Why we should not deport Abu Qatada and be damned

Ignoring the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights would set a dangerous precedent.

The furore over extremist Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, who was granted bail this week, has continued. Some Conservative MPs have demanded that ministers flout the European Court of Human Rights ruling that prevents the British government from deporting him. Camilla Cavendish makes the same argument in the Times (£), saying that "he has had more than his fair share of human rights."

First things first, Qatada is clearly an unpleasant man. He has been described as the spiritual leader of Al-Qaeda in Europe, and is wanted in his native Jordan for plots to murder tourists. But there is no "fair share of human rights" and you certainly don't use them up by doing wrong. Quite the contrary: it is when someone has committed a crime that they are most in need of these safeguards. If there is insufficient legally obtained evidence to convict him in a court, then he should not remain in prison.

The reason his deportation has been blocked is because it seems likely he will either face torture in Jordan, or be convicted on the back of evidence obtained via torture. It is a clear obligation in the European convention on human rights that countries do not people to states where they will face torture.

David Cameron is currently seeking a deal with Jordan, but it seems unlikely that sufficient guarantees on torture will be given. So what of the suggestion that we should deport and be damned? Certainly, it is not unheard of for European countries to flout Strasbourg and expel terror suspects.

France has more than once deported suspects to countries where they face a risk of torture. In April 2008, Rabah Kadri was expelled to Algeria and has not been heard from since. He is just one example: since 2001, dozens of foreign residents suspected of links to extremism Islamic groups have been forcibly deported with little regard for their rights.

Italy, too, has ignored rulings by the European Court of Human Rights to deport several suspected terrorists to Tunisia. Sami Ben Khemais Essid was expelled in June 2008. The government even had to pay €21,000 in damages and compensation after Mourad Trabelsi was expelled in December 2008, while another, Ali Toumi, was deported in 2009.

Cavendish proudly cites these cases as examples that Britain should follow. But just because it has been done, does not mean that it should be done again, or done here. In 2007, Human Rights Watch produced a report on France's deportations of terror suspects, highlighting the profoundly damaging effect this had on France's already troubled community relations. It quoted Kamel Kabtane, the rector of the Grand Mosque of Lyon:

Kamel Kabtane agreed that the overall impact of these kinds of measures is deleterious insofar as they send the message that individuals from the Muslim community are not welcome."The more [you adopt] exceptional measures, the more you put people in a situation of exclusion.And the more you radicalize," he said. Commenting on those most directly affected by expulsions, lawyer Mahmoud Hebia concurred: "Expulsions generate families full of hatred [and] make them susceptible to pressure from terrorist groups."

Quite apart from the fact that exceptionalism of this type is counter-productive is the question of our values. Peter Oborne eloquently makes this point in today's Telegraph:

It should be a matter of enormous national pride that an institution so profoundly British in its inspiration has refused to send an Arab fundamentalist (however despicable his crimes are alleged to be) to Jordan, where he might be tortured, or at best face the prospect of being sent to jail on the back of evidence acquired from a torture victim. Yet this decision has been greeted with horror by all three of our main political parties.

Tuesday's Commons debate, in particular, was a day of shame for Parliament, once famed as the cockpit of freedom and justice. MPs combined to demand that Britain flout the European Court. Only one solitary backbencher, Labour's David Winnick, asked the obvious question: if Abu Qatada is such a bad egg, why not press charges and secure a sentence in court?

Indeed, it is particularly depressing to see Labour attacking the Tories from the right on this. Qatada is deeply unpleasant and deeply hypocritical, attacking British values while depending on human rights laws to remain here. But it remains of paramount importance to uphold the rule of law. We have already seen these values seriously eroded during the war on terror: flouting the European Court of Human Rights would be yet another step in the wrong direction.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

It's Gary Lineker 1, the Sun 0

The football hero has found himself at the heart of a Twitter storm over the refugee children debate.

The Mole wonders what sort of topsy-turvy universe we now live in where Gary Lineker is suddenly being called a “political activist” by a Conservative MP? Our favourite big-eared football pundit has found himself in a war of words with the Sun newspaper after wading into the controversy over the age of the refugee children granted entry into Britain from Calais.

Pictures published earlier this week in the right-wing press prompted speculation over the migrants' “true age”, and a Tory MP even went as far as suggesting that these children should have their age verified by dental X-rays. All of which leaves your poor Mole with a deeply furrowed brow. But luckily the British Dental Association was on hand to condemn the idea as unethical, inaccurate and inappropriate. Phew. Thank God for dentists.

Back to old Big Ears, sorry, Saint Gary, who on Wednesday tweeted his outrage over the Murdoch-owned newspaper’s scaremongering coverage of the story. He smacked down the ex-English Defence League leader, Tommy Robinson, in a single tweet, calling him a “racist idiot”, and went on to defend his right to express his opinions freely on his feed.

The Sun hit back in traditional form, calling for Lineker to be ousted from his job as host of the BBC’s Match of the Day. The headline they chose? “Out on his ears”, of course, referring to the sporting hero’s most notable assets. In the article, the tabloid lays into Lineker, branding him a “leftie luvvie” and “jug-eared”. The article attacked him for describing those querying the age of the young migrants as “hideously racist” and suggested he had breached BBC guidelines on impartiality.

All of which has prompted calls for a boycott of the Sun and an outpouring of support for Lineker on Twitter. His fellow football hero Stan Collymore waded in, tweeting that he was on “Team Lineker”. Leading the charge against the Murdoch-owned title was the close ally of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and former Channel 4 News economics editor, Paul Mason, who tweeted:

Lineker, who is not accustomed to finding himself at the centre of such highly politicised arguments on social media, responded with typical good humour, saying he had received a bit of a “spanking”.

All of which leaves the Mole with renewed respect for Lineker and an uncharacteristic desire to watch this weekend’s Match of the Day to see if any trace of his new activist persona might surface.


I'm a mole, innit.