[Maddog Jones]

This is deplorable. I haven't read the whole thread, but I hope that Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the socialists are opposing this.

[tufc]

(Original post by SciFiBoy)
the ECHR and others have said he would be at risk of torture and it is suspected that the "evidence" against him was in part also gained by torture...

Which is why it's an issue of sovereignty, not rights. No-one is saying that he should be deported if he's going to be tortured, but the highest court in our land has made the decision that there is not a risk of torture, only to be overruled by a group of people who can't even vote in our country!

[TopHat]

The Government's laziness is becoming rapidly apparent. First they insist the Opposition was creating a straw man, when in fact all we did was paraphrase the Paymaster General and the Chairman of the Conservative Party, who seemed to view cocking a snook at the ECHR as the main goal of this motion. Then they insist Qatada is a known terrorist leader. If that is the case, then we can try him within our own courts. As it happens, the RL Govt has been trying to do some for some years, without any success. To quote Birchington's source "Yet despite many attempts to do so, the authorities have not been able to link him directly to specific terrorist activity, either in the UK or abroad." That renders the Government calling him a "known terrorist leader" rather defunct. If they believe he is, then they can submit the evidence to our courts, and allow our courts to decide. In France's case, it extradited convicted terrorist leaders. In the Government's case, they're attempting to extradite someone based on the grounds they don't really like him very much. Their last comment again indicates a poor understanding of the situation. We already do accept people seeking political asylum if we feel there is substantial evidence their human rights can be infringed. There's no precedent here - that was set a long time ago.

[Maddog Jones]

(Original post by tufc)
Which is why it's an issue of sovereignty, not rights. No-one is saying that he should be deported if he's going to be tortured, but the highest court in our land has made the decision that there is not a risk of torture, only to be overruled by a group of people who can't even vote in our country!

'It's an issue of sovereignty'.

No, it's an issue of an innocent man being sent away to be tortured by a supposedly civilised nation.

Play your stupid Europhobic games somewhere else, not with a mans life. The government has the power to take as much power away from Europe as it likes, it doesn't need to make petty, immature little statements like this.

I'll be PM'ing all Labour, Socialist and Liberal Democrat MPs and asking them to vote it down, and I would expect Libertarians to put their money where their mouth is and vote it down, too.

[JPKC]

(Original post by TopHat)
The Government's laziness is becoming rapidly apparent. First they insist the Opposition was creating a straw man, when in fact all we did was paraphrase the Paymaster General and the Chairman of the Conservative Party, who seemed to view cocking a snook at the ECHR as the main goal of this motion. Then they insist Qatada is a known terrorist leader. If that is the case, then we can try him within our own courts. As it happens, the RL Govt has been trying to do some for some years, without any success. To quote Birchington's source "Yet despite many attempts to do so, the authorities have not been able to link him directly to specific terrorist activity, either in the UK or abroad." That renders the Government calling him a "known terrorist leader" rather defunct. If they believe he is, then they can submit the evidence to our courts, and allow our courts to decide. In France's case, it extradited convicted terrorist leaders. In the Government's case, they're attempting to extradite someone based on the grounds they don't really like him very much. Their last comment again indicates a poor understanding of the situation. We already do accept people seeking political asylum if we feel there is substantial evidence their human rights can be infringed. There's no precedent here - that was set a long time ago.

(This is a Conservative Party Motion unwhipped, government ministers defending this does not make it the product of the governing Coalition!)

You can be a known terrorist leader without being convicted. It is not a formal crime to lead an extremist organisation; also, the UK has struggled to prosecute because most of the alleged crimes were committed abroad in countries like Jordan, this leads to a catch-22 sortof situation - the Opposition say he should not be extradited because he is not a criminal, yet he is not a criminal because he has not been extradited. The authorities know that he is dangerous, a judge has said very specifically that this is the case.

Perhaps you're trying to say that we should introduce a law to make it easier to convict suspected terrorists with evidence from abroad?

FYI what you said about France was incorrect - recent deportees had not been convicted in France.

[Maddog Jones]

(Original post by JPKC)
It is not a formal crime to lead an extremist organisation

So then why should we deport him? Essentially you're saying we should deport someone because of their political views.

[Ham and Cheese]

(Original post by Maddog Jones)
'It's an issue of sovereignty'.

No, it's an issue of an innocent man being sent away to be tortured by a supposedly civilised nation.

Play your stupid Europhobic games somewhere else, not with a mans life. The government has the power to take as much power away from Europe as it likes, it doesn't need to make petty, immature little statements like this.

I'll be PM'ing all Labour, Socialist and Liberal Democrat MPs and asking them to vote it down, and I would expect Libertarians to put their money where their mouth is and vote it down, too.

Sovereignty is a side issue in this debate. I believe that it would be wrong to keep this man in our country for the reasons that I have outlined throughout this debate. The fact that this will be overturning a decision made by the ECHR is merely a side issue.

I was hoping to obtain cross-party support on this issue, given our RL counterparts seem to have done the same.

(Original post by TopHat)
The Government's laziness is becoming rapidly apparent. First they insist the Opposition was creating a straw man, when in fact all we did was paraphrase the Paymaster General and the Chairman of the Conservative Party, who seemed to view cocking a snook at the ECHR as the main goal of this motion. Then they insist Qatada is a known terrorist leader. If that is the case, then we can try him within our own courts. As it happens, the RL Govt has been trying to do some for some years, without any success. To quote Birchington's source "Yet despite many attempts to do so, the authorities have not been able to link him directly to specific terrorist activity, either in the UK or abroad." That renders the Government calling him a "known terrorist leader" rather defunct. If they believe he is, then they can submit the evidence to our courts, and allow our courts to decide. In France's case, it extradited convicted terrorist leaders. In the Government's case, they're attempting to extradite someone based on the grounds they don't really like him very much. Their last comment again indicates a poor understanding of the situation. We already do accept people seeking political asylum if we feel there is substantial evidence their human rights can be infringed. There's no precedent here - that was set a long time ago.

Whilst it might be true that there is insufficient evidence for Abu Qatada to be convicted of a crime in the UK, there is growing evidence in Jordan that he has conspired to terrorism there. As Home Secretary, I refuse to harbour criminals in the UK, who have been found guilty of other crimes in other countries and are yet to serve their time. I wish to deport to Qatada to Jordan so that they can face trial for crimes that he has committed in Jordan - I cannot and would not put Qatada on trial in the UK for crimes he has committed in Jordan.

[TopHat]

Who is the MUN Representative for Jordan, incidentally?

[JPKC]

(Original post by Maddog Jones)
So then why should we deport him? Essentially you're saying we should deport someone because of their political views.

You should read the rest of the thread, and, indeed, my full post.

[Maddog Jones]

(Original post by Ham and Cheese)
Sovereignty is a side issue in this debate. I believe that it would be wrong to keep this man in our country for the reasons that I have outlined throughout this debate. The fact that this will be overturning a decision made by the ECHR is merely a side issue.

I was hoping to obtain cross-party support on this issue, given our RL counterparts seem to have done the same.

You will absolutely not get cross-party support - I know most of Labour is opposed to it.

Sovereignty is not a 'side issue' in this debate. It is not any kind of an issue in this debate. The only issue in this debate is whether it is right or wrong to deport a man who has committed no crimes to a country that may choose to torture him. If anybody wants to wave their dick around shouting 'YEAH BRITAIN' and '**** EUROPE', can they kindly keep it to another thread?

[Maddog Jones]

(Original post by JPKC)
You should read the rest of the thread, and, indeed, my full post.

No - explain yourself. If he's inciting crimes, we can try him in our own courts. If he's not, we're sending him away because we disagree with his political views.

Extradition should not be on the table.

If he's committed a crime - we try him in our courts.
If he hasn't - we let him live his life in relative peace.

That's the basis upon which both the British and European legal systems work - innocent until proven guilty.

[Morgsie]

I cannot believe that the Independent Liberal Moderate Progressive has betrayed his brinciples and is supporting this disastrous Motion

[ThatPerson]

Abu Qatada is being kept here on account of his human rights, but what about the human rights of the public and the right to safety?

[TopHat]

The one way I could see Labour lending support to this bill would be if the Foreign Secretary were to contact the Jordanian representative in the MUN and negotiate a compromise. Qatada being deported to Jordan, given trial under Jordanian laws but in a court administrated by the MUN or some independent body, and then having the punishment Jordanian laws would accord him administered by that same independent body would be adequate. That way, we can be sure that he will not receive extra-judicial punishment, we indicate our willingness to operate within Jordanian law, provided we can make sure they follow their own laws to the letter, and we are not complicit in torture. This would remove our current objections.

If the Conservatives want any support on the matter, I suggest they head to the MUN.

(Original post by JPKC)
qfa

[Life_peer]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Extradite his terrorist behind.

For once I actually agree with you!

[JPKC]

(Original post by Morgsie)
I cannot believe that the Independent Liberal Moderate Progressive has betrayed his brinciples and is supporting this disastrous Motion

I believe in civil liberties for British nationals, and a fair and open immigration system - issues like this aren't black and white. I'll prove my bona fide with a bill soon if all goes to plan, one that the Lib Dems and Labour should have grounds to support.

(I'd also like to point out that my position most closely resembles that of RL Labour, the party of which I am a member.)

(Original post by Maddog Jones)
No - explain yourself. If he's inciting crimes, we can try him in our own courts. If he's not, we're sending him away because we disagree with his political views.

Extradition should not be on the table.

If he's committed a crime - we try him in our courts.
If he hasn't - we let him live his life in relative peace.

That's the basis upon which both the British and European legal systems work - innocent until proven guilty.

I've already responded to all the points you've made - TopHat has already made them in detail.

[Maddog Jones]

(Original post by ThatPerson)
Abu Qatada is being kept here on account of his human rights, but what about the human rights of the public and the right to safety?

Protected - the police monitor him. He also doesn't pose any threat - he's not actually been linked to any illegal activity, never mind threatening others. If he did, he could be, and absolutely would be, tried in British courts, like anybody else. He'd also be caught immediately because of the strict monitoring on him by police.

[JPKC]

(Original post by TopHat)
The one way I could see Labour lending support to this bill would be if the Foreign Secretary were to contact the Jordanian representative in the MUN and negotiate a compromise. Qatada being deported to Jordan, given trial under Jordanian laws but in a court administrated by the MUN or some independent body, and then having the punishment Jordanian laws would accord him administered by that same independent body would be adequate. That way, we can be sure that he will not receive extra-judicial punishment, we indicate our willingness to operate within Jordanian law, provided we can make sure they follow their own laws to the letter, and we are not complicit in torture. This would remove our current objections.

If the Conservatives want any support on the matter, I suggest they head to the MUN.

The Government is actually looking into that, I'm sure the Home and Foreign Secretaries can give more details later.

[TopHat]

If you are looking into it, why put forward this motion now, when the situation could change? That just seems rushed and unnecessary. If you withdraw this motion now, and the Foreign Secretary reaches an acceptable compromise with the MUN, Labour would gladly support the resultant motion, but the current version is a step too far.

[Maddog Jones]

(Original post by TopHat)
If you are looking into it, why put forward this motion now, when the situation could change? That just seems rushed and unnecessary. If you withdraw this motion now, and the Foreign Secretary reaches an acceptable compromise with the MUN, Labour would gladly support the resultant motion, but the current version is a step too far.

Agreed.

This bill is already a complete shambles and a disaster. The government have resoundingly lost this argument (and was never anything more than a racist dogwhistle) and I look forward to it being voted down in the Commons.