Abu Qatada

Castiel said:
I expect that they are not so settled now because their Father and Husband is not here. I wouldn't be very settled if my wife was in another country...Are not the older, more independent children staying though?
Click to expand...

The part that i struggle with, is that they were a family seeking asylum here in the UK (1993), Abu, the wife and three kids (two further kids were born here in the UK), but again as a family unit they claimed refugee status which lead onto asylum being granted.

"A refugee is a person who is outside his or her country of origin or habitual residence because they have suffered (or fear) persecution"

So what has changed over this week (Abu being deported aside), over this last week do the family now all of a sudden have no fear of persecution in Jordan?
 
Bobcat said:
The part that i struggle with, is that they were a family seeking asylum here in the UK (1993), Abu, the wife and three kids (two further kids were born here in the UK), but again as a family unit they claimed refugee status which lead onto asylum being granted.

"A refugee is a person who is outside his or her country of origin or habitual residence because they have suffered (or fear) persecution"

So what has changed over this week (Abu being deported aside), over this last week do the family now all of a sudden have no fear of persecution in Jordan?
Click to expand...

The treaty signed between the United Kingdom and Jordan is what I presume happened over this week...Abu Qatada was given Asylum because he was (or claimed to have been) tortured in Jordan and persecuted in Pakistan, where he fled originally. His family were granted asylum by association.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
The treaty signed between the United Kingdom and Jordan is what I presume happened over this week...
Click to expand...

Apologies, i thought that the treaty was only for Abu's deportation, stating that "Evidence extracted through torture will be used against Abu", or did the treaty state that the family is now free from any kind of persecution in Jordan?
 
Bobcat said:
Apologies, i thought that the treaty was only for Abu's deportation, stating that "Evidence extracted through torture will be used against Abu", or did the treaty state that the family is now free from any kind of persecution in Jordan?
Click to expand...

I do not know the full terms of the treaty but it does lay out certain guarantees that a persons human rights will be observed, remember this is not specific to Abu Qatada, it simply applies to his situation, but there was no claims that Abu Qatada's immediate family was subject to persecution or will be in the first place. The claims were only related to Abu Qatada himself. Asylum doesn't work in the way that only the persecuted gets acceptance, if they have immediate family, such as a wife and children, they are also granted residence, that doesn't mean they, as individuals, are at risk of the same persecution as the Principle claimant, although they often are, or can potentially be used to force the return of the Principle through persecution and threat.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
I do not know the terms of the treaty, but there was no claims that Abu Qatada's immediate family was subject to persecution or will be. The claims were only related to Abu Qatada himself. Asylum doesn't work in the way that only the persecuted gets acceptance, if they have immediate family, such as a wife and children, they are also granted residence, that doesn't mean they, as individuals, are at risk of the same persecution as the Principle claimant, although they often are, or can potentially be used to force the return of the Principle through persecution and threat.
Click to expand...

So family members can also seek asylum/refugee status even though no family members are under threat in their native home country.

I honestly didn't think it worked like that, so thanks for the info, i was genuinely intrigued into how it works :)
 
Bobcat said:
So family members can also seek asylum/refugee status even though no family members are under threat in their native home country.

I honestly didn't think it worked like that, so thanks for the info, i was genuinely intrigued into how it works :)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is as simplistic as that, but if a person is being or at real risk of being persecuted and flees with his family (wife and children) then the usual response is to grant Asylum to them all, even if the family doesn't travel with the Principle Asylum seeker, they can apply to be reunited with their dependents.

To separate them or keep them seperated would, I assume, potentially go against Human Rights legislation, they would be dependents after all.

There is also the inherent risk that refusing asylum to a Principles children and wife would potentially put them at risk, even if no risk was apparent before, simply as the persecuting country could use them as hostages to demand the return of the Principle.

http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/partners-families/family-reunion/

People who flee to the UK to seek asylum can include their dependants in their application for asylum, if those dependants have travelled with them to the UK. However, we recognise that families can become fragmented in cases of asylum, depending on the speed and manner in which the person has fled.

If you are a recognised refugee or have been given humanitarian protection in the UK, our family programme reunion allows you to be reunited with your family members (that is, those who were part of your family unit before you fled).

Under the Immigration Rules, only your pre-existing family (husband, wife, civil partner or unmarried/same-sex partner, plus any children under 18 who formed part of the family unit when you fled to seek asylum) can apply to enter the UK under the family reunion programme. However, we may allow family reunion for other family members if there are compassionate reasons why their case should be considered outside the Immigration Rules.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thanks again for the info :)

Castiel said:
To separate them or keep them seperated would, I assume, potentially go against Human Rights legislation, they would be dependents after all.
Click to expand...

Im surprised we were not bound to move the family with him if the above statement is correct, as we have basically split them up ?
 
Bobcat said:
Thanks again for the info :)

Im surprised we were not bound to move the family with him if the above statement is correct, as we have basically split them up ?
Click to expand...

I think that the individual has the ultimate decision in this, if we forced them to stay separated (and remember Abu Qatada's alleged actions were what prompted his deportation, not the State) then that would be against human rights principles. Remember that the British Govt is not forcing Qatada's family to leave or stay, the choice is entirely theirs...in an Asylum case, that would not be so as the State would have to grant entry to the UK.


It is a point that gets raised however, especially when convicted foreign national criminals are at risk of deportation they often claim a right to family life if their dependents are not subject to deportation as well. In this case two of Abu Qatada's children are British Citizens so have the same rights in principle as we do.
 
I'am a Muslim, but im glad that scumbag is out here. thieving free loader !!

Jordanian authorities haven't taken a light approach I mean he is locked up in a maximum secure prison in the middle of the desert.
 
Last edited:
koolpc said:
Its what everyone is thinking, boyo.

He was scum and this country needs to rid the place of all of his compatriots etc etc. No more softly softly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, kind of. At the same time I find these developments worrying though. I think a move away from ECHR is a mistake. Honestly, our politicians don't seem to want to comply with anything on an international level unless it suits us - and then they have the audacity to point at other states and accuse them of being non-compliant.

Do you get irony though, yeah? I'm not sure who exactly is doing hate speeches here. I still have no idea what this Abu Qatada has supposedly ACTUALLY SAID.
 
Last edited:
Thompson_NCL said:
[..]
Several other leading academics are of the same opinion. The idea that the British are a mongrel race is in short, false.
Click to expand...

The idea that the British are a race is false.

Sure, until recently almost all Britons were mostly of Celtic descent...but who were the Celts? A splodge of peoples with some cultural commonalities, not native to Britain.
There wasn't even any such thing as "British" until the Romans decided it was so (and that imposed identification didn't cover the whole island, only the Roman province). The numerous tribes here didn't have a common identity - 2000+ years ago people on this island identified themselves with their tribe, not with the entire island, and told the Romans that most of the tribes were immigrants.

If you define "Celt" as a race, you have to include almost all of Europe and a part of Asia (not that Europe and Asia actually are seperate places anyway), as that was the Celtic area much more recently than the 6000 years ago that you mention. Come to think of it, the Celts might not even have emigrated to Britain that far back.

Although since "race" is a made up thing anyway, I suppose you can make it up in whatever way you like. It's silly to call "the British" a race, but no sillier than calling a slew of different peoples with vaguely similar skin colour a race.
 
Angilion said:
The idea that the British are a race is false.

Sure, until recently almost all Britons were mostly of Celtic descent...but who were the Celts? A splodge of peoples with some cultural commonalities, not native to Britain.
There wasn't even any such thing as "British" until the Romans decided it was so (and that imposed identification didn't cover the whole island, only the Roman province). The numerous tribes here didn't have a common identity - 2000+ years ago people on this island identified themselves with their tribe, not with the entire island, and told the Romans that most of the tribes were immigrants.

If you define "Celt" as a race, you have to include almost all of Europe and a part of Asia (not that Europe and Asia actually are seperate places anyway), as that was the Celtic area much more recently than the 6000 years ago that you mention. Come to think of it, the Celts might not even have emigrated to Britain that far back.

Although since "race" is a made up thing anyway, I suppose you can make it up in whatever way you like. It's silly to call "the British" a race, but no sillier than calling a slew of different peoples with vaguely similar skin colour a race.
Click to expand...

With this sort of thinking you may as well say that none of us are a race and should all call ourselves African. Stop trying to be clever.

Race is a made up thing, but so is mathematics and language.

Classifications have a purpose and if you don't agree, well hey, don't, but telling the rest of us that it's silly is laughable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom