Hurrah for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission

On Abu Qatada that is.

Terror suspect Abu Qatada today won his appeal against deportation to Jordan to face trial.

The radical cleric, once described by a judge as Osama bin Laden\’s right-hand man in Europe, has been fighting extradition to the Middle East country, where he was convicted of terror charges in his absence in 1999

Qatada – whose lawyers say he won\’t get a fair trial in Jordan – was allowed to stay in Britain in 1994, but Ministers desperately want him deported.

Nope, you\’re right, I don\’t know the details of the case. But what these courts, these appeals commissions, are there to do is to protect us from them.

Us the citizenry (and yes, Qatada is not a UK citizen but he was, however rightly or wrongly, granted asylum so he gets the same legal rights) against them the politicians. They may want to deport him. The law says you cannot deport someone to where they will be tortured. Or to where evidence gained under torture will be used.

And let\’s just agree that Jordan is a little more relaxed about those prohibitions than we are here.

At which point let us welcome Mr. Larry Flynt back to centre stage: \”If the law will protect a scumbag like me then it will protect you\”.

Apparently Abu has cost £500k. Or £3 million. Or some vast number in benefits, legal fees, prison costs, since he got here. I would call it cheap for what we\’re getting really. That line in the sand past which those covered by the Pax Britannica cannot be sent off to be dealt with by dodgy foreign legal systems. Cheap at the price I\’d say only a few million squids to limit the power of them over us?

25 thoughts on “Hurrah for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission”

  1. I’d rather it had been Larry Flynt as the exemplar of the system, though.

    Ah, well, unfortunately a cottage on Rockall would undoubtedly interfere with the rights he is desperate to deny to the rest of us.

  2. I would aver you may be missing the point. If Abu ain’t a British subject, why should he be allowed all the same rights as said subjects? If we do, what’s the point in being British anyway…which is exactly what the yuman rites brigade have been working this last half century

  3. Even if you are not a British citizen, you are entitled to due process. If you are granted asylum or granted Indefinite Leave to Remain, this means something and politicians can’t arbitrarily say that it doesn’t. This is good.

  4. SERCO aren’t, however ubiquitous they seem, the government. Political rights, as the Appeal Court held, are not currently the subject of any anti-discrimination law.

    The extension of HRA / ECHR to the private as well as the public sphere is a worrying and nasty erosion of the common law. Although it is quite amusing (if altogether proper) to see the BNP, the most hostile of the parties to HRA, hiding behind its skirts.

  5. If Abu ain’t a British subject, why should he be allowed all the same rights as said subjects?

    Because it is the “Human Rights Act” not the “British Citizens Rights Act”. If we wish to legislate different rights for British Citizens (we may have to include the wider EU citizenry in many if not most of these) we can. We haven’t.

    Your argument does rather hinge on normal UK citizens getting the same protection as Qatada.

    How many British citizens have been deported (or extradited) from the UK to torture jurisdictions since HRA was passed? Even if you stretch it and include the USA, most of those complaining were captured somewhat outside of the bounds of these fair islands.

  6. Completely off-topic, but someone just told me that (second-hand) cars in Portugal are ridiculously expensive compared to the rest of the EU. Is that true? How can it be so?

  7. The HRA hasn’t managed to stop UK citizens being extradited all over Europe for crimes that may not have even been committed at all, let alone by them:

    And many other cases like it. It merely seems to save people who wish to kill us all from getting their just deserts.

  8. The HRA hasn’t managed to stop UK citizens being extradited all over Europe

    That’s the European Arrest Warrant. If Abu Qatada had been wanted in Germany, Portugal or Sweden, he’d have been handed over years ago. Or, of course, hiding out in the Equadorian Embassy …

  9. “…those covered by the Pax Britannica cannot be sent off to be dealt with by dodgy foreign legal systems…”

    So, you’ve never heard of the EU arrest warrant then?

  10. ““If the law will protect a scumbag like me then it will protect you”.

    Not exactly the message here, I’d like to think Mr Qatada stating “If the morons you elect allow a murderous scumbag like me to claim asylum, then don’t expect them to worry about protect you either”.

  11. V. curious to know the overlap between those upset by the Abu Qutada decision whilst cheering the Gary McKinnon decision. Based on the facts I’ve seen, I think Gary should have been dispatched forthwith to the US. Abu Qutada should stay in the UK (Jordan not being the US of A). Either way I agree w/ Timmie that I’d rather have these decisions made by the courts than by the ever populist Ms. T. May.

  12. I think Gary should have been dispatched forthwith to the US

    Yes, the most grevious offence in the world. Making the US govt look more than a bit silly. It shouldn’t be an extraditable offence (hell, hacking shouldn’t, lacking specific motive to cause terror, be terrorism – but it is under US law). But, I agree, as the law stands, he should have gone years ago.

    Personally, I think we should now allow the Jordanians to prosecute Qatada in a UK court. Their evidence gets filtered through the UK system (which has disdained evidence through torture since a wee while after Guido) and, if he’s found guilty, he gets to go home to serve his sentence.

    the ever populist Ms. T. May.

    Was Michael Howard really the last HS with a backbone?

  13. I think we’re all supposed to believe that “Europe” is all one country like the Roman Empire, so if you get arrested in Britannia and put on trial in Dacia, you’re not being extradited as such.

  14. “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”

    -HL Mencken

  15. So Much for Subtlety

    While it is great that Britain has a legal system that holds politicians in check I don’t think this is the best example of it. Because the law is asinine. Yes, it is great that the government cannot do what it wants. But no, it is appalling that we cannot deport this man anywhere we damn well like.

    The British Constitution is not built on the premise that we cannot deport a Jordanian who wants to kill us all to Jordan where he can face justice.

    We have agreements with the Jordanians about how he will be treated. There is no reason to think he will be tortured. But this is not enough for the Courts. They will not protect British people no matter what and that is the problem.

    We need to get rid of as many human rights laws as possible, disbar a whole lot of lawyers and get back to some sane justice.

  16. “If the law will protect a scumbag like me then it will protect you”

    Does not compute if said scumbag wants to kill you. Which this one does.

  17. Does not compute if said scumbag wants to kill you. Which this one does.

    No, that would be an honest scumbag. This one wants to get illiterate peasants from countries renowned only from misogyny and backwardness to kill us. While he sits in comfort bestowing his sermons of hatred upon the deserving.

    Sort of like the relationship between Ritchie and UK Uncredible.

  18. The human rights racket as a suicide pact? Oy vey.

    Does our Timmy want to abolish the whole thing with this sort of reverse psychology? Inquiring minds want to know.

  19. (5) The objective set for the Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice leads to abolishing extradition between Member States and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities. Further, the introduction of a new simplified system of surrender of sentenced or suspected persons for the purposes of execution or prosecution of criminal sentences makes it possible to remove the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the present extradition procedures. Traditional cooperation relations which have prevailed up till now between Member States should be replaced by a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters, covering both pre-sentence and final decisions, within an area of freedom, security and justice.
    (6) The European arrest warrant provided for in this Framework Decision is the first concrete measure in the field of criminal law implementing the principle of mutual recognition which the European Council referred to as the “cornerstone” of judicial cooperation.

    (10) The mechanism of the European arrest warrant is based on a high level of confidence between Member States. Its implementation may be suspended only in the event of a serious and persistent breach by one of the Member States of the principles set out in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, determined by the Council pursuant to Article 7(1) of the said Treaty with the consequences set out in Article 7(2) thereof.
    – Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (my emphasis)

  20. I could not help but notice, that his lawyer, the deeply sinister Gareth Pierce, seemed rather subdued during her interview on Sky News. The customary air of contempt seemed strangely absent.
    Perhaps it is starting to dawn upon her, that she has run out of road. I’m so glad it is too late.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *