YES
There can be no denying the unpleasant nature of Abu Qatada. I am not setting out in the following words to defend his actions as a prominent member of al-Qaeda. The man has been described as “Osama Bin-Laden’s right hand man in Europe” and has featured in sermons that were found in the flats of 9/11 bombers. My argument is that under the current jurisdiction, whether we like it or not, the man has a case, and we must not make exceptions and deny him the rights that anyone else would have.
We could argue all day about Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but the validity or not of that particular law is not the question at hand. The simple fact of the matter was that at the time of sentencing, the law fell in favour of Qatada in that there were doubts over whether he would receive a fair trial in Jordan. Theresa May has commented that “the right place for a terrorist is a prison cell. The right place for a foreign terrorist is a foreign prison cell far away from Britain.” However, Jordan is known for its use of torture, so if we send him there, I believe we would be lowering ourselves to their standard. Inversely, the issue at the heart of the Qatada case is whether the use of evidence extracted in order to convict him was by torture. If so, the information simply cannot be verified. British ministers recognise the difficulties involved in getting any state to acknowledge in writing that witnesses in a court case have been tortured.
Indeed, one must look closely at Jordan’s role. In February 2009, five top Law Lords unanimously voted in favour of the government’s policy of removing terror suspects from Britain on the basis of assurances from foreign governments. That is all well and good, but Jordan in this situation surely cannot be trusted. Jordan and Britain have agreed he would not be tortured, but they could go back on its word, which is a very real possibility that we would be foolish to take. The fact that the top court in Europe, central and unpartisan, does not trust Jordan, only backs that up.
Everyone has human rights in this country and we would be downgrading ourselves if we made an exception for one man. The day we do so is the day that we can no longer describe ourselves as a self-respecting nation. If we want to live in a free society, we have to take the good with the bad. We accepted the European Convention on Human Rights because it protects the weakest in society. Sometimes these people are scum, yet we have to follow the laws we created, laws which set a precedent. If we were to kick out one Muslim extremist, where would the trend stop? The wheels would be set in motion for every individual terrorist, bigot, murderer or rapist to be judged individually, which would make a mockery of established laws and practices.
His every move will be watched under his terms of bail. When assurances of a fair trial by Jordan are accepted, he will be extradited. The worry for me is that we will never see that day.
No
For most in this country, allowing Abu Qatada, a radical cleric described as the spiritual leader of al-Qaeda in Europe and who is wanted on terrorism charges in over half a dozen countries worldwide, to remain in the UK is simply inconceivable. Such a view is also held, almost unanimously, by the current government. “Unacceptable” was how Home Secretary Theresa May chose to describe the news that efforts to deport Qatada had been blocked by the European Court of Human Rights. We must question the role of an organisation that has the power to single-handedly overrule the will of the British public, the British government and the British judicial system with one solitary verdict.
Abu Qatada’s character only strengthens the case for his immediate deportation. A man whose sermons were found in the home of one of the Twin Towers bombers, who faces numerous charges in his native Jordan for attempting to murder tourists and who is on record as justifying suicide bombing deserves little more than to see the inside of a prison cell for good. If this alone is not enough to test the sympathy of the British public with our understandable and very real fear of terrorism on a daily basis, then his attitude towards their country surely will; regularly preaching hatred towards a system that has supported him with benefits, for both himself and his family, and the best British lawyers.
It is, and should always be the case that human rights are universal. Every individual should be seen as equal before the courts and no majority opinion should ever have influence over the verdict one can expect to receive. As a country we should be proud of our history of ensuring the protection of the human rights to even the most evil of characters. There must, however, be a point at which we decide that defending somebody is no longer justifiable. I am not calling for Britain to abandon its efforts to ensure Abu Qatada’s human rights are guaranteed. I am instead arguing that once a certain guarantee has been received, of the nature Jordan has given Britain that he will not be tortured if deported and put on trial, we as a nation should limit our efforts to support him.
The process of deporting Abu Qatada to his native Jordan has been a long and costly one. What’s more, if the decision to block his deportation is not overruled, in just two years time a preacher of radical anti-western views will be free to roam our streets again, to inevitably cause more havoc. It is truly unacceptable that we have allowed a foriegn body to force a verdict upon us which has such serious implications for our country and its security. It is us alone that will have to deal with the aftermath of a terrorist attack.
The balance between the need to protect British citizens and the rights of those who attempt to attack them has been clearly distorted. If the ECHR is not willing to re-assess this then Britain should act independently of Strasbourg and do it alone.