The European Court of Human Rights have shafted us again
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Just the government and the do gooder liberals wasting money and time as usual. Nothing new here, move a long.
They should just deport him anyway. What can they do? send him back?
You can get deported from Jordon for any number of insignificant acts, bacon anyone ?
They should just deport him anyway. What can they do? send him back?
You can get deported from Jordon for any number of insignificant acts, bacon anyone ?
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
Are you as disappointed by this as your post suggests?
wrap him in wine soaked bacon and send him back....
If I went to Jordon and someone said I was conspiring to kill people, and I did some very dubious things and was found with enctiminating documents would they give me a free house, money and millions to spend on solicitors to stop me getting deported, would they also school my children and give me free health care?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
When I was in Doha recently for a few weeks, the local paper had a page full of mug shots of deportees. The Arabs don't mess around with paper work and feel good liberal non sense. You cross the line, you are gone. Zero tolerance.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 1,890
- Location
- On the road
Reading is certainly bad for your health, right? It is thanks to sensible people making sensible and fair laws, that you can express freely your opinions without fear of repercussions.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
That is the problem with the west, everything is a precedent. Do you think that by sending one arab back to his home country that we lose 1000s of years of human rights?
They were quick to deport the TV Shack admin. So appears something is a miss. Usually when they go on about this sort of thing in the press and make a big political deal out of it, they are trying to manipulate the public opinion so that they can bring in new laws or make changes with "precedents".
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
Clarify?
Your post held the sentiment of 'sending them back' being something you're disappointed couldn't be done. This actually sums up most of your posts when you're the thread-starter.
we in the UK made our own laws, we want to deport him, the EU say we cannot...
we only want to send him home... If i was acused if this in Jordon do you think they would simply tell me to go home (having first given me million for legal fees)? (I assume I would be tortured then killed maybe I am wrong)
I think serious questions would be asked since he's in prison in the UK.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
Why didn't you post this in Speakers Corner so you could at least have a chance of debate? Are you looking for debate or just agreement?
It is a difficult situation....on the one hand, do we allow the potential for torture...(consider the extradition cases to the US..a country who have used torture-driven evidence in the past?) or do we really have an obligation to protect the human rights of a foreign national who seeks to limit or preaches against our right to those same human rights.....
Abu Qatada is a Jordanian, he is not British.....do we have a responsibility to effectively give asylum to someone who stands against the very principles of a Country he seeks to take advantage of?
I don't think we do......we should not be seen as safe haven for terrorism or those who seek to support their actions, human rights also come with human responsibilities.....if you effectively refuse the responsibility that is inherent in a society that protects such rights, do you not also abjure the rights attached to those responsibilities?
Conversely, can we stand on our principles of no-torture, fair trials, objective evidence etc....if we also efectively support those that act contrary to those principles?
It is a wider question that relates not just to this particular case, but to any case whereby we have extradition to any country that has or does support or use torture to illicit evidence in any circumstance.....that includes the United States.....
I don't think this should be about who is entitled to such rights....but how we apply such rights and whether we consider the responsibilites of the individual as well as the needs of the individual when applying state responsibility to that individual.....
Abu Qatada is a Jordanian, he is not British.....do we have a responsibility to effectively give asylum to someone who stands against the very principles of a Country he seeks to take advantage of?
I don't think we do......we should not be seen as safe haven for terrorism or those who seek to support their actions, human rights also come with human responsibilities.....if you effectively refuse the responsibility that is inherent in a society that protects such rights, do you not also abjure the rights attached to those responsibilities?
Conversely, can we stand on our principles of no-torture, fair trials, objective evidence etc....if we also efectively support those that act contrary to those principles?
It is a wider question that relates not just to this particular case, but to any case whereby we have extradition to any country that has or does support or use torture to illicit evidence in any circumstance.....that includes the United States.....
I don't think this should be about who is entitled to such rights....but how we apply such rights and whether we consider the responsibilites of the individual as well as the needs of the individual when applying state responsibility to that individual.....
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 1,890
- Location
- On the road
That principle would just create a loop hole which can be exploited, there are not different kind of human being just because he is from a different nationality?! Why not because he is gay? Or black? Where do you draw the line?
That is not the argument being made. The argument being made is this:
The problem is that evidence obtained under torture cannot be assumed reliable (quite apart from the fact that it's illegal).
Yes, it is difficult, situations like this that test the boundries of laws, rights and morals are. Not that you would think that by Robbos usual blase posting attitude to these scenarios.
The issue of him being tortured is not the issue here, as we have assurances he wont be (as much as that is worth - just as we get assurances from the US when we extradite that they wont receive the death penalty), just that he will be on trial based on the evidence achieved through torture. Which you know is unreliable and against international law, as well as our own.
I do agree that with rights come responsibilities, and he has lost a lot of his rights currently, as he is under house arrest. But irrespective of the crimes he is accused of, we should not dismiss our own core values of human rights, fair trials and such .
Edit :
I see you added to your post
If cases like this allowed us to explore these ideas in international law, then that would be a positive outcome.
Last edited:
You make a judgement based on the actions of the individual and whether those actions are compatible with the responsibilites of the individual claiming protection of such rights.....it has nothing to do with his nationality per se...but his actions. His nationality is only relevant to the states level of responsibility for him....nothing more.
Can you expect protections under a set of rights that you yourself deny to others, either by deed or incitement to deed?
Last edited: