Spanish Floods? All Scotlands...
News1 min ago
A Straw Poll: Do You Care What Happens
102 Answers
to Qatada once he is out of our country
a simple yes or no
a simple yes or no
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
careful trig
don't confuse matters with 'semantics and technical points etc etc.'
keep it simple ....
that qatada geezer, what an @rseole
chuck 'im out
(yeah cheers mine's a pint of lager)
he's dangerous isn't he. we don't need a trial to work that out
(do you want pork scratchings with that?)
the jordanians can torture him for all i care
(no mate, salt and vinegar)
the more the bstard suffers the better
(he should try getting served in here)
don't confuse matters with 'semantics and technical points etc etc.'
keep it simple ....
that qatada geezer, what an @rseole
chuck 'im out
(yeah cheers mine's a pint of lager)
he's dangerous isn't he. we don't need a trial to work that out
(do you want pork scratchings with that?)
the jordanians can torture him for all i care
(no mate, salt and vinegar)
the more the bstard suffers the better
(he should try getting served in here)
Your sentiments do you credit, jim. But the trouble is the goalposts are continually shifted to accommodate this man’s interests. The Human Rights legislation which enables him to stay here is deliberately vague and open to wide interpretation. First of all nobody must be deported to a country where they might suffer torture. Fair enough (though not something, in my opinion, that should trump everything else, regardless). Then, when it was established that there was no such threat it was suggested that he might face trial where evidence secured using torture might be used. (Note the increasing number of “mights”). Then, when an undertaking was secured that no such evidence would be used it was still not acceptable to the Immigration Tribunal.
Human Rights legislation should be about balance. There is no balance in the Qatada case. His rights have trumped those of the electorate in the UK. Your analogy of him fleeing a lynch mob is inappropriate. When he arrived in the UK he was not fleeing a lynch mob. He had actually been living in Pakistan near to Afghanistan, well away from Jordan where he said he had been tortured.
This man is not wanted in the UK and the interests and safety of UK citizens, not his, should be paramount when deciding whether or not he should be deported. If radical changes, or even the repeal of HR legislation is needed to facilitate this then that’s what should be done. The government’s prime responsibility is to those whom they represent, not to those who turn up on the doorstep and then proceed to cause trouble when they are let in.
I’m afraid, Zeuhl, your description of the situation is inaccurate and does not help.
Human Rights legislation should be about balance. There is no balance in the Qatada case. His rights have trumped those of the electorate in the UK. Your analogy of him fleeing a lynch mob is inappropriate. When he arrived in the UK he was not fleeing a lynch mob. He had actually been living in Pakistan near to Afghanistan, well away from Jordan where he said he had been tortured.
This man is not wanted in the UK and the interests and safety of UK citizens, not his, should be paramount when deciding whether or not he should be deported. If radical changes, or even the repeal of HR legislation is needed to facilitate this then that’s what should be done. The government’s prime responsibility is to those whom they represent, not to those who turn up on the doorstep and then proceed to cause trouble when they are let in.
I’m afraid, Zeuhl, your description of the situation is inaccurate and does not help.
In the long run I am not really arguing for, or against, his being deported. I have nowhere near enough understanding either of the case or the law to know why he has not been deported. Nor for that matter do I fully believe the lynch mob analogy -- it was mainly an extension of your own "coming into our house illegally" picture. That is, before I threw him out of my house I'd want to know what he was doing in here in the first place.
The main problem I have is that there are a few people who would wish him not just out of the country but also to suffer. The first I can understand, he's been full of all sorts of horrible views about us and is guilty, or charged with, some serious crimes -- albeit in Jordan not here, but crimes nonetheless. Even so, he still ought to have full process of law, like anyone else.
The second part, the idea that he should suffer, I cannot and never will sympathise with. That more than anything else was my problem.
The main problem I have is that there are a few people who would wish him not just out of the country but also to suffer. The first I can understand, he's been full of all sorts of horrible views about us and is guilty, or charged with, some serious crimes -- albeit in Jordan not here, but crimes nonetheless. Even so, he still ought to have full process of law, like anyone else.
The second part, the idea that he should suffer, I cannot and never will sympathise with. That more than anything else was my problem.
It is also worth noting that it is not correct that this person has not committed any offences in the UK although correct that he has never been convicted of any offences here. (any evidence currently against him is not admissible in the UK in how it was obtained), but no doubt has influence 100's of unlawful global murders.
Yes I do.As a country, we pride ourselves as being a country of law, of free speech,of fairness and of tolerance.To reject such principles because of the bayings of a media- led mob would be to betray the sacrifices of those that fought and died to establish and defend such principles.
Principles matter. Human Rights matter,regardless of whether you think that some individuals abuse them to shield them against justice.To our credit, Britain has taken a global leading role in refuting the use of torture and developing the human rights agenda and the judiciary recognise that.We should not give up those principles lightly.
As a country we should have no truck with government sanctioned torture, or with evidence tainted by being obtained by such methods.
Principles matter. Human Rights matter,regardless of whether you think that some individuals abuse them to shield them against justice.To our credit, Britain has taken a global leading role in refuting the use of torture and developing the human rights agenda and the judiciary recognise that.We should not give up those principles lightly.
As a country we should have no truck with government sanctioned torture, or with evidence tainted by being obtained by such methods.
@Zeuhl
never mind, youve proved that youre incapable of following a very very simple set of instructions.
and looks like somebody else has had to put you in your place by telling you yet again how wrong you are.
"that qatada geezer, what an @rseole
chuck 'im out
(yeah cheers mine's a pint of lager)
he's dangerous isn't he. we don't need a trial to work that out
(do you want pork scratchings with that?)
the jordanians can torture him for all i care
(no mate, salt and vinegar)
the more the bstard suffers the better
(he should try getting served in here) "
how odd, i think you need spend some time away from this board.
Much to your obvious chagrin it would seem that most people really dont care what happens to him if/once we get him out of the UK
never mind, youve proved that youre incapable of following a very very simple set of instructions.
and looks like somebody else has had to put you in your place by telling you yet again how wrong you are.
"that qatada geezer, what an @rseole
chuck 'im out
(yeah cheers mine's a pint of lager)
he's dangerous isn't he. we don't need a trial to work that out
(do you want pork scratchings with that?)
the jordanians can torture him for all i care
(no mate, salt and vinegar)
the more the bstard suffers the better
(he should try getting served in here) "
how odd, i think you need spend some time away from this board.
Much to your obvious chagrin it would seem that most people really dont care what happens to him if/once we get him out of the UK
“Principles matter. Human Rights matter,regardless of whether you think that some individuals abuse them to shield them against justice.”
So put very simply then, LG, the rights of victims to see justice prevail matter less than the rights of the perpetrators who may use those rights to avoid justice. I think this is the nub of the matter. The Qatada case is by no means unique. Not only does Human Rights legislation enable criminals to thwart justice but it also places in jeopardy the safety of law-abiding citizens. The UK may well “…pride ourselves as being a country of law, of free speech,of fairness and of tolerance.” But there is no pride in shielding fugitives from justice (and there seems no debate that Qatada is a fugitive from justice and that I certainly not the basis of his argument to remain here). It is not “fair” to jeopardise the safety of citizens in the name of tolerance. In protecting the rights of this one man the rights of his victims have been sacrificed and the safety of many people in the UK has been jeopardised.
That is nothing to be proud of.
So put very simply then, LG, the rights of victims to see justice prevail matter less than the rights of the perpetrators who may use those rights to avoid justice. I think this is the nub of the matter. The Qatada case is by no means unique. Not only does Human Rights legislation enable criminals to thwart justice but it also places in jeopardy the safety of law-abiding citizens. The UK may well “…pride ourselves as being a country of law, of free speech,of fairness and of tolerance.” But there is no pride in shielding fugitives from justice (and there seems no debate that Qatada is a fugitive from justice and that I certainly not the basis of his argument to remain here). It is not “fair” to jeopardise the safety of citizens in the name of tolerance. In protecting the rights of this one man the rights of his victims have been sacrificed and the safety of many people in the UK has been jeopardised.
That is nothing to be proud of.
How can you balance rights of several groups of people when they are "Human" rights" and should therefore be applied equally to all humans?
I wouldn't say it's necessarily the right balance at the moment, but perhaps it's just that the human rights of criminals or dangerous man are made more prominent by the fact that they might well be denied. Allowing Human rights to the average person is far less visible but we still have them.
I notice NJ that you didn't care much if Gary McKinnon were extradited either which is at least consistent, but so many people did care, and tried to "shield him from justice". And didn't they celebrate a massive victory? But the US is surely a more likely place for someone to get a fair trial than Jordan is. We need consistency, surely, and at the fundamental "human rights" level there is, or should be, no distinction between the two cases. "Fairness" means applying human rights free from all other considerations, at least to me.
I wouldn't say it's necessarily the right balance at the moment, but perhaps it's just that the human rights of criminals or dangerous man are made more prominent by the fact that they might well be denied. Allowing Human rights to the average person is far less visible but we still have them.
I notice NJ that you didn't care much if Gary McKinnon were extradited either which is at least consistent, but so many people did care, and tried to "shield him from justice". And didn't they celebrate a massive victory? But the US is surely a more likely place for someone to get a fair trial than Jordan is. We need consistency, surely, and at the fundamental "human rights" level there is, or should be, no distinction between the two cases. "Fairness" means applying human rights free from all other considerations, at least to me.
@NJ The rights of the different groups need to be balanced and judged against each other.
Please point out where I have ever said the rights of the perpetrator trump the rights of the victim.
You cannot.
I stand firmly by this.
"Principles matter. Human Rights matter,regardless of whether you think that some individuals abuse them to shield them against justice."
Please point out where I have ever said the rights of the perpetrator trump the rights of the victim.
You cannot.
I stand firmly by this.
"Principles matter. Human Rights matter,regardless of whether you think that some individuals abuse them to shield them against justice."
Latest Posts
The Majority Of Brexit's Impact On...
News24 mins ago
Crosswords76 mins ago
Crosswords79 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles97 mins ago
Strands #247 “More Than Just...
Quizzes & Puzzles103 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.