Permabanned
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 28
He should be allowed here to preach his hate and those who disagree are racist and Islamaphobic pure and simple.
Abu Qatada
- Thread starter the wopster
- Start date
I think some people have gotten the wrong end of the stick regarding the torture aspect of the Jordanian court case.
Qatada is facing charges and there is a portion of the evidence that may or may not have been obtained ALREADY by the use of torture.
It's this evidence that the UK courts have issue with despite assurances from the Jordanian goverment that such evidence would not be used in Qatada's trial.
Based on this I see no reason not to grant Jordan the extradition order and deport Qatada back to Jordan.
Qatada is facing charges and there is a portion of the evidence that may or may not have been obtained ALREADY by the use of torture.
It's this evidence that the UK courts have issue with despite assurances from the Jordanian goverment that such evidence would not be used in Qatada's trial.
Based on this I see no reason not to grant Jordan the extradition order and deport Qatada back to Jordan.
If we scrap our human rights then people like Abu Qatada have already won.
People seem to forget why we have them & what happened to make those in the EU feel the need to enshrine them in the law, we don't exactly have a great history in that department as a species over the last hundred years.
While they can get abused by certain individuals, they also protect the population - it's a worthwhile trade-off.
People seem to forget why we have them & what happened to make those in the EU feel the need to enshrine them in the law, we don't exactly have a great history in that department as a species over the last hundred years.
While they can get abused by certain individuals, they also protect the population - it's a worthwhile trade-off.
I totally agree with this.
I totally disagree with this.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 1,195
And the judge disagrees with you and considers that the Jordanian legal system is not robust enough to ensure torture does not feature.
The issue isn't whether Jordan is serious in it's assurances (the judge deteremined that they were), the issue is whether the law in Jordan can back up those assurances. Judge said it can't. This is why a change in Jordanian law is being mooted as the solution to this.
Islamophobia is probably the most ridiculous term in use today.
I can't believe that there are so many people that can't see the rationale behind Justice Mitting's ruling. Guess what, human rights are important, and it's by ensuring they exist for people like this that we guarantee their presence for us, should we ever need them.
lol, given their track record that assurance is worthless!
As other sensible people have pointed out of course we shouldn't deport him as their is a high probability he will be tortured in Jordan!
And a massive
to all the 'Daily Fail' morons poo-pooing Human rights!
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
I hate Islam. Or is it Iceland...
I hate Christianity too. And Judaism. Most other religions are relatively benign.
But in general I don't hate Christians, Muslims, or Jews. Can you compute that?
What I particularly hate though, is moral relativism.
You know what kind of logical fallacy this is called? When you do, come back to me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
The mans served his time, paid his due, let him be like any other ex convict.
If he brakes the law again, put him in jail again.
He's been locked up for 10yrs, yet hasnt been charged with anything, as far as i know. In a country where you can be arrested for burning poppies, surely he has done something worthy of being charged or is it just a witch hunt.
If he brakes the law again, put him in jail again.
He's been locked up for 10yrs, yet hasnt been charged with anything, as far as i know. In a country where you can be arrested for burning poppies, surely he has done something worthy of being charged or is it just a witch hunt.
Why does he actually have the right to stay in this country anyway? Is he a British citizen? I understand that he has the human right to not be tortured, but why does he have the human right to remain our problem? Surely it should be a case of deporting him then reprimanding his own country if they treat him badly from a human rights perspective. Do we have some sort of implicit duty of care over him now?
Just trying to get my head around it really
Just trying to get my head around it really
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 668
Yeah, Hashish does that to you.
I speet on you OP, you infidel!
LMAO
Good riddance to these scumbags, first the hook handed fool and now this muppet.
Hopefully more of these scumbags will be chucked out of the country.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,312
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
Why does he actually have the right to stay in this country anyway? Is he a British citizen? I understand that he has the human right to not be tortured, but why does he have the human right to remain our problem? Surely it should be a case of deporting him then reprimanding his own country if they treat him badly from a human rights perspective. Do we have some sort of implicit duty of care over him now?
Just trying to get my head around it really
Yes, he's been granted asylum.
Despite not wanting him in the country I agree with this. The governments actions have just embarrasses us, cheapened our human rights laws, and given him more publicity.
The government wouldn't deport a life long British citizen to Jordan and they shouldn't deport him either. They should watch him like a hawk, if he puts a foot wrong charge and convict him here. Otherwise his rights should be respected. Human right laws are there to stop exactly this kind of state harassment.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Why does he actually have the right to stay in this country anyway? Is he a British citizen? I understand that he has the human right to not be tortured, but why does he have the human right to remain our problem? Surely it should be a case of deporting him then reprimanding his own country if they treat him badly from a human rights perspective. Do we have some sort of implicit duty of care over him now?
Just trying to get my head around it really
My very basic understanding is that we cannot deport to any country that uses torture (or at least what the ECHR consider torture) or the death penalty for the crime they are accused of regardless of whether they came from there or not.
In short, you could fly over to an American state that has the dealth penalty, kill someone and fly back, and if you make it back to the UK they basically can't then deport you (in theory, in reality the state would just promise not to kill you and you'd be deported anyway).
.
Some choices:
1) Just shoot the beardy **** already
2) Ship him off to Jordan anyway - sod Europe
3) Give me a gun, I'll shoot him.
4) Just change the law to say we can get rid of him no matter what; if they can make it illegal to blockade refineries or whatever, surely they can do something about someone who's actually a threat.
1) Just shoot the beardy **** already
2) Ship him off to Jordan anyway - sod Europe
3) Give me a gun, I'll shoot him.
4) Just change the law to say we can get rid of him no matter what; if they can make it illegal to blockade refineries or whatever, surely they can do something about someone who's actually a threat.
If he is such a terrible man then why not simply charge him with a crime, try him and lock him up? We've wasted millions of pounds trying to deport him which we knew the human rights act would never allow which would have been much better spent on proper judicial process.
Alternatively we should ditch the European Human Rights act and deport who ever we like when ever we like.
Alternatively we should ditch the European Human Rights act and deport who ever we like when ever we like.