[Metrobeans]

M73 - Condemnation of Deportation Motion - Joint Submission by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat Party, Libertarian Party and the Socialist Party

This House condemns the Secretary of State for the abrupt extradition of Abu Qatada to Jordan. This House believes firstly that the Secretary of State has acted prematurely by extraditing Abu Qatada before it has been able to reach an agreement with the United Nations that would ensure that he receives a fair trial and will not be subjected to torture, and secondly that the Secretary of State ignored the wishes of the duly elected House on the subject of negotiation.

[Birchington]

Aye.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Metrobeans)
QFA

Why has this motion been allowed when it condemns a member of this House for taking actions? Surely this is effectively a censure motion which is effectively banned by this House?

[Metrobeans]

(Original post by toronto353)
Why has this motion been allowed when it condemns a member of this House for taking actions? Surely this is effectively a censure motion which is effectively banned by this House?

It does so in his capacity as Secretary of State, not personally.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Metrobeans)
It does so in his capacity as Secretary of State, not personally.

That's still targeting someone though. It's targeting a person for his actions and since such motions aren't allowed, I request that it be stopped.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

I agree with this. I still don't understand submitting the motion to the house if the government was going to press ahead with deportation regardless of the opinions of the house, it seems a complete sham.

[Morgsie]

I also Agree with this Motion.

The Secretary of State has handled the situation badly, going against the wishes of the House

[beepbeeprichie]

Aye.

[LPK]

(Original post by toronto353)
That's still targeting someone though. It's targeting a person for his actions and since such motions aren't allowed, I request that it be stopped.

It isn't targetting somebody in the same way as the motion you are referring to did. This motion is holding the Secretary accountable for his role in a government decision, whereas the motion you are mentioning was blocked because it sought to condemn a member based on their behaviour within this forum, which isn't a political issue. It's a moderation issue.

Unless you can prove that this motion falls under the jurisdiction of TSR moderators then the same principle does not apply.

And I say that as somebody who wasn't even against the original motion. I just can't be bothered seeing the whole debate brought up again because a few people want to clutch at straws.

[Metrobeans]

(Original post by toronto353)
That's still targeting someone though. It's targeting a person for his actions and since such motions aren't allowed, I request that it be stopped.

I think there is a clear difference between criticising someone personally and criticising the Secretary of State for a decision he took in the context of the game.

[toronto353]

(Original post by LPK)
It isn't targetting somebody in the same way as the motion you are referring to did. This motion is holding the Secretary accountable for his role in a government decision, whereas the motion you are mentioning was blocked because it sought to condemn a member based on their behaviour within this forum, which isn't a political issue. It's a moderation issue.

Unless you can prove that this motion falls under the jurisdiction of TSR moderators then the same principle does not apply.

And I say that as somebody who wasn't even against the original motion. I just can't be bothered seeing the whole debate brought up again because a few people want to clutch at straws.

I am sorry, but this targets someone's actions. A motion debates policy apparently and not someone's actions. This motion should not be allowed because it is targeting someone. It seems that there's one rule for one and another for others.

To the motion, I'm voting no because he handled the case with the interests of this country at the top of his list of priorities. Yes it would have been great to get said guarantees, but he acted in our best interests and this Government fully supports my colleague.

[TopHat]

Aye. I'd also like to say a big thanks to all the other Opposition parties for backing on this one, it was really appreciated. You guys are all awesome.

[tehFrance]

I do not support this motion.

[Rakas21]

A no from me.

Our only mistake was in launching the motion in the first place rather than making the statement.

[meenu89]

No.

[Moleman1996]

A resounding no.

[SamF1992]

Good motion, the government handled the issue pretty awfully, didn't respond to criticisms of arbitrary use of executive power, and it should be made clear that people aren't happy about it.

[internetguru]

No the government has the right to deport criminal immigrants.

[Morgsie]

(Original post by internetguru)
No the government has the right to deport criminal immigrants.

Not if a person will be subjected to torture.

There have been no assurances and the Home Secretary pressed ahead regardless

[tehFrance]

(Original post by Morgsie)
Not if a person will be subjected to torture.

As I have said time and time again, this is all based on speculation not solid evidence that he would of been tortured, please change this broken record.