Government loses Abu Qatada appeal

[Skashion]

That'll do for me- have a nice trip to Jordan fella!!x

Not planning on going to Jordan fella.

 

[Chris in London]

I don't understand why this is still an issue.

We don't extradite people to places where torture is part of the criminal justice system. No exceptions. Doesn't matter how undesirable they are. That's why the Government was just refused permission to appeal.

I think that the recent deportation of suspects under extraordinary rendition makes this ring somewhat hollow, Chris, although I agree entirely with your sentiments otherwise.

You've got a point, which is why I specifically said 'criminal justice system' rather than 'country'. It was pretty shameful that we packed people off to Guantanamo knowing full well that once there they would neither have the protections of US law nor our own. However, the extraordinary rendition process was not actually illegal under our law. Extraditing this guy to Jordan would be illegal, as our courts have just held.

If we start breaking our own laws, what the fuck is the point of it all?

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Well, we may all be frustrated and some even foaming at the mouth about this illegal immigrant, (eventually granted asylum) but the upshot is, we will never be able to do sweet FA about it. It is not our judges who are complicit in keeping this shit stirring odious fat creep here, they are merely enforcing the content of the human rights act, that was eagerly enshrined into British law by Blair to give 'Further effect' to our own tried and tested system of law, which was the blueprint for most civilisations on the planet.
Because, of course, we were busy torturing and flogging anyone who didn't read the Daily mail prior to 1998, as everyone knows. So regrettably, this now means that literally anybody can fetch up here from countries with dubious records, having commited heinous crimes there and claim protection from this act. What constitutes a 'Bad' country is very open to debate, Jordan is no better or worse than most but the fact is, that an act originally conceived to protect genuine sufferers of persecution, (the plight of Jewish people probably being uppermost at its inception) has resulted in this perverse twisting of logic and justice.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Well said mate. The sad things that these brainwashed uber liberals like Rascal don't realise (and I've met him he's well meaning) that the very freedoms he loves, the freedom to think what we want, say what we want, the right to choose our sexuality, the right for females not to be sexually mutilated or made second class citizens are the very freedoms the people he likes to defend would brutally snatch away from him.

Would your opinion be different if Abu Qutada was one of the leading intelligence sources helping us operate against those who would snatch those freedoms away?

After all, you can hardly send some public-school educated, chinless wonder to places like Beirut to wander into meetings of these people to ask "I say chaps, would you mind awfully telling me what you've got planned?"

You'd say to someone like Qutada that you'll protect him but you'd have to make it look good.

What are you suggesting here? That the preachers of hate and terror cell supporters are actually spies? Do you not think our government would protect them in that case and not allow them to be so very publicly exposed?

Yes I'm suggesting some of them possibly are. Do you not think it's interesting that the British authorities had a number of warnings about him from various intelligence agencies yet allowed him to carry on completely untroubled?

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

I don't understand why this is still an issue.

We don't extradite people to places where torture is part of the criminal justice system. No exceptions. Doesn't matter how undesirable they are. That's why the Government was just refused permission to appeal.

I think that the recent deportation of suspects under extraordinary rendition makes this ring somewhat hollow, Chris, although I agree entirely with your sentiments otherwise.

You've got a point, which is why I specifically said 'criminal justice system' rather than 'country'. It was pretty shameful that we packed people off to Guantanamo knowing full well that once there they would neither have the protections of US law nor our own. However, the extraordinary rendition process was not actually illegal under our law. Extraditing this guy to Jordan would be illegal, as our courts have just held.

If we start breaking our own laws, what the fuck is the point of it all?

Some aspects of how extraordinary rendition was handled were legally dubious, but when Uncle Sam wants his pound of flesh, we seemingly bend over like a five pound working girl.
Sadly our 'special relationship' seems to operate along similar power lines, in that America is the pimp, and we are the hooker who does what she's told.
And we have plenty of previous when it comes to detention without trial, then folk throw up their hands in horror when compensation is paid out.
I couldn't agree more - we lose any moral high ground if we can't abide by our own legal framework, but sadly it happens with monotonous regularity.

 

[Chris in London]

Well, we may all be frustrated and some even foaming at the mouth about this illegal immigrant, (eventually granted asylum) but the upshot is, we will never be able to do sweet FA about it. It is not our judges who are complicit in keeping this shit stirring odious fat creep here, they are merely enforcing the content of the human rights act, that was eagerly enshrined into British law by Blair to give 'Further effect' to our own tried and tested system of law, which was the blueprint for most civilisations on the planet.
Because, of course, we were busy torturing and flogging anyone who didn't read the Daily mail prior to 1998, as everyone knows. So regrettably, this now means that literally anybody can fetch up here from countries with dubious records, having commited heinous crimes there and claim protection from this act. What constitutes a 'Bad' country is very open to debate, Jordan is no better or worse than most but the fact is, that an act originally conceived to protect genuine sufferers of persecution, (the plight of Jewish people probably being uppermost at its inception) has resulted in this perverse twisting of logic and justice.

Legislation to give the European Convention on Human Rights statutory basis in English law was a manifesto committment of both the labour party and the lib dems from 1988 onwards. It would have happened if John Smith had lived and become Prime Minister. In fact it would have happened as soon as the Conservative party lost a general election. As happened in 1997.

Out of interest, if you would repeal the Human Rights Act what would you replace it with?

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Well, we may all be frustrated and some even foaming at the mouth about this illegal immigrant, (eventually granted asylum) but the upshot is, we will never be able to do sweet FA about it. It is not our judges who are complicit in keeping this shit stirring odious fat creep here, they are merely enforcing the content of the human rights act, that was eagerly enshrined into British law by Blair to give 'Further effect' to our own tried and tested system of law, which was the blueprint for most civilisations on the planet.
Because, of course, we were busy torturing and flogging anyone who didn't read the Daily mail prior to 1998, as everyone knows. So regrettably, this now means that literally anybody can fetch up here from countries with dubious records, having commited heinous crimes there and claim protection from this act. What constitutes a 'Bad' country is very open to debate, Jordan is no better or worse than most but the fact is, that an act originally conceived to protect genuine sufferers of persecution, (the plight of Jewish people probably being uppermost at its inception) has resulted in this perverse twisting of logic and justice.

Legislation to give the European Convention on Human Rights statutory basis in English law was a manifesto committment of both the labour party and the lib dems from 1988 onwards. It would have happened if John Smith had lived and become Prime Minister. In fact it would have happened as soon as the Conservative party lost a general election. As happened in 1997.

Out of interest, if you would repeal the Human Rights Act what would you replace it with?

All very true. I would replace it with nothing whatsoever, as our justice system prior to 1998 had all the necessary checks and balances in place already.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Well, we may all be frustrated and some even foaming at the mouth about this illegal immigrant, (eventually granted asylum) but the upshot is, we will never be able to do sweet FA about it. It is not our judges who are complicit in keeping this shit stirring odious fat creep here, they are merely enforcing the content of the human rights act, that was eagerly enshrined into British law by Blair to give 'Further effect' to our own tried and tested system of law, which was the blueprint for most civilisations on the planet.
Because, of course, we were busy torturing and flogging anyone who didn't read the Daily mail prior to 1998, as everyone knows. So regrettably, this now means that literally anybody can fetch up here from countries with dubious records, having commited heinous crimes there and claim protection from this act. What constitutes a 'Bad' country is very open to debate, Jordan is no better or worse than most but the fact is, that an act originally conceived to protect genuine sufferers of persecution, (the plight of Jewish people probably being uppermost at its inception) has resulted in this perverse twisting of logic and justice.

Legislation to give the European Convention on Human Rights statutory basis in English law was a manifesto committment of both the labour party and the lib dems from 1988 onwards. It would have happened if John Smith had lived and become Prime Minister. In fact it would have happened as soon as the Conservative party lost a general election. As happened in 1997.

Out of interest, if you would repeal the Human Rights Act what would you replace it with?

All very true. I would replace it with nothing whatsoever, as our justice system prior to 1998 had all the necessary checks and balances in place already.

Of course it did.
Illegal detention and internment without trial.
Framing innocent folk with the collusion of bent police forces.
That was a shining example of a faultless criminal justice system.

 

[Chris in London]

Well, we may all be frustrated and some even foaming at the mouth about this illegal immigrant, (eventually granted asylum) but the upshot is, we will never be able to do sweet FA about it. It is not our judges who are complicit in keeping this shit stirring odious fat creep here, they are merely enforcing the content of the human rights act, that was eagerly enshrined into British law by Blair to give 'Further effect' to our own tried and tested system of law, which was the blueprint for most civilisations on the planet.
Because, of course, we were busy torturing and flogging anyone who didn't read the Daily mail prior to 1998, as everyone knows. So regrettably, this now means that literally anybody can fetch up here from countries with dubious records, having commited heinous crimes there and claim protection from this act. What constitutes a 'Bad' country is very open to debate, Jordan is no better or worse than most but the fact is, that an act originally conceived to protect genuine sufferers of persecution, (the plight of Jewish people probably being uppermost at its inception) has resulted in this perverse twisting of logic and justice.

Legislation to give the European Convention on Human Rights statutory basis in English law was a manifesto committment of both the labour party and the lib dems from 1988 onwards. It would have happened if John Smith had lived and become Prime Minister. In fact it would have happened as soon as the Conservative party lost a general election. As happened in 1997.

Out of interest, if you would repeal the Human Rights Act what would you replace it with?

All very true. I would replace it with nothing whatsoever, as our justice system prior to 1998 had all the necessary checks and balances in place already.

As a general proposition that is undoubtedly true. But you'd be surprised at some of the archaic nooks and crannies that have been cleared out by reason of the Human Rights Act - like the procedure where you had to show cause why you shouldn't go to prison if you were alleged to have breached a court order.

What the HRA does is (a) give an individual a direct right of recourse to the courts where their rights are allegedly infringed, and (b) require our existing laws to be interpret in a manner which is consistent with the Convention.

Both seem to me to be positive developments in the law, even if in 99.9% of cases before 1998 our law was human righs compliant in any event.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Legislation to give the European Convention on Human Rights statutory basis in English law was a manifesto committment of both the labour party and the lib dems from 1988 onwards. It would have happened if John Smith had lived and become Prime Minister. In fact it would have happened as soon as the Conservative party lost a general election. As happened in 1997.

Out of interest, if you would repeal the Human Rights Act what would you replace it with?

All very true. I would replace it with nothing whatsoever, as our justice system prior to 1998 had all the necessary checks and balances in place already.

Of course it did.
Illegal detention and internment without trial.
Framing innocent folk with the collusion of bent police forces.
That was a shining example of a faultless criminal justice system.

Abu Qatada, despite the human rights act has been detained without trial, national security has been the suggested reason.
Bent coppers have been, and sadly will be with us always, the HRA will never alter that fact.