The Guardian story you linked to came out this time last year, but the trip it refers to happened in October the previous year.

Not that this is any excuse. Bahrain wasn’t Sweden before the aborted Pearl Revolution.

Only right to point out that there was a Labour MP on the trip as well.

The all-party group for Bahrain is supported by the country’s government, which engages Gardant Communications to act as its secretariat. The chair (Conor Burns, the new Tory MP for Bournemouth West) and two vice-chairs (Priti Patel, the Conservative MP for Witham, and Labour’s Thomas Docherty, the Labour MP for Dunfermline and Fife West) received a funded trip to Bahrain in October last year

I’m afraid contempt for human rights in foreign affairs is a bipartisan problem (like so much else).

And Sunny, wrt your tweet, the ECHR isn’t an EU court.

“And Sunny, wrt your tweet, the ECHR isn’t an EU court.”

Even Priti Patel presumably knows this, although I bet she isn’t stressing it because it invites the question ‘why, if the CoE is so evil, did Winston Churchill set it up in the first place?’.

Even Priti Patel presumably knows this

Presumably, which is why she refers to it as a “European Court”, which it is.

although I bet she isn’t stressing it because it invites the question ‘why, if the CoE is so evil, did Winston Churchill set it up in the first place?’.

Which invites the pretty obvious answer that it has enlarged its powers pretty dramatically since then and is now far more influential on domestic English law than Churchill would have anticipated. I’m not in favour of pulling out of the CoE, but the ‘Churchill started it!’ argument is pretty lame.

In any case, British Tories aren’t Reaganite Republicans, and appeals to ancient authorities are much less effective. Churchill would have agreed with John McDonnell about agricultural protectionism – doesn’t mean we have to.

(1951 manifesto “We shall maintain our system of guaranteed agricultural prices and markets and protect British horticulture from foreign dumpers. We have untilled acres and much marginal land. Farmers and merchants should work together to improve distribution in the interests of the public.”)

Surely a human right is a human right where ever one lives around the world. After all we are all human whether we live in France, Poland or Britain so human rights should be the same where ever one goes.

To be honest, her statement sounds like “Remind Dave to pay lip-service to how great human rights are while he undermines them”.

However:

“Why did she happily go there as guest of the Bahrain government while it was brutalising hundreds of its own people?”

It was an official visit, wasn’t it? Maybe you think we should adopt a policy of just not talking to countries we dislike (“Britain Sends World to Coventry”) , but I personally think that would be stupid.

She was doing her job. It’s like calling Caroline Lucas a hypocrite because she works in a parliament building that isn’t properly insulated.

“Tories standing up for human rights? Pull the other one.”

Oh, here we go…

1. “most cases that are heard by the ECHR lead to a ruling against Britain.”

This is very misleading. The Court dismisses 97% of the applications filed against the UK. But apparently these don’t count as ‘wins’ to the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph and their contributors.

2. “the ECHR blocked the Government’s efforts to deport the radical and dangerous cleric Abu Qatada”

This is misleading, too. The UK is not free to deport Qatada because Jordan will not give him a fair trial because evidence against Qatada was tortured out of people. The Court didn’t say “you can’t ever deport Qatada whatever happens”. Do we support fair trials and are we against torture?

3. “On top of these horrendous cases, the ECHR and the COE are still pressing Britain to grant prisoners the right to vote, despite the House of Commons voting against this decision.”

This is misleading as well. What the Court said (paraphrased, obv.) is that you have to properly justify the infringement of someone’s rights – in this case disenfranchisement and they found we hadn’t properly justified it. The implication of what Patel and her ilk say is that the UK shouldn’t have to justify infringements. This isn’t what someone who genuinely cares about human rights would think.

4. Cameron and senior Tories have stated that there is no question of withdrawing from the Court or the Convention. Apparently they just want to persuade the Court to not rule against the UK in cases that the Daily Mail will whinge about.

5. It’s a bit odd to submit to the jurisdiction of a court but expect to be free from adverse decisions.

“The Court didn’t say “you can’t ever deport Qatada whatever happens” – so what are we doing, biding our time – after all since entering the UK as an illegal immigrant nearly 20 years ago, and having been subsidised ever since we mustn’t rush into anything, must we?

The Court didn’t say “you can’t ever deport Qatada whatever happens”.

This is true. If he was innocent, or plausibly likely to be so, it would be straightforward to deport him. The fact that there seems to be, in the judgement of the court, pretty convincing evidence that he is a mass murderer is what makes deportation impossible.

Can’t help thinking that liberal legal minds would be better off giving up on trying to defend the indefensible by quoting Churchill. Instead, come up with a proposal that doesn’t correspond to a de facto legal license for Europeans to murder non-Europeans with impunity.

I just had a fight with a seal and it bit me!

I assume the answer to the question ‘Does Priti Patel MP care for human rights?’ is yes. And the same answer would apply to any MP you care to name (including the more extreme Northern Ireland examples).

They may differ on their views of where human rights lie and how they should be defended however, and I suspect Ms Patel and Mr Hundal may differ in their views as well. But implying that Ms Patel does not care for human rights because she is a Conservative seems somewhat peculiar – I might as well claim that Sunny does not care for my right to free speech because he is a socialist. About as well grounded a statement (and equally obviously untrue, as you are reading this on Sunny’s website…).

@ 11

I have a suspicion that the title’s wrong, anyway. Should be “care ABOUT human rights”, I reckon. It’s one thing to say that an MP dislikes human rights and another to suggest that they don’t consider them that important.

Here is the Court’s judgement in Qatada v UK:

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/56.html

The Court was not persuaded by Qatada’s claim that he would be tortured on his return to Jordan; the Court was persuaded by the UK that, despite the culture of torture with impunity in Jordan, Qatada himself did not face a “real risk” of torture.

The Court was unpersuaded by Qatada’s claim that it was incompatible with Article 3 taken in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention for SIAC, in order to establish the effectiveness of the assurances given by Jordan, to rely upon material which was not disclosed to him. Article 13 provides as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

The Court was unpersuaded that Jordan would violate Qatada’s right to liberty (Article 5) in detaining him for up to 50 days pending his trial.

Qatada has for now escaped deportation on just one point:

the applicant has presented further concrete and compelling evidence that his co-defendants were tortured into providing the case against him. He has also shown that the Jordanian State Security Court has proved itself to be incapable of properly investigating allegations of torture and excluding torture evidence, as Article 15 of UNCAT requires it to do. His is not the general and unspecific complaint that was made in Mamatkulov and Askarov; instead, it is a sustained and well-founded attack on a State Security Court system that will try him in breach of one of the most fundamental norms of international criminal justice, the prohibition on the use of evidence obtained by torture. In those circumstances, and contrary to the applicants in Mamatkulov and Askarov, the present applicant has met the burden of proof required to demonstrate a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice if he were deported to Jordan.

If the UK can persuade the Court to the contrary, Qatada can be deported. If the Court is persuaded that such evidence would not be used, Qatada can be deported. If Jordan said they would not try Qatada, he can be deported. If the UK appeals to the Grand Chamber and succeeds in persuading the Chamber of its case, Qatada can be deported.

I repeat: the Court did not say “You may not deport Qatada ever for any reason”.

Note: Qatada has been in prison pending deportation since November 2008.

soru @9, that’s either a non sequitur or too clever for me to understand.

@11 – Well sure. “Care to abolish them” is still caring, after all.

“it will be another quarter of a century before a British Government gets this chance again”

Maybe the Tories should have sough…oooh…allies in this? Rather than being ***holes?

The proposals are laughable, except maybe the bit about the criticism of the Court list- notoriously slow. The Indie reports that 97% of cases are sifted and thrown out, so only 3% of cases receive full hearings, and of those 61% of cases vs the UK find against the UK (thus only 2% of cases the UK loses) . That’s low for European countries, and reflects the fact that our domestic courts are highly respected. The cases that get heard are about big issues, and the ones that are heard are likely to be the strongest ones. What’s more, the UK has a good record of implementing compliance. The small islander line of the government is not a matter of us versus Europe, as reported, but politicians lashing out at judges when they don’t like being fettered by the Courts they themselves set up. After all, the ECHR was essentially written by the UK and France after the war.

7 Stop stealing my lines

9 It’s called prison. If the man’s a criminal put him on trial and put him in prison.

[13] does the ruling say who has been paying a king ransom in legal fees – is it al queda or the poor old British tax payer?

What a delicious irony a man of violence wanted in 3 continents clinging like a limpet to a legal system in a democracy he is hellbent on destroying.

Tom @ 3:

“it invites the question ‘why, if the CoE is so evil, did Winston Churchill set it up in the first place?’.”

I’m not sure why supporters of the ECHR keep invoking Churchill like this. Churchill was very much in favour of British rule in India, so maybe we should invade the Subcontinent like Winston would have wanted?

Do people genuinely believe the UK doesn’t deport any criminals or suspected criminals? There are tens of thousands of forced removals and voluntary departures (under threat of deportation proceedings) a year. I don’t recall how many refusals there are.

The level of discourse in the UK about human rights is quite damaging, in my view – the misrepresentations have poisoned the idea of human rights, more has been made of the controversial cases than should be made (e.g. we aren’t in any danger of a pro-paedophile party forming a government even if paedophile prisoners are enfranchised, which they won’t be) and contrary to claims made by newspapers the government does not lose 3 out 4 cases but less than 2%.

Moreover, as in Qatada’s case, a win does not mean the applicant is necessarily freed to go on a murderous rampage, and some applicants may well have very ‘normal’ complaints (about healthcare provision and care homes for example), based on human rights grounds, which ‘right-thinking’ people (i.e. the Daily Mail) would happily support.

Incidentally, I enjoyed the rich irony of the Daily Mail’s (supported by the Telegraph) appeal against anonymous testimony to the Leveson Inquiry on the grounds that it violated the Mail’s Convention rights (freedom of expression) and was just so unfair (and the Mail lost). Hahaha – as they say, you couldn’t make it up.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/57.html

Watchman, fair enough, but that seems to me a bit like saying “I agree with the Ten Commandments but think it’s fine to kill people”.

“I’m not a racist but…” – “I care about human rights but…”

The principle of universality seems intrinsic to ‘human rights’. But Patel and co. seem to only support human rights for people with whom they are sympathetic. Suspected criminals should not have human rights, for example, but suspected criminals are very often the category of person for whom such rights are necessary. There has to be a fair trial, for example, otherwise how do we know this man is a criminal?

Patel would perhaps be a little more clever (although, having seen her on Question Time etc, I’m not certain); she might say, “the rights of the law-abiding majority should outweigh Qatada’s rights”. I think we can all happily agree with this (to an extent). The thing is, our rights do outweigh his! He faces deportation proceedings (and remains in prison) because the government has persuaded our courts that he is an undesirable. But why does it follow that we should be free to deport him to a country that won’t give him a fair trial by the standards we have said we sign up to and fully support (and note, not just the Convention but UN treaties and suchlike)? And again, he is in prison, so it’s not as if he is right now a clear and present danger to the public. Having previously broken his bail conditions he will face a challenge in persuading a court that it won’t happen again. And, um, so far as we know, he hasn’t actually murdered anyone in the UK – IIRC he hasn’t been convicted of anything in the UK.

A&E,

[13] does the ruling say who has been paying a king ransom in legal fees – is it al queda or the poor old British tax payer?

I believe it is our dear old friend the taxpayer who is paying for Qatada’s legal expenses and current abode, BICBW. A king’s ransom? In the scheme of things very little.Oh, before someone brings it up, yes he was awarded £2,500 once because the authorities didn’t get a move on.

What a delicious irony a man of violence wanted in 3 continents clinging like a limpet to a legal system in a democracy he is hellbent on destroying.

Yes, this man is being aided and defended by the very principles he apparently wants to destroy. It’s really very good, isn’t it? I think it’s a metaphorical kick to his teeth and we should all celebrate and enjoy it!

[20] The 1951 Refugee Convention (under which Qatada was allowed into Britain in the first place) specifically states that asylum “cannot be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is” – “After all, if you invite someone into your home to protect them from harm, only to find they threaten your well-being, are you not entitled to make them leave? Moreover, paying for them to stay – Qatada and his large family live on benefits – simply adds insult to injury”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9020416/Abu-Qatada-once-again-he-has-made-fools-of-us.html

According to some “This is a classic example of mission creep, with judicial legislation from Strasbourg riding roughshod over decisions that should be determined by UK courts.” – it would be a very hollow sort of celebration when common sense dictates that we should have been rid of this dreadful cleric long before now.

@ ukliberty: Hoorah for all your posts on this matter. The fact that the British system is concerned to uphold the human rights even of an individual whose views are contemptible to the majority seems to me to be of the essence to our democracy, and should be a matter of pride rather than obloquy.

[22] “The fact that the British system is concerned to uphold the human rights even of an individual whose views are contemptible to the majority seems to me to be of the essence to our democracy” – hang on, I thought the highest British court wanted to deport AQ (with robust assurances) but were prevented from doing so by EU judges.

I am sure there are many other men of violence who would be most interested in such arrangements – perhaps we should be inviting them here so we can celebrate our, err, democracy.

A&E @21,

The 1951 Refugee Convention (under which Qatada was allowed into Britain in the first place) specifically states that asylum “cannot be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is”

1. Qatada made a successful application for asylum, the basis of which was first, that he had been detained and tortured in March 1988 and 1990-1991 by the Jordanian authorities and second, that he had been detained and later placed under house arrest on two further occasions. The applicant was recognised as a refugee on 30 June 1994 and granted leave to remain until 30 June 1998. As is the normal practice, the Secretary of State did not give reasons for his decision for recognising the applicant as a refugee.

On 8 May 1998 the applicant applied for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. This application had not been determined before the applicant’s arrest on 23 October 2002.
http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/56.html

So it appears the authorities did not consider him too dangerous in 1994, but certainly did consider him dangerous eight years later.

2. I am certain you know that the Refugee Convention is not the only international agreement we have signed up to and therefore, even if it is applicable in this particular case today, that it is not the only agreement we must consider.

Thanks, Churm Rincewind.

A&E,

hang on, I thought the highest British court wanted to deport AQ (with robust assurances) but were prevented from doing so by EU judges.

Not so fast!

1. What the present case hinges on, what there is disagreement about between the Lords and the ECtHR (for the sake of argument the hearings are occurring concurrently, rather than the latter hearing years after the former), is not that the trial would be unfair – everyone involved (except perhaps Jordan) agrees it would be unfair to some extent – but whether or not the unfairness would amount to a “flagrant denial of justice” sufficient to prevent deportation in a removal case.

There is a discussion about what “flagrant denial of justice” means, what constitutes it, from para 59 http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/56.html.

As I said, everyone involved agrees there is a risk of an unfair trial; the disagreement was and is about whether it is a sufficient risk to prevent deportation. In 2009 the Lords said it was insufficient, and last week in early 2012 the ECtHR said we disagree, it is sufficient.

The Court has found that a flagrant denial of justice will arise when evidence obtained by torture is admitted in criminal proceedings. The applicant has demonstrated that there is a real risk that Abu Hawsher and Al-Hamasher were tortured into providing evidence against him and the Court has found that no higher burden of proof can fairly be imposed upon him. Having regard to these conclusions, the Court, in agreement with the Court of Appeal, finds that there is a real risk that the applicant’s retrial would amount to a flagrant denial of justice. ….The Court finds that the applicant’s deportation to Jordan would be in violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

(The Lords judgement: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/10.html)

2. The ECtHR heard some evidence additional to that heard by the Lords, so we cannot say what the Lords would say about this today, we can only say what the Lords said in 2009 according to the evidence (and case law) available to them at the time.

eight^W four

Er…, I was right all along, four^W eight. Sorry for the noise.

Note to mods / admins: odd that these comments appear but not my comment where I relish the delicious irony of the Daily Mail’s complaint that their Article 10 Convention right (freedom of expression) had been infringed by the anonymity granted to particular witnesses at the Leveson Inquiry, asking for a judicial review (and delightfully being shown the door instead).

(which A&E seems to have seen somehow, unless it is coincidence that both ironies are delicious.)

See if Priti keeps getting stopped by police on Section 60 searches and Not even given stop and account forms, how long she feels before she stops wanting human rights interfering

[25] “As I said, everyone involved agrees there is a risk of an unfair trial; the disagreement was and is about whether it is a sufficient risk to prevent deportation. In 2009 the Lords said it was insufficient, and last week in early 2012 the ECtHR said we disagree, it is sufficient” – exactly, there is a difference of opinion about risk. As a result our judiciary has been over ruled by a higher power.

So how is that a victory for british democracy when we want to boot AQ out but the strasbourg judges say no – I can accept the argument that the ruling may be a victory of sorts for liberal democracy (albeit a tainted, and possibly even pyrrhic victory) but hardly one for our democracy which in this case has been found wanting if we agree with the european judges?

So how is that a victory for british democracy when we want to boot AQ out but the strasbourg judges say no – I can accept the argument that the ruling may be a victory of sorts for liberal democracy (albeit a tainted, and possibly even pyrrhic victory) but hardly one for our democracy which in this case has been found wanting if we agree with the european judges?

In what sense have we been found wanting here? The UK is signatory to these international agreements and we’re abiding by them; our checks and balances are checking and balancing; the allegedly dangerous individual is impotent; the Court agreed with us but for the issue of the risk of a flagrant denial of justice, this disagreement partly based on evidence that wasn’t available to the Lords in 2009.

17 the a&e charge nurse “What a delicious irony a man of violence wanted in 3 continents clinging like a limpet to a legal system in a democracy he is hellbent on destroying”

Yes it is ironic, but it’s also necessary. Spending money to prosecute criminals is something we need to do, and spending it on providing alleged criminals is also necessary.

18 XXX “i’m not sure why supporters of the ECHR keep invoking Churchill like this. ” Because the right wing media and politicians keep portraying the ECHR as foreign, and Churchill was a unifying figure in Britain in a time of crisis that the right will respect.

19 20 ukliberty “the rights of the law-abiding majority should outweigh Qatada’s rights” Either we all have these rights or none do. Or to put it another way, if all of us in the UK have the right not to be tried on evidence produced by torture, why should someone who is more likely to have had that evidence produced against him be forced to do so?

31. ukliberty

In what sense have we been found wanting here? The UK is signatory to these international agreements and we’re abiding by them; our checks and balances are checking and balancing; the allegedly dangerous individual is impotent; the Court agreed with us but for the issue of the risk of a flagrant denial of justice, this disagreement partly based on evidence that wasn’t available to the Lords in 2009.

No, our checks and balances have not worked. The European Court has decided that we cannot deport this man. Our checks and balances checked and balanced and did not stop the deportation. Then the unelected, unrepresentative, undemocratic EU Court stepped in and made their decision.

Either our system has failed or we have suffered a grave miscarriage of justice. I lean to the latter given France routinely deports suspected terrorists to places like Algeria and the Court does not stop them.

Nathaniel Mathews

Yes it is ironic, but it’s also necessary. Spending money to prosecute criminals is something we need to do, and spending it on providing alleged criminals is also necessary.

Not in this case. We do not have to prove a damn thing. We owe this man nothing. He is a guest in Britain. He has overstayed his welcome. We could and should simply deport him. Regardless of what fate awaits him in Jordan. We have no need whatsoever to spend a penny on him.

Either we all have these rights or none do. Or to put it another way, if all of us in the UK have the right not to be tried on evidence produced by torture, why should someone who is more likely to have had that evidence produced against him be forced to do so?

That is nonsense. British people have the right to the dole. Starving Africans, while infinitely more deserving, do not. British people have the right to the full protection of the law. I fail to see why non-British people are entitled to any more than we give them. We also have no obligation to a non-British person in a non-British country. Everyone has the right not to be tried on evidence produced by torture … in Britain. We should have no obligation to prevent someone being tried on evidence that may or may not have been produced by torture elsewhere. In Jordan say. We do not run Jordan. It is not our problem.

This time last year Ms Patel took a trip to Bahrain – at the height of the Arab spring as the country was brutally suppressing protests.

The junket, unbelievably, was entirely funded courtesy of the Bahrain government. They paid for everything.

I am looking in vain for any sign of LC or anyone on it condemning other people for accepting the generosity of vile regimes. Peter Tatchell once accepted a junket from the East German government. They too paid for everything. Peter Mandelstan was with him. The latter and perhaps the former also went to Cuba. As have any number of Labour figures. Who also went on regular trips to the USSR. But this is not just a Labour thing. A Green candidate and Guardian journalist was in regular receipt of free holidays thanks to the East German regime.

All three regimes were infinitely more repressive than the Bahrainis.

A word of criticism? It looks not.

@33 – And you make the typical shill mistake – the ECHR is not an EU institution. It’s one of the Council of Europe’s.

And I see. Why shouldn’t you be deported? After all, you’re a troll, and if Human rights can be waived why should yours be respected. Prove why they should be.

You’re British, you say? Well, prove it. Your certificate of purity is required. Not got it on you? Not my problem, off you go to Somalia!

No, our checks and balances have not worked. The European Court has decided that we cannot deport this man. Our checks and balances checked and balanced and did not stop the deportation.

The Court is one of our checks and balances.

We deport tens of thousands a year. In the same week the Court said Qatada could not be deported to Jordan, it said two suspected murderers can be deported to the USA.

I understand that you are not in favour of fair trials.

36. ukliberty

The Court is one of our checks and balances.

No, it is one of their checks and balances. Which does not check or balance France. Which does, as I said, routinely deport people to Algeria. Which you would have to admit is a little odd.

We deport tens of thousands a year. In the same week the Court said Qatada could not be deported to Jordan, it said two suspected murderers can be deported to the USA.

Sure. They only murdered people. They did not want to destroy Western civilisation. That makes them lower down the Left’s list of priorities.

I understand that you are not in favour of fair trials.

Qatada had a fair trial. Then he was heard by the European Courts. There was and is nothing fair about that. Justice is not served here. What is worse, by making a mockery of the entire concept of due process and human rights, the Courts are merely bringing forward the day they are abolished or at least seriously reformed.

No, it is one of their [who?] checks and balances.

It is one of our checks and balances, whether you like it or not.

Which does not check or balance France. Which does, as I said, routinely deport people to Algeria. Which you would have to admit is a little odd.

I don’t know the circumstances of those cases. I’m aware of a claim that France ignores international law and court decisions in such contexts; I’m not sure that’s something to be applauded.

Qatada had a fair trial.

Where and when? Please cite.

Then he was heard by the European Courts. There was and is nothing fair about that.

In what sense was the hearing unfair?

What is worse, by making a mockery of the entire concept of due process and human rights, the Courts are merely bringing forward the day they are abolished or at least seriously reformed.

In what sense have they made a mockery of “due process and human rights”? By insisting Qatada is entitled to “due process and human rights”? What a strange notion.

It seems you don’t support fair trials, you are in favour of ignoring international law and court decisions, and you think that a court ruling in favour of human rights is actually making a mockery of it.

soru @9, that’s either a non sequitur or too clever for me to understand.

Not particularly complicated.

Think back before the slave trade was made illegal. It would still have been clearly against the statutory and conventional law to ride into a village, kill some people, and carry the rest away in chains. But nevertheless, you could show up in port with a shipful of such people, because the thing that was a crime occurred outside the relevant jurisdiction. And if someone had suggested extraditing the slavers back to where the crime was committed, the judge wouldn’t hardly have bothered to hear an argument before dismissing the case: clearly whatever local forms of traditional justice there were in West Africa would never do to try an Englishman.

So when the details of the rules of where a crime could be tried was changed, that is generally described as ‘slavery being outlawed’.

Returning to the modern day, for a clear majority of non-european countries, the ECHR would under no conceivable circumstances allow extradition for anyone likely to be found guilty of the crime of politically-motivated murder. So it is reasonable to say that for a EU resident, such murder is not currently against the law everywhere outside Europe (with the exception of a few places like Canada and Costa Rica).

I suppose there are legal idealist philosophies under which that is not true, where a crime can be counted as illegal even if there is no mechanism in place that could possibly lead to arrest and trial. But that doesn’t match the normal usage of the word.

Clearly what is needed is one of two things. You could take the national-sovereignty view that any human rights abuses that happen in Jordan are the responsibility of the UN-recognised government. As they haven’t signed up to the ECHR, it is outside the legitimate scope of that body to attempt to pre-empt any such abuses.

Or you could,as was done with the slave trade, declare universal jurisdiction for such crimes, and try Mr Qatada as a murderer. Maybe he would be found innocent.

The thing you really shouldn’t do is declare it a matter of principle and justice that a suspected murderer should not face trial because his actions in killing civilians in a non-ECHR state are legal.

The thing you really shouldn’t do is declare it a matter of principle and justice that a suspected murderer should not face trial because his actions in killing civilians in a non-ECHR state are legal.

Who declared that “his actions in killing civilians in a non-ECHR state are legal”?

Noone needs to declare it for it to be the case. There just needs to be an absence of a positive enforceable law applicable in the circumstances. Which this case demonstrates there is.

Like how some new drug invented is legal until declared otherwise. Or indeed how slavery was legal until some judge noticed there was a law against it.

For the record, the slaughter of foreign civilians is a war crime in peace time, and those who do it should face trial. Any difficulties in arranging this simply must be overcome.

soru,

Noone needs to declare it for it to be the case.

Oh, when you said, “The thing you really shouldn’t do is declare…” I inferred that that someone had actually made such a declaration! Silly me.

There just needs to be an absence of a positive enforceable law applicable in the circumstances. Which this case demonstrates there is.

English prosecuting authorities chose not to enforce English law against this allegedly dangerous man.

He does not have a “de facto licence murder non-Europeans with impunity”: he is detained, pending deportation to Jordan.

There is in this particular case a conflict between his deportation to Jordan and his right to a fair trial. He cannot lawfully be deported to Jordan unless the authorities there give further assurances to persuade the Court that he will receive a fair trial OR the UK wins its appeal to the ECtHR’s Grand Chamber. This is not as black and white as you appear to think.

For the record, the slaughter of foreign civilians is a war crime in peace time, and those who do it should face trial. Any difficulties in arranging this simply must be overcome.

ISTM your complaint is better lodged against the prosecuting authorities in England and Jordan, not the European Court of Human Rights.

English prosecuting authorities chose not to enforce English law against this allegedly dangerous man.

Yes, because in their opinion it was not a prosecutable crime. You can tell this was there opinion (as opposed to, say, concluding there was a crime committed, but insufficient evidence to prosecute) as there was no investigation, no attempt to gather forensics or interview suspects. If you don’t investigate, there will be no evidence: you can’t then use that absence of evidence to draw a conclusion.

ISTM your complaint is better lodged against the prosecuting authorities in England and Jordan, not the European Court of Human Rights.

My complaint here is with those liberal bloggers and journalists who take time out of their daily lives to actively defend the indefensible, instead of agitating and organising for some level of protection of the basic human rights for non-Europeans.

It’s not good politics. its not good morality, and you are presumably not being paid. So why do it?

soru,

English prosecuting authorities chose not to enforce English law against this allegedly dangerous man.

Yes, because in their opinion it was not a prosecutable crime. You can tell this was there opinion (as opposed to, say, concluding there was a crime committed, but insufficient evidence to prosecute) as there was no investigation, no attempt to gather forensics or interview suspects. If you don’t investigate, there will be no evidence: you can’t then use that absence of evidence to draw a conclusion.

Do you mean what he did was not then a crime in law or do you mean we can’t prosecute because the evidence is inadmissible and/or would involve disclosing sources or techniques that the authorities do not want disclosed?

It’s my understanding that he is alleged to have done things that do constitute criminal acts:

“SIAC found that he was a threat to national security, principally on the ground that he encouraged other extremists to commit acts of terrorism by providing religious sanction for their deeds. He was found to have long standing associations with other terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. He was also found to have ready access to money and false documents for the purpose facilitating terrorism.”
– decision against appeal about bail revocation http://www.siac.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/OthmanRevokebailjudgment02_12.pdf

Encouraging terrorism is in the Terrorism Act 2006, which is too bit late to prosecute him with unless he continued to do it after the law came into force. But incitement of criminal offences is itself a criminal offence. Money for terrorism falls under Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT); false documents could fall under ‘possession for terrorist purposes’ under TACT. But that’s too late for him unless he did it after that law came into force. However, if he made or used the false documents then perhaps Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

My complaint here is with those liberal bloggers and journalists who take time out of their daily lives to actively defend the indefensible, instead of agitating and organising for some level of protection of the basic human rights for non-Europeans.

It’s not good politics. its not good morality, and you are presumably not being paid. So why do it?

Eh? I think everyone’s human rights, including fair trials, should be protected, including non-Europeans and non-Europeans suspected of being involved in terrorism. That is why I would like Jordan to stop torturing people and using evidence gained via torture during trials. That is why I think the UK should seek an assurance from Jordan that evidence gained by torture will not be used against Qatada. It seems to me it is torture and unfair trials that are indefensible, and I am arguing for “some level of protection of the basic human rights for non-Europeans”.

Conversely if he did something that wasn’t criminal at the time then he shouldn’t be prosecuted for it.

It doesn’t affect the point that we should seek assurances from Jordan that he will get a fair trial.

Incidentally, he has offered to leave the UK of his own accord (he does not want to go to Jordan) – it is the UK that is choosing to detain him pending deportation.

it’s my understanding that he is alleged to have done things that do constitute criminal acts

To be clear, those miscellaneous additional things that he may or may not have done under UK jurisdiction, which may or may not not have been illegal at the time, are not what I am talking about.

I am talking about the fact that he is accused of mass murder, and that that is legal under UK/ECHR law; I don’t think it should be. As I said, no investigation by ECHR-approved agents has taken place, so there can be no prospect of there being ECHR-admissable evidence as to whether he did or didn’t organise the planting of the bombs. And that makes the actions he is accused of legal, on the long standing principle that anything not forbidden is permitted.

No investigation means no trial means no justice. A situation that will be familiar to many people down the ages.

soru,

I am talking about the fact that he is accused of mass murder, and that that is legal under UK/ECHR law; I don’t think it should be.

Mass murder isn’t legal under UK/ECHR law! What on earth are you talking about?

As I said, no investigation by ECHR-approved agents has taken place, so there can be no prospect of there being ECHR-admissable evidence as to whether he did or didn’t organise the planting of the bombs. And that makes the actions he is accused of legal, on the long standing principle that anything not forbidden is permitted.

The ECtHR does not ‘do’ criminal investigations, that is not it’s function; it makes a judgement about whether or not there has been a breach of the Convention.

By the way, they aren’t “miscellaneous additional things that he may or may not have done under UK jurisdiction”, they are the reasons our authorities gave SIAC as grounds for his deportation! At comment no.44 I quoted and linked to SIAC’s judgement, in which there is no allegation he murdered anyone:

“SIAC found that he was a threat to national security, principally on the ground that he encouraged other extremists to commit acts of terrorism by providing religious sanction for their deeds. He was found to have long standing associations with other terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. He was also found to have ready access to money and false documents for the purpose facilitating terrorism.”

http://www.siac.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/OthmanRevokebailjudgment02_12.pdf

<i?Mass murder isn’t legal under UK/ECHR law! What on earth are you talking about?

I think I have explained this as much as I can, but I will try one more time.

Specific offenses like child sex tourism can be prosecuted extraterritorially:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sex_tourism#International_law_enforcement_activities

And there are corresponding institutions, offices full of people whose job it is to put those laws into affect. They are real laws; people are in jail because they broke them.

No comparable laws exist for bomb tourism; at least unless it can be argued to rise to the rise level of genocide as defined in the ICC act of 2001, which would seem a stretch. And even for genocide there are no investigation squads, no institutions, no buildings full of people who arrive in work in the morning to find a file on last nights atrocity in their in-tray marked ‘deal with this’.

soru, when you write “mass murder… is legal under UK law” don’t be surprised when someone thinks you mean mass murder is legal under UK law.

Does English law have jurisdiction over a non-British citizen who commits or incites murder in a foreign jurisdiction? I don’t think it does, BICBW.

Do other countries have laws against murder commited within their borders? Yes.

Has Jordan accused Qatada of involvement in two bomb plots? Yes.

Why can’t we lawfully deport Qatada to Jordan at the moment? Because the ECtHR says he won’t have a fair trial in Jordan (absent certain assurances).

Does any of this mean murder is not a criminal act de jure or de facto (if those are the right terms)? No of course it bloody doesn’t.

Plus the guy is in prison.

I see Abu’s contribution to our society has finally been recognised
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/abu-qatada-appointed-uk’s-jihad-tsar-201202074865/