To not give a toss about Abu Qatada's human rights?

[wannaBe]

So he came here on a fake passport, is a radical suspected of plotting God-knows-what, and yet we apparently shouldn't deport him back to where he came from (regardless of the fact he is here illegally) because he might be persecuted back in Jordan?

Now if this was an innocent person who meant no harm to others who had come here illegally I would be more sympathetic.

But it's not.

Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that.

applauds trazzletoes

"... so you can probably guess what angle I'm going to take ..."

Yes I did and, surprise , surprise.

I was right.

also applauds trazzletoes

Alemci Don't be so trite. There is a world of difference between someone being sent to a country to be tortured/ tried with evidence obtained by torture, and someone going to a 1st world country to be tried for a crime, provided that it is either not punishable by death or the USA has agreed to waive the death penalty.

Neatly put, Trazzletoes

Allowing the subjective and arbitrary judgement of civilians to dictate how somebody should be treated will result in people being punished beyond the sentences awarded to them by the legal system.

It is not for the person on the street or even those of us working within the forensic realm to mete out additional punishment/retribution in order to compensate for what we see as shortcomings in our legal system.

Look at what is happening in China...In Syria....The babysteps towards a fairer legal/political system in MyanMar have yet to obscure that which they aim to replace.

Read Christopher Hitchen's article in which he writes of his voluntary subjection to waterboarding and the effect upon what he said...This makes it crystal clear just how unreliable torture is as a measure.

yes but the jail where that guy was sent in America is probably not very pleasant either. why didn't he get supported more by our legal system?? He may get beaten up by other prisoners and the guard could turn a blind eye. I wasn't aware that my comment was particularly trite but there you go.

Isn't there somewhere else this man could go to instead away from the UK with his family and no financial support. I am being tongue in cheek but it really would serve him right. I think it is the costs to the public purse that irritates me more than anything else.

I believe in human rights but now he's just taking the piss. The cynical exploitation of the british legal system is making us look foolish and this is what he's banking on. I think we should now pay the fine and send him back enough is enough.

So at which point should someone lose their human rights? If they're a terrorist? As designated by who - as mentioned above one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Nelson Mandela was considered to be a terrorist by a government for decades. Or if they commit a "serious crime". What would be a serious crime? Murder? Sexual crime? Treason? And where is the cut off point. Murder can go all the way from serial killers to killing someone while driving drunk. Treason is more tricky, goes from assassinating a head of state to (as in the example of North Korea) defacing an image of the leader.

YABU

You can't have human rights for some people and not for others - you either have them for everyone or not at all.

I know which I'd rather have. 'Live by the sword, die by the sword'?? - fortunately we've progressed beyond medieval times.

Human rights are the rights of human beings. Not just of human beings of whom you happen to approve.

Alemci Am sending apologies as I had just worked myself up in to a state! Sorry!!!

Yes, he may get beaten up in the States. I can't imagine that he's in a nice prison. But legally, being held in a US prison is not contrary to his human rights, like being held in a UK prison isn't. I don't know much about extradition law, but assume that the US government had to provide a limited amount of evidence that he had committed the crime that he was accused of, so that they could show they needed to try him? I honestly don't know...

I think the whole point of Abu Qatada is that there isn't anywhere else he could go. He can't get out of the UK without a passport, (well, especially when he's in detention!). The UK can only send him to a country where he is a national, which is Jordan, The cost to the public purse is a big deal and I fully understand that, but what price our freedom? The fact is that it is an important legal issue as to whether or not one can be sent back to a country and be tortured or be tried with evidence obtained under torture and he can't work and therefore pay for himself because he has no right to be here...

Pendeen I don't think I'd be doing a very good job for my clients if I didn't believe in the HRA x

OP I think most people in the country have probably thought 'Stop messing around and just put him on a thoroughly decrepit and unsound plane' (I'm one of them) but human rights have to be applied universally, regardless of the worthiness of the individual, or they become meaningless. They are what makes us better than some hellhole where you can 'disappear' for being inconvenient, for looking at someone the wrong way or just coming from the wrong area.

As a religious conservative nutter I'd be fairly near the top of the persecution list if this country decided that some humans were more equal than others.

TheUnMember
Thank you Snorbs, I do feel it's kind of pointless though. Some people can't be reasoned with and my gut tells me that people prepared to argue against human rights probably fall into that category.

It's funny. Here I am arguing that we already had human rights before the almighty ECHR defined them, and you're claiming I'm opposed to them. I'm not opposed, I just don't think the ECHR's definition of them is any good whatsoever and I think we were doing quite nicely before.

BornSicky

I don't have a disdain for people. What I have is a loathing for the idea that Big Law can protect us from Big Government. People like TheUnMember basically want human rights legislation so that they can apply their own prejudices to people's lives. People have to decide on their own what 'rights' are and universality is a fantasy.

"People like TheUnMember basically want human rights legislation so that they can apply their own prejudices to people's lives. People have to decide on their own what 'rights' are and universality is a fantasy."

Err... What?

I know Trazzle it is a contentious subject. I don't want to think of someone being tortured but still feel this guy makes a mockery of our system and generosity hence the idea of an island somewhere.

I personally am glad he's had the chance to exhaust the system. The UK needs to be seen as whiter than white here- how many sympathisers do you think his 'cause' would gain if we'd just shipped him back to Jordan without abiding by the proper process? This boy has to be seen as the nutjob he is, not painted as a friggin' martyr. Someone mentioned NI further up; the government learnt a lot of lessons here the hard way, which are now being applied to the likes of Afghanistan as well as nationally.

I know Trazzle it is a contentious subject. I don't want to think of someone being tortured but still feel this guy makes a mockery of our system and generosity hence the idea of an island somewhere.

I wonder if Elba has space?

What's with the invasion of daily mail readers today?

It's a good thing we have a fairly robust legal system cos I'd hate some of you to be in charge with no checks and balances in place. Start with the ones who say things you don't agree with but you can't actually prosecute, presumably because it isn't a crime, and end where exactly?

Mercibucket, think similar thread to this yesterday re the daily mail reader jibe.

For the record I don't read any paper but to label people who don't agree with u as ' daily mail readers' is do silly and so boring.

tethersend

Let me elaborate. The idea that there is some set of 'rights' we can all agree to and that can be preserved in aspic is nonsense. 'Rights' have changed through the centuries and different ideas on 'rights' prevail in different cultures. Who's to say that our attitudes towards homosexuality or pet ownership or alcohol will remain the same in 100 years time?

The idea that there's a 'right to vote' sounds fine until you realise that means that convicted felons who are in jail will have the same voting influence as people who've never committed a crime in their lives. And how can that, except in the maddest views of the 'equality' nazis who police our lives, be a good thing for a society? What better way to devalue the Vote than to hand it to people who have, by choice, tossed aside the benefits that civilised society offers them?

But just look down the list of things that the ECHR covers. Disability, diversity, equality. What the ECHR is, is a list of the current social prejudices of the wealthy, well-educated left-wing middle class made law. We're all expected to fit in to this template of approved behaviour.

And look at the sneering attitudes of those who think the ECHR is a good thing. If we don't we're 'Daily Mail readers' or 'ignorant'. Why is it that those in favour of the ECHR are well-informed and sober and intelligent and all those against are ignorant trolls who can't think for themselves and read the Wail?

Oh dear.

:-) tethersend

Flat pack hamster, good post.

Oh dear tethersend is that a ' I am so much clever than u plebs who don't understand complicated situations?''