Hamza going nowhere!

[Ahleckz]

This isn't SC, I thought you were asking about his conviction and charges in the US so I provided it

Anyway - I agree that we can't imprison him for life here as inciting racial hatred etc does not condone a sentence of life. By law, what is stopping us from deporting him seeing as he does nothing other than cost us money (prison or benefits) and preach how this country should be brought to it knees? Finally, if the EU really want to stick their ore in, why not Gary McKinnon?

Fair enough. The ECHR, the ultimate and final court of law for us stops us from deporting him. Cost probably shouldn't enter this argument, as I don't think it's particularly relevant.
Didn't really follow the Gary McKinnon case. Though, I wasn't aware he had actually gone to the ECHR yet. Only the High Court in England and it would make more sense (money wise, and time) to exhaust all 'local' options first. Finally, his case is currently on hold whilst the new administration (Theresa May) looks into it.
The EU didn't "stick their ore [oar] in". The legal team of the defendants approached the ECHR.

I would like to see him sent to America as they want to put him on trial for crimes committed under their law. America is one of our closest political allies so I see no reason why we should not extradite someone who has already been convicted of hate crimes in our country to face trial there.

So because someone breaks the law in our country, they should be sent to another country for sentencing because they are our ally? Afghanistan is our ally, maybe we should send our prisoners over there too! Your argument is nonsensical.

The American prison system may not be ideal but it is better than that in an awful lot of countries and he will face trial by jury which will give him fare opertunity to defend himself. Should he be convicted then he will serve so reasonably hard time, which though not nice for him will at least prevent him from preaching his own particularly nasty brand of hatred on the streets of Great Britain.

He has faced trial here and therefore serving his sentence for the crimes there. He is a European citizen and as such needs to be treated by the law of Europe because of that. We may disagree with the EU, and the Human Rights convention but that is the fact. The "preaching his own particularly nasty brand of hatred" is an extremely questionable point and many, many, many people would argue that it is insane for locking someone up in this country (or indeed any other "democratic first World country") for expressing free speech.

Babar Ahmad is a tricky one however had he been quickly extradited his trial in the US would be long over and if he was inocent he would have been released, fighting his extradition is prolonging his detention and making him look guilty as hell.

Nothing to suggest this is true.

 

['Wes]

I for one, do not hail our Captain Hook overlord.

 

[doodah]

snip

What grounds do we need to deport someone with UK citizenship (as a free individual or prisoner) according to the EHRC?

 

[Kutter]

He is not a european citizen, he is a british citizen.
And hes already abused the rights that come with that citizenship.

 

[Ahleckz]

What grounds do we need to deport someone with UK citizenship (as a free individual or prisoner) according to the EHRC?

The European Convention on Human Rights (which set up the court) ensures that the citizens of all signatory states are afforded certain universal truths and values. As a signatory of this (as a member of The Council of Europe - NOT the EU) we must ensure this is true when dishing out legal remedies. This means that we are duty bound to ensure that any decision that is taken by British Courts complies with the values set out by the convention.
I suppose that's one reason why the ECHR hasn't been sought in the Mckinnon case as it's questionable if his conditions will be any worse than he would experience here. Though, if his medical conditions are true then I do not suspect that the ECHR will authorize his extradition.

I can type out the things which the ECHR sets out if you wish but you should be able to find it with a quick google but I appreciate law texts aren't awfully fun to read (and that's coming from a law student!)

He is not a european citizen, he is a british citizen.
And hes already abused the rights that come with that citizenship.

Read the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, article 20.

 

[doodah]

That is fine, I am currently reading through a lengthy ethics application which is bad enough. Thanks though

 

[RDM]

its simple. bad news sells well. good news does not.

if they said that 99% of Muslim oppose terrorist attacks. that will find no space in news.

if you take the words of the worst chirstian or jews, and put it on news everyday for so long people start to get a bad idea about them.

its simple. nearly all muslim people I met dont approve of those actions.

All well and good but your statement was that it is not linked to Islam in any way, which is frankly untrue. It is most certainly linked to Islam, it uses mosques to help spread its message and its support base is in the Islamic community. The 7/7 bombers came from the Islamic community, Richard Reid came from the Islamic community and numerous others have come from the Islamic community. Burying your head in the sand and saying it has nothing to do with Islam is frankly unhelpful.

 

[Cosimo]

human rights act should be binned, seems to protect criminals and terrorists mainly :/

It protects all of us, if you want to live in a state where they don't have any I'll organise a collection for a one way ticket to send you on your way.

 

[Strife212]

Surely if we can't extradite to the US of all places, thats it, extradition is done.

The human rights act should be abolished by the way, its a total joke shielded by its name alone.

 

[deuse]

I don't like the dude either, but the conditions in Colorado does merit a stay of extradition. The US prison system in general is one of the most barbaric and hostile in the world, with mass rapes, staff apathy & collusion, widespread corruption and excessive unchecked violence. Abu Hamza should be locked away for life, but just that - the UK (and EU by extension) should be above sending criminals away to other nations facing rape, beatings and much worse.

Well he will fit in there then as he has most likely gave orders to do the above to other people...KARMA comes to mind

 

[Ahleckz]

Surely if we can't extradite to the US of all places, thats it, extradition is done.

The human rights act should be abolished by the way, its a total joke shielded by its name alone.

Why?

This thread is great, I was planning on starting some EU Law studying tomorrow - This thread will do instead, well slightly, as we all know that the European Court of Human Rights isn't linked to the European Union!

 

[Strife212]

All it does is protect criminals in the most absurd ways, it was only introduced in 1998, was the UK a land of fear and oppression before then?

 

[Ahleckz]

All it does is protect criminals in the most absurd ways, it was only introduced in 1998, was the UK a land of fear and oppression before then?

The Human Rights Act 1998 was set up to allow British law to respond to decisions made using the Convention on Human Rights. That came into force in 1953. (Think it was '53, may be a year or two out either way).

Again, it doesn't protect criminals in the most absurd ways. It ensures that people are treated properly. Yes, I don't necessary agree with a lot of the decisions that they have made but nor would I agree with the potential situation that could be created without ensuring that certain values are respected in law.

 

[LordSplodge]

human rights act should be binned, seems to protect criminals and terrorists mainly :/

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."



The Human Rights Act is far from perfect (as per the article linked in the OP) but it is better to be in a world with it than without.

 

[Ahleckz]

http://homepage.mac.com/steveklein/hangman.html

Pretty good poem, called The Hangman, that has a similar message to the poem posted above, First They Came.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

The Human Rights Act is far from perfect (as per the article linked in the OP) but it is better to be in a world with it than without.

Human rights were not unheard of prior to the 1998 Act and indeed the ECHR was in force long before then.

I think it's fair to say that most peoples' gripe with the Human Rights Act 1998 enshrined into UK law is that it seems to have been abused more than once for criminality to hide behind.

 

[RDM]

your statement really means that churches burns witches and torture everyone that does not believe in the same thing that they do.

No really it doesn't. It would however be absurdly stupid of me to say "The witch burnings had nothing to do with Christianity."

if some people want to brand christinity like that, that does not mean that christian are like that.

Indeed it does not, but that does not mean that it had nothing to do with Christianity.

please stop branding muslims as terrorist. this is racist.

For a start, I am not branding all muslims as terrorists. I never have and never will. However it is silly to say that islamic terrorism has nothing to do with islam. Secondly, even if I did say that, and even if I said even worse things about Islam it still wouldn't be racist. Islam isn't a race. It would certainly be bigoted, but it wouldn't be racist.

I dont believe in killing innocent people. and nothing you say can make me change this believe.

I didn't say you did, nor did I say that all muslims did (though even some of the "moderate" muslims on this board have been less than unequivocal in their condemnation of the execution of homosexuals and adulterers which I find somewhat disappointing). All I said was that your statement about terrorism having nothing to do with Islam was wrong.

you are the one who is burying his head in the sand. have a look at the middle east and the gulf. all global companies have branches there. if it was as you said then those people wont stand a chance.

Again, completely irrelevant to the point. You seem to think that because I don't believe your statement that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam it means I think all muslims are terrorists, you are wrong. I just think that it is somewhat niave to suggest Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.

if you do hate Muslims, then that's another issue.

Who said anything about hating muslims? I certianly have issues with the religion in that it is bigoted, mysoginistic and overtly political and controlling, but that does not translate into hate for individual muslims.

 

[a1ex2001]

So because someone breaks the law in our country, they should be sent to another country for sentencing because they are our ally? Afghanistan is our ally, maybe we should send our prisoners over there too! Your argument is nonsensical.

The Americans don't want to prosecute Abu Hamza for the same crimes that he is serving time for, they want to prosecute him for different crimes that he has committed which breach their laws. I feel we as one of their major allies should support this in much the same way I would expect them to send someone to the UK to face trial under similar circumstances.

If someone living in this country has breached the laws of Afghanistan and it was shown they could expect a fair trial then I would have no problem extraditing people there as well.

He has faced trial here and therefore serving his sentence for the crimes there. He is a European citizen and as such needs to be treated by the law of Europe because of that. We may disagree with the EU, and the Human Rights convention but that is the fact. The "preaching his own particularly nasty brand of hatred" is an extremely questionable point and many, many, many people would argue that it is insane for locking someone up in this country (or indeed any other "democratic first World country") for expressing free speech.

Free speach does not give you the right to insight murder and hatred or do you really believe that you should be allowed to say anything you like in public? Should freedom of speach be used to protect those who deny the holocaust or seek to oppress ethnic minorities?

Nothing to suggest this is true.

Nothing to suggest it is not.

 

[LordSplodge]

Human Rights Act 1998 enshrined into UK law is that it seems to have been abused more than once for criminality to hide behind.

Aye and that is the real problem... difficult to surmount though.

 

[RDM]

RDM, I understand that you have issue with islam. thats your choice.

I tend to be against anything which calls for the death penalty, especially for what is effectively thought crime (apostasy) or something few have a choice about (sexuality).

however the point I am stressing is, if those terrorists brand themselves as muslims or not. that does not matter.

everyone need to justify the things they do in any way possible. and are willing to bend the words to make them mean whatever they want.

You would still have to be incredibly naive to say Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam as it is Islam they are twisting, Islam they are using as justification and their ideals of a worldwide Caliphate are firmly grounded in Islam. It may well be a perversion of Islam, it is however very closely related to Islam.

all what I am saying, Islam does not permit killing of innocent. and if you have proof for that please say so.

It really comes down as to what you would describe as innocent. Islam does permit killing for a whole host of reasons which are unacceptable in a modern secular nation.