlook
2025-11-21
