The Abu Qatada case shows up the lunacy of the ECHR

Verity

I want to use a clue bat about David Cameron: He is not that bright. He's a fly boy. Like Blair.

Dan

If they have any balls they'll deduct the £2,500 from the cost of providing security for Qatada.

John Page

Sadly the Grieves of this world float above the real world in some lofty legal stratosphere. I bet he dines out a lot with people who breathe the same rarefied air. Fraser is right. It's a shame David Davis isn't still there to say this is a nonsense. Presumably if we made laws overriding the ECHR we could be found in breach of it and would eventually withdraw from it. This would be popular in a minor way but I don't expect the posh bleating Grieve tendency will stand for it.

Andre

I don't think I can vote for a Conservative party which does not understand we are at war with Islam-Jihad. Cameron's touchy-feely persona just makes me cringe. Where was he when Gert Wilders was denied entry to the UK? What has he to say about this latest outrage?

David

I'm not sure, I mean, just because he's an extremist, does that mean he forfeits his rights? Isn't the guarantee of those rights, even to our enemies, that which makes us civilised and, dare I say it, better than them?

Hysteria

clue bat..?

mac

Excellent, Fraser, please keep hammering this message, not least to help eject Grieve from his ivory tower.

We must bring an end to being metaphorically spat upon by medieval loons like Qatada. The added indignity of having a fine levied by a thoroughly alien court of artificial Euro-conscience is farcical. Had it existed in their day, Gilbert and Sullivan would have ripped this stupidity apart.

Sadly, one doesn't have to look far to see why these apologists for terror thrive: Victoria Brittain's crass and utterly unworldly defence of Qatada in yesterday's Guardian illustrates what
Leftiedom thinks and will perpetuate given the opportunity. Give the CiF commenters their due, however, Brittain's piece was thoroughly rinsed for its idiocy.

Irrespective of how complicated this might be legally, Cameron should not shrink from re-asserting national sovereignty in this area and he will find himself the more popular for doing so.

TrevorsDen

Why not pay him in pennies. Or pay or subs to the ECHR in pennies

Carl Gardner

It makes no sense to make a Bill of Rights "senior" to the ECHR, Fraser, any more than it makes sense to make laws superior to EU law, as Bill Cash keeps arguing for. If you want to be free of the ECHR the only way to do it is to denounce the thing and get out of it altogether; then the UK really wouldn't be bound by it.

James J

These laws are actually bringing the law itself into disrepute because they undermine the respect and trust it is necessary for the public to feel towards the courts in a democracy.
The law in our society is not a code ordained by God but one agreed by our representatives in parliament. Laws therefore must reflect the values of our culture. If lawyers and our political class forget this they are likely to get a rude awakening.

Wilhelm

Ever seen a good looking terrorist ?

GeoffH

Just ignore the ruling.

What can they do? Send a gun-boat?

And if they rule again about non-compliance, then ignore it again.

And continue to ignore all such fatuous rulings from anywhere in the EU orbit. Let 'em fine us.

Don't pay the fines.

Eventually, they'll get the message.

Verity

Hysteria - You live in the US. It's an American bloggism. It means, I am going to hit you over the head with this bat to concentrate your "mind".

Andre - Seconded. I cannot vote Tory as long as the vapid, self-regarding, personally ambitious Europhile David Cameron leads the party.

David asks: "I'm not sure, I mean, just because he's an extremist, does that mean he forfeits his rights?" Answer: Yes. Next question.

The ECHR is a wicked construct and we should jettison the whole edifice of European hegemony over national parliaments. It's a dictatorial obscenity and we never voted for it. We voted for a free trade zone.

If we left, others would follow.

Nick Chambers

Why are the British people so apathetic? Can't we demand the removal of this despicable man? Abu Qatada is happy to hide behind the benefits of western democracy, while still extolling its demise. It is insanity that there is even a debate about his removal. What ever rights he did have should surely be rescinded due to the inherent danger that he poses.

Stephen

GeoffH you have said exactly what I shouted at the tv earlier today. Bravo.

I recall that several years ago Charles Moore (I think) opined in the D/Tel that the Human Rights Act was a godsend to the bad people and a threat to the good people. How right he was.

Actually (though it grieves me to say it) the ECHR is nothing much to do with the ghastly EU. But that doesn't mean it is any more acceptable.

teledu

Grieve and politicians with similar opinions should be forced to live in certain areas of places like Blackburn, Halifax, Rochdale, Birmingham, Leeds etc.
The rarified world that these people exist in gives them no idea of what the average Brit (yes- that man again) think about the Islamisation of large tracts of our country. These dipsticks (new Labour, Grieve, Cameron, Guardianistas and Liberty bods) are the best advocates the BNP could have.

EyeSee

0 out of 10 for understanding on this one Fraser. Yes, Britain is a sovereign nation (just about) and could enact its own laws. However, we have already agreed that under all circumstances EU law takes precedence. So your idea to pick something to oppose is meaningless. Pull out of the EU and you cure this and so many more problems at a stroke. And create no problems whatsoever. Heck we could even allow people domiciled in this country to take to boats and catch fish, wouldn't that be revolutionary!

David Boothroyd

I'm not sure that Fraser Nelson understands what he is proposing. The UK can't be a member of the European Convention on Human Rights and not accept the rulings of the court that implements it. Carl Gardner made this point earlier but let me amplify it.

If a British government was to enact a Bill of Rights which it declared superior to the ECHR, a litigant who had no case under the British Bill of Rights would simply appeal to the Strasbourg Court which would ignore the domestic version and apply the Convention Rights. The UK government would then have to decide whether to accept the ECHR was actually superior, or to withdraw from it entirely.

If you want a British Bill of Rights that are more extensive than the Convention, that's fine. If you want one that's less extensive, you necessarily have to withdraw from the Convention at the same time.

Forlornehope

A condition of asylum should be to stand in front of a picture of the Queen and swear loyalty and gratitude for her protection and swear obedience to the commands of her ministers and appointed officers. This should be filmed and posted on the internet. If they don't want to do this they can go home.

David

"Answer: Yes."

Why?

I'm not sure if I like the idea that a government can just decide I don't have rights.

Verity

What Geoff H said.

Faceless Bureaucrat

"The UK remains a sovereign country - all it would take is an act of Parliament declaring that the Bill of Rights would outrank any other jurisdiction and that we have our own laws."

Act of Parliament?, Act of Parliament? - Mmmm...., a strangely familiar term, but I cannot quite put my finger on when I heard it last.

Verity speaks wisely, messy though such an exercise might be...

John Richardson

Verity, 19-02-09 6:58pm

You are surly correct in every instance
( except ...'clue bat'I cannot vouch for).
I agree , others would begin to desert the ECUH , as a consequence of it's 'anti-Christian Civilisation' trajectory. This means , sadly , Cameron will not lead us out. He is a Chamberlain , not a Churchill.
"All his plans....will be subject to the ECHR."
Mr Nelson,above.
Mr Nelson, who exactly are you addressing here ?
Your readership ?
We know.
The sweet innocent Conservative Policy makers who have been asleep since 1997 , and do not know ?
Huuum.
Even the famous 'dogs in the street' now know that we no longer make our own Laws.
Thus your last statement re-Strasbourg is confusing.
You do not give power away to foreigners and then expect to be able to rule yourself.
Geddit ?
Or is it me ?
Isn't the OBVIOUS TRUTH that Cameron knows all this.
He is as candid as Brown when saying;
"British jobs for...."
He has no intention of fighting for National Independence because he does not care for it or believe in it ( or much else ). He's fighting only for national votes , hence the mendacity.
He's a dishonest , career politician with an unconvincing manner.
Hence no word regarding that Dutch fellow , with the 'crazshy' hair and the regrettably sensible ideas , for example.
Do not feign confusion 'o thou Editor.
No-one else is buying it ( as you begin to suggest) so why not write for that Public ?
There's a battle on you know.
Who's side are you on ?
Verity or Expediency ?

Hawkeye

What makes you think that Cameron isn't simply keeping his powder dry?

As long as he fails to declare the "seniority" of the Bill of Rights then he

a) stops an argument with Grieves
b) Leaves the option open to do so after the election.

In the first few heady months, Cameron can do as he likes and any cabinet resignations (Grieves!) will not make a dent.

He is merely being sensible.

Pat McGroin

so if this chump is getting 2,500 compo, we can freeze his dole etc for a month or two?

No2Atheism

..."The myriad unintended consequences of the ECHR (and the Human Rights Act) are well-understood by the British public but not understood by the political elite who still seem dazzled by its lofty ideals"...

Unfortunately I completely disagree with the above.

The politicians completely understand the ramifications...its the public that does not realise that most of the politicians in position of authority and policy making are mostly all interested, related and hell bent on creating a One World Government (aka New World Order)...hence it is not in the interest of their plans for them to allow British laws to supercede European laws.
The British public are the ones that have to "fight" too tooth and nail in other to maintain their freedom and national soveriegnty (if it still exists).

Nicholas

Up until Edward Heath Europe was perceived, rightly, as a basket case by most Britons. We have certainly lost our national identity, some are ashamed of it and want to destroy what is left of it. All those things that made our democracy and our freedoms worth something have been kicked into touch by a load of jabbering socialists in Brussels, aided and abetted by the useful idiots in our own toothless parliament who wanted to make something that was the best in the world more like the dysfunctional madhouses across the channel. If any of those idiots had a better sense of history and an understanding why keeping our distance has kept us safe for over 900 years we might not be in the position we are in now. Our sovereignty is all but gone, sacrificed on the dodgy altar of a centralising, socialist Europe, in the mixed messages of our own multiculturalism and in the mawkish hysteria that seems to infuse every decision. It is too late for Brown The Great Deceiver to spout platitudes about the nation he has helped to destroy. The moment we put MEPs into Brussels it was all a lost cause. Labour's treatment of parliament as a rubber-stamping bureaucracy put the nails into the coffin.

One of Britain's symbols used to be the lion. It represented quiet dignity, reserve and strength but a terrible power if provoked. Labour and their friends have pissed that up the wall and turned it into a jabbering baboon jumping up and down on the sidelines of diplomacy, waving its arms futilely and screeching nonsense. The fact that Milliband is the Foreign Secretary is just a coincidence.

No2Atheism

..."The myriad unintended consequences of the ECHR (and the Human Rights Act) are well-understood by the British public but not understood by the political elite who still seem dazzled by its lofty ideals"...

Unfortunately I completely disagree with the above.

The politicians completely understand the ramifications...its the public that does not realise that most of the politicians in position of authority and policy making are mostly all interested, related and hell bent on creating a One World Government (aka New World Order)...hence it is not in the interest of their plans for them to allow British laws to supercede European laws.
The British public are the ones that have to "fight" too tooth and nail in other to maintain their freedom and national soveriegnty (if it still exists).

Fred

So it is okay to throw people in jail just because the government feels like it? Or just Muslims?

Jane

I think it was Simon Heffer who said Cameron is Willie Whitelaw with an iPod. What worries me is that he will govern as if it's 1997. Everything has changed.

The Conservatives, provided they aren't undone by people like Derek Conway will have a much freer hand across the board than they could ever have hoped for. This will be a chance for wholesale reforms of poisonous things like the Human Wrongs Act.

Why is Cameron pandering to all this rubbish when it is never this stuff that undoes the Conservatives? It's only the sleaze and incompetence that undoes them. What is Cameron saying? He can't do anything about that?

People like Dominic Grieve and David Davies are going to hobble Cameron at a chance when as Prime Minister he will have the freest hand you can get.

Verity

Hawkeye - He's been "keeping his powder dry" for three years. Now is the time to face the fact that he doesn't have any powder.

No2Atheism - Exactly. David Cameron is one of them. If he isn't a member of Common Purpose, I will be astounded.

Nicholas - Bravissimo!

Fergus Pickering

OK Boothroyd. Let's withdraw from the Convention on Human Rights then? Sounds a good idea to me. I never did hold with Human Rights. What can it possibly mean? The onlyrights I can see that you have just because you are human are entirely negative - the right not to be pissed about by government and stuff like that. A Human Right to health and happiness to a good sex life and a university education - what can that possibly mean?

James

It's marvellous to see all these people in need of a meeting with the 'clue bat' equate the ECHR as an EU construct, when in fact it pre-dates European political union and is a separate entity (stemming as it does from the Council of Europe).

I am perfectly in favour of this ruling. How can anybody bleat about the "loss of ancient British liberties" when at the very same time they appear to be against them?

What has made Britain in the past is that it holds itself above others in its treatment of individuals.

What leg do we have to stand on when lecturing other countries about detention without trial?

Verity

Get rid of the sleazy Tony Blair, sleazy Gordon Brown, sleazy Tessa Jowell, sleazy Harriet Harman or other fat women in the Labour cabinet, sleazy Jack Straw, sleazy Ed Balls ... I think you can see where I'm going with this.

These emetics must be purged.

So to speak.

Verity

Nick, agree with every word or your wonderful, insightful post, but there is something wrong with this site. Posts aren't getting posted.

Frank P

Nicholas I can now pop off to bed chuckling. Yours is a much better jollop than the one my quack prescribes. Just what I needed after Question Time. I hope the festering fuckers in Whitehall read your posts; even they must be cut to the quick; stupid and thick skinned though they be. Keep it up! The knowledge that these thoughts are being thunk by others is comforting; even though it may all too far gone to reverse, you awaken the dormant, residual optimism in me - not the hopeychangey Obamessiah kind of bullshit. Real hope. The day will come! 900 years of history can't end with a whimper, surely?

Verity

Frank P - Good to see you! I won't say I hope everything's all right, but your friends have been watching for your posts ...

quadratus

Verity 01.23
You are right. There is a 'blue pencil' at work.

Ray

What was that you said, Fraser? "The UK remains a sovereign country - all it would take is an act of Parliament declaring that the British law would outrank any European Union law and that we have our own laws."?

Chris

This is a stupid, stupid article. Is Fraser Nelson really suggesting that the government should be able to lock up anyone it likes (or more to the point doesn't like), without having to produce any evidence or go through any court procedure. The fact is that this man hasn't been found guilty of anything. The state could not produce any evidence against him. Therefore, it did not have the right to lock him up.

The right not to be incarcerated at random because those in charge feel like it is just about fundamental as they come. It is disgusting that in Britain we have to have that right protected by an outside body. If you want to know how labour has been able to get away with its sustained attack on our most basic freedoms, you only have to look at articles like this.

Nicholas

James, I fear you are missing the point. Of course ECHR pre-dates the EUSSR but it is a socialist construct that prior to both Britain was a very unfair place that needed reform. The idea of that necessary reform (and other EU considerations) has conjoined us to European politics and more particularly European concepts of law that have undermined our own institutions in a totally negative way.

I am surprised and appalled at the way that our pre-ECHR legal history is so easily disregarded and its legacy abandoned by politicians and political commentators, who are only transient tenants in this country after all. Without a sense of our history a vision for the future is fraught with risk. It is a cliché but our shared past makes us who we are.

In the last twenty years our past has been all but obliterated by arrogant socialists and left-leaning conservatives who think they know better, who shout "change" and "reform" as a warcry without much consideration for exactly what change and what reform is needed or why. Much of it in any case is founded on hyperbole and/or propaganda. The result has been a few improvements for groups seen as victims (but even that is riddled with inequalities and contradictions) but mostly the throwing out of the baby with much of the bath water.

There is a lack of reasoned circumspection in modern politics and a paradox that leads to mind-boggling unintended consequences. The paradox is too many words and too little action plus too much action and too little words.

Those issues that ought to receive careful thought and deserve reasoned debate are rushed through with indecent haste whilst other issues where action is desperately needed are delayed, impeded and usually never get off the ground.

I believe we are cursed with the most incompetent, shallow, self-serving politicians this country has ever seen, in all parties. You will search in vain for gravitas, conviction, courage, honesty, inspiration or true leadership. All are playing a game of manipulating what they perceive to be public and media opinion to stay in power or to secure power. The stuff they come out with is more often than not trite and puerile, however dressed up they try to make it. The many tiered, multi-tongued tower of European/British justice now actually impedes justice more effectively than at any time in our modern history.

The statue above the Old Bailey should be changed to reflect the reality of the current situation. The blindfold should come off to be replaced with one eye on the tabloid media and one on the many pressure groups clamouring for vested interest legislation. The scales should be replaced with a licked finger held in the wind and the sword replaced with a Doddy tickling stick. A large clockwork key marked CPS should be stuck firmly in her back and a grotesque, self-serving gnome perched on her shoulder. That is modern British "justice".

David

"The onlyrights I can see that you have just because you are human are entirely negative - the right not to be pissed about by government and stuff like that"

Surely that's why Qatada has been awarded compensation? He's been pissed about by the Government.

Wily Trout

It seems David Cameron is paying for the untrustworthiness of Blair, Brown, et al. They have a tight trip on the media and are waiting to pounce on anything he says to trash him. Surely refusing to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt is playing into nu-labour's hands?

paulme

Why is the Home Secretary jacqui Smith concerned about Abu Qatada getting £2,500. It's within the rules.

Hereford

David asks: "I'm not sure, I mean, just because he's an extremist, does that mean he forfeits his rights?" Answer: Yes. Next question.

Agreed Verity. Because, in my opinion, the root of the problem is that they are misnamed. Other than a basic right to life itself, they are not rights. They are priveleges that are afforded to all who stay within the law.

They should be forfeit if an individual commits acts which are designed to remove, without justifyable cause, the human priveleges of others.

True meaning of 'outlaw' - someone who by their own actions has placed themselves outside the protection of the law.

Verity

Bravo again, Nicholas. I would take exception only with this: "There is a lack of reasoned circumspection in modern politics and a paradox that leads to mind-boggling unintended consequences." No. The consequences that have occurred are exactly as were intended. You underestimate the malice.

David

"True meaning of 'outlaw' - someone who by their own actions has placed themselves outside the protection of the law."

But if someone has broken the lasw, then they should be tried properly and fairly with due process. Once that occurs, they can, if found guilty, be locked up and no one would have a problem. The problem here was that the chap was locked up without a trial. What's to stop the next government claiming that Verity is a danger to society and locking her up with out trial on grounds that "evidence is too hard to come by?"

You may have faith in the might of government. I don't. I don't want my rights subject to their whims.

Verity

Hereford, Seconded. He has the right to life until court decides otherwise. That's it. All privileges accorded to the law-abiding are withdrawn from him.

And the media should stop styling these people "extremists", because the word in this context is intended to convey an excess of religiosity and devotion to a diety. "Religious aggressors" or "aspirant conquerors" would be a better use of the language.

David Bouvier

I don't have a problem with entrenched protection for human rights. I actually even rather like the text of the ECHR though it is full of public security get out clauses. But I simply cannot understand how fair-minded jurisprudence gets from the text to the rulings in many cases.

Article 2 prevents the state from torturing him. It does not say that we cannot incidentally put him at risk of torture by deporting him to his own country. They made that one up.

Oh, and as an alien he has no right to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly or non-discrimination in respect of political activity (Article 16).

Further, article 17 clearly anticipates something like the current problem:

"ARTICLE 17: Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction on any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention."

So if all ways of preventing him from pursuing his agenda are closed by the ECHR, be it detention, house arrest, deportation, assassination, or any other effective measure, the ECHR institution is in effect granting him rights explicitly ruled out in 16 and 17.

They HAVE to leave a solution open for political activist aliens and conspirators. The convention says so.

Take the ECHR to itself I say!

David Bouvier

David - exactly; outlawry was a punishment.

but as an alien political activist whose deportation is sort, his right are curtailed anyway.

Verity

WTF is the British government doing working so hard to get that Ethiopian who lived in Britain illegally for a few years, extracted from Gitmo? What the hell call does this lawbreaker have on the British taxpayer?

This is all Common Purpose and in the cause of furthering their New World Order agenda where there is no citizenship.

Will Cameron or someone in the Shadow Cabinet call Straw on it? Are you kidding? They're on the same agenda.

David Cameron's Poncy Cycling Hat - This Style 10/6

In fact, I think Cameron's intention to continue the One Worler agenda is what turned William Hague off. He's a patriot. As is David Davis.

John Richardson

Shame about the lang***e Verity, but correct again on two points especialy:-

1)
"You underestimate the malice."

...of those who occupy positions of power in this Country.
Modern politicians not knowing the harm they do ?
Unintended consequences ?
What about the revelation that convicted & cautioned child molesters have been cleared to work undercover (that is without parents ,teachers or children knowing who they really are) in U.K. PRIMARY SCHOOLS because of their 'Human Rights'. Yep.
Whats that ?
We didn't know ?
Strange that, as it was all over the news summer 2005.'The Daily Mail' carried an article in January'09.(The 16th I think)
Anyway , this is evil. That there was little public outcry , and zero parental response as far as I
(a humble Primary School Teacher) could discern demonstrates that...well ...perhaps those in power know us better then we know ourselves.
Shame.
For children.

2)
Why bring murderous , foreign aliens into our country at great cost and with obvious results ?
Firstly the obvious results. A Security State needs enemies. Secondly ,lets all hope 'The Daily Telegraph', with it's current , strange , anonymous , inexplicable; 'Blackjack' story/prophecy is wrong.
(In the Culture section).

Toodle Pip.

Verity

Because de-Britain-izng and excising us from our beloved earth, our roots and our forebears who we carry in our hearts is part of the plan.

Anyone ever seen an old "Flash Gordon" clip? There was always something that looked oddly like the UN General Assembly chamber. You know. Semi-circular and non-judgemental.

And running the show would be someone who looked vaguely black or Oriental, never too precise, but never white, and was always called Zog... These people never had surnames.

We are being taken to a Brave New World ... "Baroness" (snigger) Warneke - unappointed by the electorate is busy with her plans. (Dear God! Is she still staggering on in pursuit of her project? She has been a part of this malign landscape since Aldous Huxley forever.)

Has anyone noticed that William Hague is barely in the Commons any more? I'll bet he doesn't stand next time ... and I'll bet he takes his next consultancy outside Britain ...

What a tragedy that the Conservatives were so cowed by an unelected individual like bully Alastair Campbell. Although, it certainly showed their mettle, didn't it?

Fergus Pickering

Those of you who understand the Human ights stuff - cn we?

a. deport the bastard
b. lock up the bastard
c. kill the bastard

Actually I know we can't do (c). But if we can't do (a). or (b). then how do we deal with him?

Jolly Swagman

This is an Englishman?
I think you need some more Chlorine in the Gene pool

Verity

Fergus Pickering - See (c).

Frank P

Verity

Si si!

Verity

Frank P - V good!