At last someone who doesn’t beat about the bush and gets straight to the point about the danger Labours Human Rights acts are putting Britain. Stephen Pollard of the Express says what the majority of the UK are thinking over the disgraceful   lack of common sense regarding the Abu Qatada case. His views echo my own comments yesterday when i said screw the human rights and just deport him. Citing where other countries have done just that and the very small fines they have got which far outweigh to cost of keeping the hate spewing Muslim cleric here.


Abu Qatada is back on the streetsAbu Qatada is back on the streets

Wednesday November 14,2012

By Stephen Pollard

PICTURE the scene: it’s 1942. Secret intelligence obtained from a captured Nazi has led the Allies to Hitler. Just as the British commandos are about to enter the building and capture the Führer there’s a hand placed on the shoulder of the expedition leader. “Stop right there, sonny.”

It’s the Whitehall lawyer. And he has a message for the soldiers: “You do not have an arrest warrant for Mr Hitler. Seizing him would be a breach of his human rights. Return to base immediately.”If we had human rights legislation 70 years ago that might well have been the scenario that played out. We would certainly not have been able to fight the Nazis without one, or even both, of our hands tied behind our backs.

The threat we face today may not – yet – be as grave as that posed by Germany in 1939. But the Islamist terrorists’ aim is no less devastating – to destroy Western civilisation and replace it with an Islamic caliphate.

And with every passing day we are aiding and abetting them. Because when we let the likes of Abu Qatada – the man described by a Spanish court as Osama Bin Laden’s righthand man in Europe – roam free, we are one less step away from defeating the terrorists.

The threat we face today may not – yet – be as grave as that posed by Germany in 1939. But the Islamist terrorists’ aim is no less devastating – to destroy Western civilisation and replace it with an Islamic caliphate

And we are one step nearer capitulating. It is no wonder Qatada was smiling as he was let out of Long Lartin prison yesterday. Well may he laugh.

The Islamists and terrorists are running rings around us.

We have tied ourselves up in so many human rights knots that our supposedly sovereign government is no longer allowed to remove a man who poses a grave threat to national security.

How have we reached this grotesque farce?

For once, this latest instalment is not directly about the wretched European Court of Human Rights. The foreign judges who lord it over us there have already had their say on Qatada. This time the problem lies closer to home – a British judge in a British court.

But the root of the scandal is the same: human rights law.

Mr Justice Mitting ruled on Monday that Qatada could not be extradited to Jordan because that would threaten his human rights.

He reached that conclusion because of the most pernicious piece of legislation introduced by any government in the entire post-war era, the Human Rights Act.

Introduced by Labour in 1998, the Human Rights Act enshrines into British law the same European Convention on Human Rights which governs the European Court of Human Rights. It means that judges can now decide that the rights of extremists such as Qatada override the right of the British people to decide who is welcome in our country.

So because Mr Justice Mitting considers that any trial in Jordan might involve the use of evidence obtained by torture, Qatada’s extradition is blocked.

Bad as this is, it will only get worse. The culture of human rights spreads like a triffid throughout the body politic, wrapping itself around the corpse and draining it of life.

It is the triumph of a campaign waged by the Left over decades to constrain our ability to govern ourselves, and to force its ideology on us.

Elections are one thing but they can be lost. To ensure permanent power the Left switched its attention to the law and worked to have the European Convention on Human Rights enshrined in the British legal system. It has worked a treat. And while this law remains in place the rest of us are powerless to resist.

The human rights lobby is a tiny minority of the population.

It is time that the vast silent majority – who are sick and tired of seeing our once great nation held to ransom by Leftwing lawyers and fellow-travellers of terrorists – regained control of Great Britain.

Other European nations have no truck with this idiocy. In April, France deported two terror suspects. Ali Belhadad was flown to Algiers and Almany Baradji was returned to Mali.

France treated the human rights laid down in the ECHR with appropriate contempt.

The month before Italy did the same, deporting Islamic fundamentalist Mohamed Mannai to Tunisia – despite a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights specifically banning deportation on the grounds that evidence obtained by torture might be used against him in a trial.

Italy was fined €15,000 in damages and had to pay €6,500 in costs. A small price to pay for national security.

The Home Secretary Theresa May could do the same and simply ignore Mr Justice Mitting’s ruling.

But there is a good argument that one of the things that cements our democracy is that the Government does not simply ignore inconvenient court judgments.

So instead we should change the relevant laws. That means pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights at once. And it means repealing the Human Rights Act.

In the Conservatives’ manifesto in 2010 the party pledged: “We will replace the HRA with a UK Bill of Rights.”

The Lib Dems – who are part of the human rights lobby – scuppered the plan.

Mr Cameron must revive it.

He should tell Parliament that we have had enough of being dictated to by terrorists and their lawyers and he will repeal the Human Rights Act.

If the Lib Dems continue to put Abu Qatada’s rights above those of British citizens let them suffer the consequences.

They will be destroyed and Mr Cameron will emerge from the wreckage as the man who finally put the human rights lobby back in its box.

Qatada could then, a decade late, be put on a plane to Jordan.


  1. Abu Qatada argued that MI5 “knew the sort of views he was expressing and took no steps to stop or warn him, to prosecute him or prevent his fundraising for groups which are regarded as terrorist groups”. Is this a reason why he is not prosecuted here? Would it be embarrassing if this was used in his defence in a criminal trial? I would say yes. Qatada was actually an MI5 asset at one stage, and his trial in the UK would be far too embarrassing to the Government.

    The Times seemed to think this was the case in 2005 (link to screen-print for firewall dodgers like me here)

    Indignant French officials accused MI5 of helping the cleric to abscond. While he remained on the run one intelligence chief in Paris was quoted as saying “British Intelligence is saying they have no idea where he is, but we know where he is and, if we know, I am quite sure that they do. Almost a year later Abu Qatada was found hiding in a flat not far from Scotland Yard

    The question that is rarely asked, and never answered, is why has he not been tried in an English court? Its a question I have asked many times over the last decade about him and other ‘terrorist’ suspects. If there are allegations of criminal behaviour then put these people on trial. If found guilty then jail or fine them. If not guilty then let them go about their normal business . That’s the way the English justice system used to work before it was debauched by Thatcher and Blair. In ’94 he claimed asylum here in the UK, was recognised as a refugee and allowed to remain.

    I believe the Tories were in power then.

    “Why hasn’t Abu Qatada been tried in an English court?”

    Because the alleged ‘war on terror’ has made nonsense of precisely the rights and freedoms it was supposed to protect. In the name of protecting people’s freedom….we lock people up for 7 years without trial ! This is almost Orwellian in its doublethink, but then that’s nothing new for governments since 911. I find it rather reassuring that the law is followed. The fact that even a universal hate figure like Abu Qatada is given the protection of the law shows that we do live in a civilised society with a legal system which is respected. The law is not always right and it does not always deliver justice but it is a whole lot better than witch hunts and lynching and the rule of the mob. The government – democratically elected or otherwise – cannot ignore a SIAC ruling. Separation of Powers is one of the main pillars of our constitution. The ECtHR is not made up of a “set of foreigners”. The ECtHR was set up with strong British backing from no less a person than Winston Churchill himself. The European Convention on Human Rights was largely drafted by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, 1st Earl of Kilmuir. The fact that it is situated in Strasbourg doesn’t make it “foreign” any more than the UN Security Council, on which we have a permanent seat is “foreign” because the UN happens to be based in NYC.

    This whole situation has arisen because Mrs Teresa May and other politicians have made the deportation of Mr Abu Qatada a test of their virility. No evidence has been produced that Mr Abu Qatada has committed any crime in Britain. Jordan is an undemocratic nation where torture is regularly used against those opposed to regime. Is a person opposed to such a regime, perhaps acts against it, a terrorist? Politicians and hysterical members of the public should get a grip,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s