IN THE U.K. ABU QATADA IS RELEASED: TOM WILSON
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2041/abu_qatada_s_victory_incites_extremism_on_both_sides
“And indeed for those who now only give any weight to the rulings of transnational bodies it should be recalled that even the UN has sanctioned Qatada as an associate of both al-Qaeda and the Taliban.”
The images of Abu Qatada smirking to himself, and indeed perhaps to us, as he was driven from the court ruling that allows him to remain in the UK, should have been enough to rile anyone. Indeed, with the exception of a few fringe human rights groups and ultra-Left commentators it feels as if the entire country is united in its opposition to this man remaining in our land.
And yet he remains here all the same and today is released on bail from Long Lartin Prison.
That this man is a dangerous and hostile figure is hardly in dispute. Described as Osama Bin Laden’s ambassador to Europe and having been implicated in terror cells in Chechnya, Germany, Tunisia as well as in his home country Jordan, and indeed in the 9/11 attacks, his terrorist credentials are quite impeccable.
And indeed for those who now only give any weight to the rulings of transnational bodies it should be recalled that even the UN has sanctioned Qatada as an associate of both al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Yet, laughably, following the ruling Qatada could stay in Britain, his solicitor, Gareth Peirce, pleaded: “I think the time has come in the world, with the conflicts in the world, for us to talk to each other and understand each other and enter into dialogue, and perhaps nothing is as black and white as it is painted” – A statement of such astonishing moral relativism that one doubts whether even Peirce can really believe a word of it. After all, what’s not black and white about his client having called for the murder of Americans, Christians, and Jews?
If it wasn’t all so tragic it would almost be funny, and yet this ruling has serious consequences for all of us. That Qatada’s presence here has in the past and at this rate may once again be a force for radicalizing young Muslims is clear; radicalising the Islamic population is Qatada’s profession.
But what about Qatada’s effects on radicalising people on the other side of the spectrum: the British far-right? This is something that the handful of left-leaning liberals who defend Qatada seem not to have considered.
It is only natural and justified that the vast majority of the British public should feel outraged at Qatada’s ongoing presence here. The tabloid press have naturally found much capital in this story and as they call into question the validity of the asylum system and human rights activism one almost feels glad that these things are being put on the agenda. The fact that Qatada’s family has cost us all £500,000 in benefits is not to be shrugged off so lightly. (It’s worth also noting that the Daily Mail is today reporting that keeping ‘an eye on’ Qatada will cost the taxpayer £5m a year)
Yet, public anger can have an accumulative effect, trickling down and eventually solidifying itself in some rather radical, if at first in obscure places. What for instance do things like the Qatada affair do for the ranks of the EDL and BNP?
When Liberty’s Shami Chakrabati says she’s opposed to Britain doing what Italy did in ignoring the courts and sticking their extremists on the first flight out of their country, she must therefore accept that further incitement on the far-right may well be the result.
However, there is another even more concerning aspect to the British government’s failure to deport Qatada, and that is the question of what it means for British sovereignty and indeed British democracy. To put it quite simply: our democracy and human rights regime is being used against us by a man who believes in none of these things.
Last time around it was the case that the British government was being overruled by a foreign court – The European Court of Human Rights. This raised troubling questions about the extent to which Britain was still sovereign over its own affairs if it had seemingly handed over so much authority to the ECHR. Now, in addition to the European ruling it is a British court, the Special Immigration Appeal Commission, that has judged that Qatada cannot be sent back to Jordan.
It ought to be so simple, Abu Qatada came here illegally, he is a security threat to the British public, no one wants him here, and we have every assurance that he will not receive either ill treatment or an unfair trial upon his return to Jordan. The courts have accepted all of this, yet they say that they cannot be sure that evidence obtained by torture will not be used in the trial. In ruling thus the courts put the welfare of an al-Qaeda operative over and above that of the entire British public.
The courts may be simply acting within their remit but this will have implications. When the justice system is seen by the public as being fundamentally unjust what does that do for the rule of law or indeed any sense of social contract? Furthermore, when our elected officials become powerless in their attempts to act for the public good what does this say about our democracy?
In this way Abu Qatada is the winner on two fronts. On an individual level he has won by avoiding standing trial in Jordan, instead remaining here at the British tax payer’s expense.
Yet, arguably his far greater victory is that after more than seven years of this fiasco Qatada has succeeded in undermining democracy and the rule of law by using it against itself and eroding the public’s faith in its true value.
Tom Wilson is a political analyst and a doctoral student at University College London
Comments are closed.
