Abu Qatada’s victory proves how low we have been laid

13 November 2012

6:35 AM

13 November 2012

6:35 AM

For years a collection of politicians and commentators said that the ECHR and ECtHR would have no impact on British justice. Then they said that they would have no negative impact on British justice. Then it was said that while they might have some negative impact on British justice this would be out-weighed by the good done. Now some say that though the good may be outweighed by the bad the ECHR and ECtHR are still worth something anyway.

They, and we, should be plain. It no longer matters what the British government or Home Secretary wants. It no longer matters what the British courts want. It no longer matters what the British public wants. Because the Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Parliament, British courts and British people no longer have power in this country. Of course they retain all the titles, trappings and pretence of power. But they no longer actually hold power.

There could not be a clearer open-and-shut case than Qatada. He came to this country illegally and is wanted in his native country to face terrorism charges. Yet here he stays. Because thanks to the European Convention and European Court, Britain is no longer in control of itself or its future. When you consider how this happened, how disgracefully it was dissembled, and how helpless and pointless all our politicians have become in the face of it, you do wonder what must happen before we admit the pass we have been brought to and finally divorce ourselves from this illegitimate Convention and Court.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • rndtechnologies786

    Your blog is very good.

  • patrick

    This decision is mind numbing considering the stated Muslim aim of using our laws to defeat us, the answer is simple this vermin should simply be disposed of, surely our fine service men can oblige

    • Rob Saunders

      Ah, “vermin” – you can always tell the ones who truly hate Britain and democracy by the way they decsribe people of a different colour.

  • Richard Sweeny

    And there was me thinking it was a British court that refused to allow his extradition.

  • PaderB

    The big question here is not whether it is right or wrong for British judges to rule on this abomination. It should be; If Abu Qatada had been tried by his professed, preferred judicial system, Shari a, would he now be back in Jordan or not? I seriously think that would be the case.

  • The Elderking

    I wonder if Cameron and the rest of the British Establishment are ever going to have a “how did it come to this” moment – and shift their ars*s..

    I doubt it…

    • Quboid

      Read a real newspaper and you’ll learn it is the Home Office immigration appeals commission (SIAC), nothing to do with the EU. And while we’re having an education, the Council of Europe, which set up the ECtHR is entirely separate from the EU. It is not at all clear that the evidence in the French case is anyway similar to Qatada, or are you saying a court case is a court case is a court case? Muslim man in court must be guilty…it’s all the same right?

  • OPLucas

    But Douglas, it was a British court (the SIAC) which made this ruling…

  • Trofim

    Lawyer bloke on telly last night estimated it’s going to take at least five years to get through all the defence manouevres already in the pipeline.
    I wouldn’t be ever so upset if a group of vigilante ex-SAS types scooped him up while the forces of law and order just happened to be looking the other way, and dropped him in Jordan, or even in the Atlantic. If by a nod and a wink I could contribute a tenner towards such an enterprise, I wouldn’t be too upset either. (Note to forces of law and order: I’m only kidding, honest.)

  • Quboid

    This was a UK Home Office decision (Special Immigration Appeals Commission). Nothing to do with Europe. Doh!

  • Laurence

    The question of who can and cannot enter a country ought to be decided solely by the democratically accountable government of that country. The wishes of and the posturing by the often unqualified ‘judges’ in the great Euro Omni-Bureaucracy ought to be subordinate to the wishes of parliament; particularly given that the man is question is considered a clear and present danger to our national interests.

    • Quboid

      If the EU was subordinate to the wishes of parliaments then nothing would be agreed or done, while 27 countries would bicker and moan at each other. In this case the council of europe represents 47 parties and is entirely separate from the EU. Every European country bar Belarus are members (that includes Russia). If Qutada was really such a danger then something would have happened to confirm this, unless you’ve had a string of terrible fundamentalist terror attacks in your neighbourhood, which have strangely gone unreported. Nope? Didn’t think so.

      • Laurence

        Quboid, I did not claim that the EU should be subordinate to parliament. I merely stated that who can or cannot enter or remain in a country ought to be decided by that country and no one else I do not think that could be any clearer. A trading arrangement and a series of treaties designed to avoid the horrors of the Second World War have mutated into something grotesque, bloated and farcical.

        Secondly, with regard to terrorist attacks, their organizers and perpetrators, you clearly enjoy access to government intelligence documents and briefings and so you have me at an advantage. I do not have the classified material that you clearly do but I suspect that the Prime Minister and his Home secretary might. The former stated of Mr Qatada: ‘we believe he’s a threat to our country’.

        • Quboid

          This has more to do with political posturing and keeping little Englanders happy, or are the PM and Home Office seriously admitting that their security services from intelligence to prison service are unable to keep us safe? Nonsense. This is just a big greasy bone for those who think life is easily managed by single issues and populist solutions. Most importantly, this has NOTHING to do with the EU or the Council of Europe it was a British decision by a commission attached to the Home Office -Special Immigration Appeals Committee. Very poor article, annotated with poor comments.

          • MoJoe

            “Very poor article, annotated with poor comments.”
            Rather like your contribution here then.
            By ‘little Englanders’ do you mean people who want to defend their country from known terrorist who want to cause their country and its population harm?
            How odd. Perhaps ask Baba Mohammed Santa Claus for a dictionary this year?

            • Quboid

              No, I mean people who are scared to look beyond the island believing ‘there be dragons’ and run in to a frightened huddle of ignorance and xenophobia. I have a dictionary and you can keep the religion as well.

      • Paul Worthington

        You are quite right to point out that democratic control involves discussion (“bickering and moaning” in your terms). May we therefore assume that you would prefer the simplicity of a dictatorship?

  • Paul Worthington

    The essence of the rule of law is that there should be a judiciary which implements justice on the basis of laws made by a legislature elected by the people. And that through the legislature, the judiciary should be answerable to the people. In the English common law system, the jury of citizens gives people an even more direct role in the administration of justice. The ECHR is appointed by the Council of Europe, which is too far removed from any democratic accountability to be in any way representative of shared principles of justice. Like the professional politicians in the EU (which it is its purpose to promote) it sees itself as wiser than the people, not as in anyway a representative of the people. Like the EU, it uses stealth to remove accountability away from democratic control. Handing over juristiction to this organisation was an act of dereliction of responsibility and accountability on the part of the UK government, tantamount to treason. Reverse it. The ECHR does not have an army. Yet.

    • Quboid

      It was created by international treaty, agreed to by a British government. The drafting of the Convention on Human Rights was guided by David Maxwell-Fyfe, a British MP. The court upholds the convention, agreed by European governments. We delegate our parliament to act in international treaties. There are 47 parties to the convention.
      There is no basis for arguing about a court’s democracy, when was the last time you voted for a judge or got to say how an International organisation like the WTO should operate? The vagaries of countries’ politics is better left divorced from populist intervention and interference. Little Britain never fails to disappoint in its stupidity. Long live the standards of human rights for all Europe’s citizens! -not just the ones you approve of for yourself and others when it suits you.

      • Paul Worthington

        Some of us are concerned about the rights of all honest citizens to live without fear of the violence advocated by preachers of hatred and practised by their witless lackeys. Those who do not accept the principle that in a state of law, force may only be used by a democratic state and its judiciary and police are not fit to live in such a state. The same applies for judges and institutions which support the “rights” of such preachers of terror. “Populist intervention and interference” is not a democrat’s definition of democracy.

        • Quboid

          Human rights are for everyone, not for just those you choose on the basis of ‘not liking what they say’. The laws still stand, we just have rules on how people must be treated under those laws. Nothing wrong with wanting to be safe, but treating everyone fairly, with the same care and due process, is the system that our country supports and we have joined with others in solidarity and as an example to other places in the world that don’t afford their citizens equal and transparent rights. The benefits are far greater than the occasional problems, but the problems are not the rights themselves but usually the policing or the procedure of enforcing the law. By affording all citizens the same rights, we say something powerful about how just our society is (despite the imperfect way the system sometimes appears to operate) and we are a stronger nation because of it.

          • Mike

            The problem is that organisations can change. There is no indication that Churchill or Maxwell -Fyfe supported illegal immigrants into this country who lived on state handouts and supported acts of violence against British interests. Legal thinking in the late 40s was about ensuring people could flee Nazi and Communist regimes without the fear of being sent back. What we have now is a situation where illegal immigrants are given welfare payments and are alllowed to act against British interests.
            From the end of the Middle Ages ,Henry VIII,Elizabeth I, The Civil War and Glorious Revolution of 1689 Britain has believed that Parliament is soveriegn and foreign princes have no power in this country.
            The ability of a country to remove illegal immigrants who would harm it is fundemental to sovereignty.

    • Quboid

      Let’s not forget that the Council of Europe’s formation was called for by Winston Churchill. So it must be his fault, right?


    over ride everything send him back its cost a million pound what a joke A MILLION POUND AND WE NEED CUT BACKS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • John I

    What is important here is that we have been denied the freedom to remove undesirables. In this case the EU actually agreed to his deportation, its another band of PC do gooder fools that have stopped us from doing what is right.

    Like it or not this man is a HUGE danger to us and the fact he is walking free tonight is a new low for our legal system.

    I’m still at a loss to understand this “too dangerous to return home” malarkey, if we look at the average wish to deport you will find that said criminal came to this country from a land where violence and criminality is rife, example Somalia. Now if this bloke comes here and deals drugs, gets involved in fireams and gangs then people have to realise that he was doing this in Somalia already, its not a new trick he learnt here.

    So basically he would only be returning to a system he was already part of.

    We need to stop allowing nonsense BS excuses for not returning to your home country, if coming here was so important to your safety you would therefore not risk the chance of being deported by engaging in criminality.

    Come the next election I’m voting UKIP, hopefully they will get us out of this dire EU mess and allow us to Police ourselves again.

  • david marshall

    Don’t even think about protesting because the Government have that covered too behind the guise of Left Wing Public sector groups like the UAF, PCS, Unison and the so called Multi Faith Lobby. Things need to change before these idiots create another Anders Breivik who in all fairness was the Left wings Frankenstein

    • Rob Saunders

      Ah yes, of course, Anders Breivik was only forced into his terrorist bombing and mass slaughter of innocent children because wicked Western governments – despite the best efforts of Thatcher and Blair – haven’t yet banned all trade unions. “In all fairness” you’re the one who should be in jail for supporting terrorism.

  • Eustachy

    Wasn’t this decision taken by SIAC, which has nothing to do with the ECHR or ECtHR?

    • Claire Fitzpatrick

      The very same thought struck me too, Eustachy. In fact, the ECtHR ruled in May 2012 that he could be deported to Jordan

    • JamesQ

      Yes. British decision in British legal system. Absolutely NOTHING to do with Europe or the EU. Some people here are so keen to show their anti-EU credentials that they’ll blame them regardless if they are involved or not.

  • Gibbon

    The Human Rights Act was passed by the UK Parliament, which also has the power to repeal it. Why hasn’t it done so? Because there are not enough MPs willing to vote for this. Solution? Vote in different MPs. This an issue of British democracy, and we should sort our own stables out rather than blaming some imaginary foreign tyranny.

    • Quboid

      …because it is an international standard and it is in our advantage to agree and be part of an international standard. Nothing works perfectly, but agreement and discussion among nations is preferable to the alternatives.

  • edlancey

    I think it is Edward Fitzgerald QC that should be deported

  • Quboid

    Britain absolutely does have power, but only if it is behaving legally, as defined by the human rights laws. It’s no good railing against the ECHR; they are doing what is ‘correct’ according to the due process of the law. If Britain thinks differently then it could step down from the ECHR and join the other countries of the world who like the rules to be fixed always in favour of public opinion or political expediency. Funny thing about standards is that you sign up to them and become bound by them. Little Britain and its veto culture, doesn’t work here. I know that I prefer -the civility of a unified European human rights.

    • edlancey


      • Quboid

        takes on to know one.

  • Troika21

    I don’t mind that due-process is followed, it should be. But how many courts does this thing have to go through? There always seems to be another one that can be appealed to.

    I’ve taken a deep dislike of his lawyer too. She looks like exactly ‘that’ kind of woolly-minded liberal. I hope to goodness that she’s in this for the money.

    • Rob Saunders

      I’m sorry, Troika21, what does a “woolly-minded libera”l look like?? You know, for those of us without your psychic powers. And what is “that” kind (as opposed to “this” kind)?

  • Mark

    What is most tragic in all this is that huge swathes of this country’s population are no longer angry or outraged by this state of affairs. Instead they just shrug their shoulders either out of indifference or a sense of defeatism. This is where our liberal elite has brought this nation to.

  • Ciaran Rehill

    The ECHR have failed me as well – they thew out my case and I never did get my DNA samples back. All I got was 75 quid which I blew in a few weeks on Diamond White and Pot Noodles….

  • Eddie

    Who will take the blame when this dangerous Islamist creates or facitlitates terrorism in the UK which kills and mames the innocent? The EU?

    NB He has already inspired terrorism.

    I think we in the UK now need new laws – or opt-outs of EU law – so in our present situation, when we have 15% of British Muslims who think 7/7 was a good thing, and Islamists everywhere wanting to bomb us, we can arrest and keep locked up all those whose freedom may cause terrorism and deaths.
    I’d also be interested to know how the presence of such Muslim multiculti filth in this country ‘enriches’ our society – and why don’t ths usual suspects ‘celebrate the diversity’ of all the ethnic immigrant scum in this country who contribute nothing positive and often commit or facilitate crime?

    • Sarah

      “Flth … Scum… Contributes nothing positive… Commits and facilitates crime … etc.”

      Splinter, mote, glass houses, cast first stone, pot, kettle, etc.

      • Eddie

        So Sarah, now you are accusing me of being filth and scum, of not contributing anything positive to British society, and of commiting and facitlitating crime – would that be in addition to the crime of paedphilia and rape that you have often accused me of (without any evidence or reason to of course).
        Jeez, sister, you are one hell of a nutter, I’ll give you that!
        Maybe we should just give you Abu Bombmakers address and tell you he’s me, then you’d stalk him and imprison him like that mad bint in Misery – and the police could go back to catching criminals etc.
        Alternatively, we could round up screeching shrieking feminasties like you and airdrop the lot of yers on the Taliban and other mad Muslims – they’d either rape you to death or run a mile, and either would be tickety-boo really.

        • Quboid

          Yep, you’ve just confirmed it. I’m with Sarah.

          • Eddie

            No I haven’t – I have rebutted the moronic vile putrid filth that spews out of the gob of psycho Sarah who stalks me around this board.
            I really do not have to deny any allegations made by such a mentalist prven liar – but just to say that she has accused me (and others) or being a rapist, a paedophile and now she accuses me of being comparable to a terrorist who wants to kill all non-Muslims!
            But then, I am a man, and all men are bastards and rapists and paedos according to her, and the whole problem of Islam in her rather quaint world view is that it’s run by men – you see the women in Islamic states are all poor wickle victims of the nasty evil men (which is odd, because I see extremist women Muslims all the time encouraging young boys and girls to be suicide bombers…)
            Really, if you side with a such an evil nutter who is prepared to say such things, you really are invalidating any point you want to make, if there is one.
            It would be nice if people on this board stuck with RELEVANT postings about the article. Wouldn;t it, Psycho Sarah?

            • Rob Saunders

              Golly, Eddie, you really do hate women. And it was you, not Sarah, who started calling British citizens (sorry, “ethnic immigrant scum”) filth. I neither know nor care whether you’re a paedophile rapist: by your own admission I know you’re the kind of vile racist that my father’s generation fought to protect Britain from.
              And as for keeping the comments relevant, not only has “Abu Bombmaker” never been accused of making bombs, he’s never been charged here with any offence whatsoever, because in more than nine years the British Government hasn’t been able to find any evidence of a crime. Legally he’s as innocent as you are: and as to his decency as a human being, I’ll take Abu Qatada over you, Eddie, any day of the week.

  • Rick

    What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    If you were wanted in Jordan for terrorism charges, or Sweden for rape questionning, would you want a fair legal process or an unfair one? At least this guy isn’t hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy and is using the court system.

  • Disillusioned Brit

    If this was Australia he would never have got into
    the country in the first place. It’s about time this country stood up for
    itself and deported these people. Why should we the tax payers have to fork out
    thousands and thousands of pounds in legal costs as well as the fifty five
    thousand pounds a year he receives in benefits?

    • Angry Ozzy

      Unfortunately with Gillard in power he would. Two asylum seeker boats arriving every day because the Labor Party dismantled the Howard Government’s Pacific Solution. Never mind they will be gone at the next election.

  • Judith

    OK, tell me what has Democracy done in these and other terror related incidents to protect me and my family? We can’t fight terrorists in their countries of origin (because that would be sooo invading and killing innocent people) and we can’t fight them here (because that would be soo against their human rights).

    Both my husband and I are law abiding, hard working, tax paying people in a stable and heterosexual marriage. We feel that our rights do not matter anymore. We would like to emigrate somewhere where we will be protected by the government, the media and our kids will be brought up appreciating what is right and good from wrong and bad.

    Can anyone suggest such a place? I know someone once suggested (on TV to someone else) Antarctica, but I think that was more out of venom than help.

    • edlancey

      Anywhere in the West 50 years ago

    • Rob Saunders

      Emigrate wherever you like, nobody here will miss you.

  • AY

    so Tommy Robinson is in jail for “conspiracy to cause public nuisance”, – then how it might be that the bureaucrats unleashing the dangerous and universally despised terrorist to the streets – these bureaucrats are not guilty of public nuisance?

    the same streets where people are now denied the right of free speech to talk about this very terror threat.

    only explanation is that Britain is de-facto ruled by traitors on behalf of global jihad.

  • Jim Moore

    So we take away all human right and be ruled by a autocracy is that what your twisted logic has had you come up as a solution ?

    • Judith

      I totally disagree with you, but I think you meant “immaturity”.

    • anotherjoeblogs

      i agree with your point about the article being mature, jim moore.

    • Douglas Carter

      I’m missing the part where Mr. Murray recommends taking away …’all human right[s]’…

      Can you point it out, please?

    • Baron

      Jim Moore, nope, sir, we don’t take away all human rights, we simply move to what we had before, there was nothing wrong with British Justice before the uman Rights crowd arrived, there will nothing wrong with it if we were to scrap the trash the crowd hoisted on us.

      Before Tony imported the codified system to please his uman Right wife, one’s human rights were guaranteed by the virtue of one’s being born, it was a right nobody, not even the House, could touch. Today, your right to life (sic) is guaranteed by a piece of paper. Madness.

      • Laurence

        Excellent post Baron.

      • Nee Zar

        Actually it’s a piece of vellum, but our rights have always been written down. What do you think the Magna Carta was?

  • Charles Norrie

    Who am I Mr Qatada

  • Linda Le Roux

    We would all support the Home Secretary if she put him on the plane. Forget about appeals and the human rights ‘industry’ that pollutes the legal system in this country. Please Ms May get rid of him.

    • John I

      Sadly she’s a spineless part of the system, lots of talk, lots of expenses spending, very little in the way of doing what she was voted in for.

      Like most MP’s, only there to line their pocket and keep us down.

    • KEITH


      • Quboid

        Where all the bogeymen come from….boo! So cute you little islanders.

    • Quboid

      Yes! Let’s suspend our desire for a society based on our adherence to international standards. We hate the fair rule of law or integrity in our actions.