Qatada and 'uman rights....

24 April 2013

According to news reports Cameron is thinking about suspending us from the European Court of Human Rights in order to extradite Qatada.  Something here is simply not right.  Perhaps the news story is not accurate but if there is any truth in it then such a move would be wrong.

Above: Qatada, sheer evil.

Either we should be part of the European Court or not.  There cannot be any half-way house.  To suspend our membership over a single individual is absurd.

In my view the European Court long ago lost its original laudable objectives into defending the trivial and the rights of terrorists.  This alone justifies our complete withdrawal from this organisation on the basis that membership is no longer compatible with the human rights and safety of the British people.

That though is not enough though.  We also need to get rid of Labour's Human Rights Act, what was without doubt the worse piece of legislation ever to be passed by the UK parliament.   Rights without responsibilities are not rights at but licence to trample over the rights of others.  We had rights before the 1997 Act, we had rights in the UK before the ECHR, we led the world over the freedom of individuals and in just law, we do not need either the HRA or ECHR for this.

As for Qatada, he should just be put on a plane and sent to Jordan.  What happens to him should only be a matter for the Jordanian authorities and all we should care about is keeping this evil man out of the UK.  If that means quitting the European Court of Human Rights, then so be it, if that means we have to quit the EU (ECHR membership being a condition of EU membership), then so be it.  We would be killing many birds with one stone.

• Guest 714 wrote:
  Spot on Barry.
  
  Worrying about what would happen to him in Jordan is racist and xenophobic, can't we trust the savages to behave properly?
• Guest 710 wrote:
  ...and those ruddy Anti-apartheid johnnies and their Steve Bikos and Mandellas, and as for that Mahatma-coat fellow, well I ask you;Just what was wrong with the East India Co. and the other wizard wheezes that we struggled to implant around the globe? For one thing they gave our home-grown waifs and strays employment in t'mills. No wishy-washy Welfare needed back then, everybody worked:cradle to grave. As for slavery, well they had never had it so good!!
  All this to-do over a couple of hate-filled, Mullah-mongers. Britain would be better off without them. The casting aside of all and any ooman-rites nonsense, imposed upon us by kindergarten krauts and commies and sundry cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys would have little or no impact upon the common British peasant classes...they can stay where they are. (How are to relearn their proper place in the scheme of things otherwise?)
  You all can be forgiven for thinking that; If the mountain will not come to Theresa...but it jolly well aught.
  ...The rot set in with the sinking of the Mary Rose... The sooner we get back to "Just-us, jam and Jeremy Paxman (or should that be Clarkson?) the better.
  
  Why not get the SAS to pop-a-cap-in-his-ass, it worked for Thatcher.
• Guest 714 wrote:
  Tom, what has apartheid got to do with Qatada?
  
  Are you suggesting he is a cloaked freedom fighter?
• Guest 710 wrote:
  Again, dear David, your comprehension leaves much to be desired.
  This Blog is not about Qatada, but Human Rights Legislation, not the mere skirting of same, but the abolition of.
  If the ECHR writ were to leave these shores...what then? What would life be like in a world where we did just what we felt like doing?
  Lo and behold, history, our history...and his (Barry's) Tories have left us with examples, I have given but a few.
• Guest 714 wrote:
  Tom, I'm beginning to question your reading skills, we'll deal with comprehension later.
  
  The title is Qatada and 'uman Rights, why would you suggest its not about him? Is it because it doesn't suit your agenda?
  
  If the ECHR were to be abolished, or as you put it in "leave these shores", we would function perfectly well as we did previously. You might argue certain lawyers (including the wife of an individual who played a big part in it) will have to take a pay cut, but I can live with that.
  
  And for clarification, I don't care what the Jordanians do to their convicted criminals, I respect their judgement and integrity, it seems your xenophobic attitude is what is preventing him being deported.
• Guest 710 wrote:
  There you have it David, we disagree.
• Guest 714 wrote:
  Diasagree with what - the title of the thread, the motive for the HRA, the state of our legal system prior to it, the influence Ms Booth had on her husband?
  
  After all Tom, its me that can't comprehend, I need your help.
• Guest 710 wrote:
  That you are in need of help David, is something that we can agree upon.
  
  (So it's 'legal system' now, is it? Where instead of "Might is right." we have "May is right.")
  
  I am for sticking with the ECHR, this is what we disagree on. It matters not a jot to me, the personalities of those employed to see that the law is correctly adhered to.
• Guest 714 wrote:
  In need of help eh?
  
  What is it they say about insults and losing arguments, first you question my comprehension now you say I need help, what an overwhelmingly intellectual response.
  
  I'll leave you to your handwringing Tom, don't forget to shed a tear for the Jordanians being tortured by their evil masters
• Guest 710 wrote:
  Davis, it was you who wrote...
  
  "After all Tom, its me that can't comprehend, I need your help."
• Brian Dixon wrote:
  come on girls put your handbags down and lets look at the nitty gritty of things.ms.may,may have cocked up her end of the dealings,well according to news reports anyway.wheather Jordan got evidence from toture or not is unclear,we have only there word for it.so what to do,well you could stick him directly on a plane straight to Jordan,or go the expensive way and carry on as before.