UKIP: Government 'lame' on Qatada
From the official website:
Nigel Farage MEP , the UKIP leader has responded to statements made by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons about the release on bail of suspected Islamist terrorist Abu Qatada under the instruction of European Courts describing them as 'lame'.
"Watching the hand wringing on both front benches is nauseous," he said.
"Both the Home Secretary and her shadow have told us that this man's presence on our streets is unacceptable. But it is only the case because we are subservient to European Law. The decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) are now binding on this country, due to the Lisbon Treaty. Today there is nothing we can do about it unless we bite the bullet and leave the EU.
"Nothing else will work, so to hear Theresa May go on about how Qatada will be rearrested if he breaks his bail conditions is lame in the extreme. The man is an acknowledged danger, and yet nothing can be done.
"If anything Yvette Cooper is worse, given Labour's continued support of the ECHR. For her to demand this man's deportation, when it is the very body she supports that has blocked it, is rank hypocrisy," said Farage.
More...
What is all the fuss about? Abu Qatadu arrived in this country on a forged passport. That in itself is a sufficient reason to deem him a person whose residence here is not conducive to the public good. It is untrue to argue that he hasn't committed any offence; being admitted on a forged passport is definitely an offence, and it should be our first reason for deporting him. That should be sufficient, and it is unnecessary to confuse the issue with any judgement from the ECHR.
Where would he be deported to if not Jordan?Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier
Independent UKIP: I have no objections to deporting him to Jordan. As a member of the U.N. Jordan has a responsibility for its own citizens, and for ensuring them a fair trial. In January of this year, Christine Lagarde met Jordanian King Abdullah 11. to offer him IMF financial grants to create more employment in his Kingdom. That same lady is requesting from Britain a further £17.Bn. to assist her in that and similar noble enterprises. We could place Qatadu on a plane, or even hire a private jet especially for him, and send him back to Jordan without any significant consequences being the result. We are being governed by children: bring back the Whigs!
Isn't it the case that what you might (correctly) regard as the insignificant consequence of sending him to Jordan is that the UK would be in breach of the ECHR ruling. And that the UK Government don't want to be in such flagrant breach of the ECHR ruling. If that is not so what is your explanation for the failure of the UK Government to deport him to Jordan? I'm not aware of any commitment by Jordan to try him only on passport offences.
Summed up in a nutshell Independent.
"The whole point of the liberal revolution that gave rise to the 1960’s was to free us from somebody else’s dogma, but now the same people…are striving to impose on others a secularized religion…" Richard Bernstein
Ind.U.K.: It was the ECHR which made a judgement in his favour not to be deported. It was a British judge who ruled that he could no longer continue to be incarcerated without charge. Nations are, however, allowed to deport foreigners whose presence is deemed incompatible with the public good. Those are two conflicting legal judgements. Who said that the government does not want a flagrant breach of the ECHR's ruling?
We should not have any feelings of guilt about 'flagrant breaches' when the ECHR extend their own powers beyond the U.N. Convention on Human Rights on which the European Convention is based. The United Nations Convention also guarantees its members 'Domestic Sovereignty', and ours is being breached by ECHR's rulings about Qatada and similar cases. The British case should be that we are not bound by any judgements of extra-territorial courts which conflicts with those guarantees of the United Nations, of which we are one of the five Permanent Members. That is clear, consistent, and defensible.
Last edited by Geoffrey Collier; 08-02-2012 at 10:38 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks