But who will be the man to do it? More than anything else this week’s release on bail of the most dangerous man in Britain is a sign of the subversion of justice based on natural common sense. It is on a par with the release in past years of violent offenders who have been deemed beyond psychological rehabilitation and therefore no longer subject to being kept away from society for their and our good.
Is it any wonder that the USA considers the UK a haven for terrorists when a significant mover and shaker in world terrorism is allowed to walk the streets?
Seven out of ten people in the UK think that Qatada should be deported whatever the opinion of the ECHR. This should be an issue in which any Prime Minister would want to take decisive and popular action. The Italians and French have already deported dangerous terrorists in the face of ECHR opposition, and nothing happened beyond a stiff rebuke. What could happen after all? But it takes a leap of the imagination to believe that David Cameron will take advantage of popular opinion and expel Qatada from the UK. One obvious solution would be to deposit him at the entrance to the ECHR itself and offer the unelected, unqualified and unrepresentative members of the Court the opportunity to look after him themselves.
Today even relatively senior Conservatives such as Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones, a security minister until 2011, have called for Abu Qatada to be deported even if it meant ignoring the ECHR ruling. Significantly the Jordanian government has brought in legislation to prevent the use of evidence obtained by torture from being used in trials, and has already committed itself to treating Qatada in a fair manner, taking account of his rights.
The cost to the British taxpayer of keeping Qatada in the UK, whether in custody or on bail, as well as the costs associated with defending British policy in the ECHR is already beyond what is reasonable. Qatada’s mother wants her son home, and in defence of his right to a family life the Prime Minister should act now to reunite them in Jordan.
It is never good when a Government submits itself to populism, but in this case the expulsion of Qatada would be a popular, but not a populist measure, since it is completely in accordance with common sense justice that a man who is a great threat to the British people should not be able to walk among those British people he wishes to harm.
“It is never good when a Government submits itself to populism…”.
Why not? The goverment is there to do the will of the people. They are there to run things like defence, public order and so on, in accordance with the will of the people. They are not superior in any way to the people. They are there to govern the country in accordance with the will of the people.
Let us not forget, it is “the people” who produce the income to run the country. Not the Blair, Cameron, Jack Straw, Nicky Cleggy.
Point No 2 – Jordan is a civilised, well-administered country. The last thing it needs is lessons in democracy from David Cameron, who has never done a day’s work in his life. King Hussein was a graduate of the rigour and discipline of Sandhurst, as is his son King Abudullah. I don’t think HM King Abudullah needs lessons in anything from passenger David Cameron who has never produced a thing in his life.
Of course Abu Whatsits (can’t be arsed) should be deported. My own preference would be, in a body bag. But the notion that he should be allowed to live among the people he is sworn to murder is true lunacy, and this alone is cause for our letter of resignation to the EU.
Populism is not an expression of the political will of the people, it is an expression of the mob.
The reason we are where we are is because of populism, pure and simple. “Who wants unlimited benefits and no need to work? Vote for Labour!”.
Populism is what the Argentinian Government is doing, saying that it will defend Argentina against an invasion by the British!
Adopting policies which have popular support is not the same a populism.
ECHR is not the same thing as EU. We were in the European Court of Human Rights for years before we joined the European Union.
Dean – As Britain had the best justice system in the world, widely copied, what on earth are we doing abasing ourselves and our history to a bunch of Europeans on the make? Until recently, our habit has been to fight and defeat them.
Don’t ask me. I voted ‘no’ in the only referendum we’ve ever had on the ‘Common Market’
Dean, yes I know about the ECHR, etc., but can’t be arsed. We don’t need any governance by any of those initials-for-names (forgetten the correct word) organisations if the first initial stands for European.
The E.C(harter)H.R. has effectively been incorporated into The Lisbon Treaty.Article 6 provides it will have the same status as E.U. Treaties.It is adjudicated upon by the E.C(ourt)H.R.—So judgements of the Court are legally binding in the E.U.—(This can be found under The Law Society site.)
It is interesting that the Spectator publishes Alex Massie insisting that Abu Qatada should stay in the UK. I have suggested that he offers him a bed in his home.
It doesn’t matter what Alex Massie writes. He says, “, the European Court of Human Rights has a strong case: sending Qatada to a country in which the evidence against him may well depend upon torture compromises Qatada’s hopes of a fair trial.”
Does this man know anything at all about Jordan? Has he ever been to Jordan?
Well it may not matter, but he is getting paid by the Spectator to write material like this. They must be reasonably pleased with it or they would not continue to employ him.
Alex Massie has just done what I am sure, in other circumstances, he would regard with curled-lipped contempt. He has judged Jordan by its ethnicity rather than its record.
Radford NG (Feb 14th, 16:39)
You wrote – “The E.C(harter)H.R. has effectively been incorporated into The Lisbon Treaty.Article 6 provides it will have the same status as E.U. Treaties.It is adjudicated upon by the E.C(ourt)H.R.—So judgements of the Court are legally binding in the E.U.—(This can be found under The Law Society site.)”
What you say may well be so, but “legally binding” has a rather narrow meaning that is not synonymous with either “morally right” or “common sense”. It does not always or necessarily mean “enforceable” either.
My dream deportation flight would be: Abu Qatada, Peter Oborne, the chairman and board of BAE Systems and anyone else selling arms to Islamists, and Baroness Warsi.
Their lectures on Islam being a religion of peace will sound so much more convincing delivered from an Islamic state where they are all permanently resident.
What could they possibly have to object to?
Futher to Tulip above, I keep pointing it out because it is important for people to understand the saying, “religion of peace”. People need to understand the logic behind this self-styled description.
islam will be the religion of peace when everyone has submitted to allah. Then there will be no more conflict. That’s the important bit. It’s not that they are wishing for a conflict-free world. They are promising that there will be conflict until the entire world has accepted their gruesome “religion”.
I count myself among the seven out of ten; but in her criticism of Alan Massie it is not clear what Verity is saying. Is it that torture is not a part of the record of Jordan or is she merely holding in reserve the argument that torture is illegal in Jordan? Certainly someone only superficially familiar with the country might think that the latter excluded the possibility of the former.
Malfleur – From what I have read, and seen, of Jordan, I, perhaps naively, don’t think they torture people. Although, it depends on how you define torture. Abu-Wossname looks as though he might consider missing a meal torture.
The prisoners in Gitmo tried to sue the US for “torture” for playing 12 hours of Paula Abudul (at least it wasn’t Whitney Houston) at a stretch at top volume. Others, as we know, tried to sue the US Government for “torture” for waterboarding. Until banned four or five years ago, waterboarding was a routine part of of “pledging” for some fraternities in some US universities and was undertaken voluntarily with great enthusiasm.
So it depends on how we define torture.
I have the utmost contempt for they who agonise about the human rights of Abu Fatguts, especialy the white liberal lawyers who fight so desperately for his right to blow the rest of us to kingdom come. Personaly I think he should be shipped out in a crate to the fist country which promises to torture him to death, and his his family sent with him, let somebody else pay for them as I do not see why we should pay for the charmless crew.
Verity
The Daily Express reports today that “Jordan’s justice minister yesterday revealed his government had changed its laws to block the use of evidence obtained by torture”. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/302026
Now of course this does not of itself mean that evidence in Jordan was obtained by torture in the past, or that the torture, if occurring, was “torture” as Verity might care to define it.
No doubt as Verity travelled around the country, the pulling out of fingernails or tongues with pliers and without anaesthetics (but how do we define torture?) was not conducted by the authorities below her hotel window or as she picked delicately at her roast lamb in her favourite street restaurant. Perhaps her visits to Jordan included tours of the basements of police stations and army barracks where nothing more painful than Arab pop music was the order of the day.
I, perhaps naively though, think that if Jordan’s justice minister changed Jordan’s law to block evidence being used in court which was obtained by torture, then torture was probably practised in Jordan prior to that and indeed even as Verity was researching the question or visiting the country.
Nonetheless, I support the deportation of Abu Qatada from our country. We should no more be concerned with the fate he may have brought upon himself than we should at the chances of a man getting sunstroke were he to choose to go walking without shirt or hat in the Empty Quarter of Saudi Arabia.
Keep your friend close. Keep your enemies closer. Who knows what’s going on behind the scenes here. The man is obviously abhorrent in his beliefs, but so are a large swathe of our political class. Maybe he should be called to account for his beliefs and the results televised. No thought not
Malfleur, it never crossed my mind to investigate torture on the occasions I was in Jordan. I don’t have a “favourite street restaurant” as 1) I have only been there three or four times and 2) I am more of a white napery, formal waiters and place settings type of person. But never let a trite fantasy about someone else in a country you have never visited stop you posting, eh?
If Jordan has indicated that it may torture Abu Wossname, I won’t lose a wink of sleep, but deported he must be. If we don’t deport him, someone may see to it that he has a tragic accident in custody. They should bear in mind the depth of the blubber when thinking about what knife to use.
Verity
Just do a little research into the facts before you post is all I’m asking.
Malfleur, my interest in your instructions for “all I’m asking” doesn’t quite reach room temperature. And, while you’re on the line, don’t make assumptions about the behaviour of people you don’t know in a country you have never visited.
Verity
I note that you were under the impression that Malta was a British possession until corrected by Dean on the Coffee House Wall this week. In response to Dean’s correction, rather than apologise for your carelessness or ignorance, you quipped that you “didn’t know the finer points of Malta’s status”. Whether you may have visited Malta or not is as irrelevant to its status as an independent republic as whether you have visited Jordan is to whether torture by the authorities has been common there. You choose, however, to ignore my point that the Jordanian justice minister has acknowledged the practice of torture in Jordan by passing a law to prohibit it. Instead,you choose to focus on the whether or not your personal interest has been stimulated by my post. “More matter, with less art.”
Malfleur – No, I hadn’t given Malta any thought … We were discussing The Falklands, and I was just trying to reel off some small countries, associated with us, that would need our protection in the case of invasion. Malta is a wonderful country.
“Instead,you choose sic to focus on the whether or not your personal interest has been stimulated by my post.” Indeed I did. And it wasn’t.
I’ve been stuck in bed ill for the last few days, and opening up my laptop I was faced with this obscene sight.
Nothng changes, ‘brave’ men mumble into their beer, but no untoward accidents face this lump of pig lard.
Hope you’re feeling a little perkier, AWK.
Every morning I turn the computer on and see this bearded fat boy and the promise that he is to be deported. WHEN? When are they strapping him into a seat on the plane? When will the welcoming committee in Aman be boarding the plane with rifles and handcuffs?
Meanwhile, could they strap him down and shave off that disgusting beard, please. Thank you. (It would be a tragedy if the razor slipped. Just a thought.)
I note that the next Spectator debate at the RGS on 20th March, chaired by Andrew Neil – motion ‘Immigration: Enough is enough’ will be conducted with the usual Speccie ‘balance’, two speakers for – three against and all a bit sussy. Moreover, at thirty quid a ticket, enough is too much, in my humble opinion. And it’s a very long time ago that the NFM raised the Neather question. I wonder if it will be slipped in?
Verity: Thanks for your kind wishes. Truth be told, I feel awful. Was amused to learn of the excellent response the Jordanians gave to the sorry affair of the terrorist. They ask how dare Britain judge Jordanian juridiction. Now the Brits really have their knickers in a twist. They want to ass crawl to the EU, and cannot afford to insult the most civilised and stable Arab country in the Middle East. Perfidious Albion!
AWK – Absolutely! Jordan has been a reliable friend, even at some cost to itself in the Arab world. King Hussein was a staunch friend and so is King Abdullah. They both went to Sandhurt. Queen Noor, King Hussein’s widow, is an American-born Arab. Her father was a US test pilot. King Abdul’s beautiful wife, Queen Rania, does a stint driving a Red Crescent ambulance and does the same chores as everyone else on ambulance duty. Jordan is an ace state.
Why are we deporting, if it ever comes about, this lump of lard? [……..]
I read today that it “may take up to two years” to deport this toxic waste.
Dump the ECHR. I’m assuming it was Blair, and specifically sceptic Cherie who gave away Britain’s permission to decided who occupies space on our land. If Nigel Farage were in Parliament, he would not rest until this toxic entity had been delegitimised.
Verity – you should be careful with your prescription for Abu Q. Incitement to murder is a v. serious matter. You are, of course, far beyond the reach of the law in sunny mexico. PfM is running the site from well within it.
Don’t read me lectures on the law, you puny, power-hungry little individual.
Verity, I have removed a sentence from your post about Abu Qatada simply because I do have to have some eye to what might cause me personal problems as running this site and not because I wish to be seen as being heavy handed. It would perhaps be helpful if we all exercised a sort of ‘group-think’ to try and protect the site, and myself, from any trouble. I mean that rather than have people report things just because they disagree with them, as on other sites, I’d rather people helped to moderate the site with me and for me just to the extent that I cannot be made liable.
Peter – might have a look at comments @ 15.17 and 16.06, cheers
Peter from M – The site is your property and you run it as you see fit, and as you please. That’s uncontestable and I am sure we all, here, have no problem at all deferring to you. We are here of our own free will, we knew that you own the site when we came here, and that you make the rules.
Officious little NuLabour snitches, miming “caring”, are something I don’t won’t comport with, however. School sneaks never were my cup of tea.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102961/Deporting-hate-preacher-Abu-Qatada-years–allowed-send-home.html
Two years to get “permission” to send him back to Jordan.
Remind me of why we belong this ECHR outfit?