The UK government is getting tied in knots by the ruling, from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), that the UK cannot deport a man who has been labelled as 'extremely dangerous' because, Jordan, the country to which we want to deport him, may have used torture to procure evidence leading to convictions. and might 'probably' (their words) do so in his case.
I will come back to that in a moment but surely we can just go ahead and deport his family? There seems to be limited information available on their 'origin' but if they are not born in Britain, why can't we deport them?
I have voiced concern about the ECHR ruling before, on this blog. How can judges dictate issues affecting the national security of the UK and against the express wishes of the UK's legally elected government?
Just as importantly, how can we let them do so? The first duty of a government must be to protect its people! That isn't a party political issue, that is first principles.
I am afraid that as regards torture being used on extremists, I may be in a minority. My view is that with Al Qaeda terrorists (as earlier with those from the IRA and UDA) then the 'normal' rules need to be suspended. These people do not play by the same rules as us. Imagine playing football and the opposing team were playing rugby! While we are nicely following the FA rule book, our opponents are picking up the ball and battering us down on the way to scoring their idea of a goal! What is almost as galling is we then have apologists who use legal manoeuvres to try to get us to accept this mis-application of the rules. Usually at the tax-payers expense!!
I do appreciate that it is a slippery road down which to travel but frankly, we grant these people the freedoms of a civilized world that they would remove as soon as they possibly could, at the same time as they seek to extinguish the lives of ordinary people around the world.
Jordan is the country to which the UK is seeking to deport Abu Qatada (though he seems to have been born in Palestine!). Jordan isn't part of Europe and doesn't have to kow-tow to political judges who think they should not only rule on law but actually make it. So Jordan, rightly says that we don't need lectures on law and what is right from Europeans!
The ECHR ruling is patently wrong. It sets out 'acceptable' standards of future behavior which no government can predict or control and then ties the hands of the UK government because of those very lack of control!
However, last time I looked, the UK was still a sovereign nation and the UK government was elected by its people, not judges in Strasbourg. So the UK government must do the right thing and protect its people by deporting Abu Qatada. And start by deporting his family.
Incidentally, who funds Abu Qatada's family? Who funds his legal challenges? MY expectation of an answer is that in both cases, it is the UK taxpayer.
Enough!!
I will come back to that in a moment but surely we can just go ahead and deport his family? There seems to be limited information available on their 'origin' but if they are not born in Britain, why can't we deport them?
I have voiced concern about the ECHR ruling before, on this blog. How can judges dictate issues affecting the national security of the UK and against the express wishes of the UK's legally elected government?
Just as importantly, how can we let them do so? The first duty of a government must be to protect its people! That isn't a party political issue, that is first principles.
I am afraid that as regards torture being used on extremists, I may be in a minority. My view is that with Al Qaeda terrorists (as earlier with those from the IRA and UDA) then the 'normal' rules need to be suspended. These people do not play by the same rules as us. Imagine playing football and the opposing team were playing rugby! While we are nicely following the FA rule book, our opponents are picking up the ball and battering us down on the way to scoring their idea of a goal! What is almost as galling is we then have apologists who use legal manoeuvres to try to get us to accept this mis-application of the rules. Usually at the tax-payers expense!!
I do appreciate that it is a slippery road down which to travel but frankly, we grant these people the freedoms of a civilized world that they would remove as soon as they possibly could, at the same time as they seek to extinguish the lives of ordinary people around the world.
Jordan is the country to which the UK is seeking to deport Abu Qatada (though he seems to have been born in Palestine!). Jordan isn't part of Europe and doesn't have to kow-tow to political judges who think they should not only rule on law but actually make it. So Jordan, rightly says that we don't need lectures on law and what is right from Europeans!
The ECHR ruling is patently wrong. It sets out 'acceptable' standards of future behavior which no government can predict or control and then ties the hands of the UK government because of those very lack of control!
However, last time I looked, the UK was still a sovereign nation and the UK government was elected by its people, not judges in Strasbourg. So the UK government must do the right thing and protect its people by deporting Abu Qatada. And start by deporting his family.
Incidentally, who funds Abu Qatada's family? Who funds his legal challenges? MY expectation of an answer is that in both cases, it is the UK taxpayer.
Enough!!
No comments:
Post a Comment