The Law Lords have ruled that Abu Qatada, a Palestinian Jordanian, can be deported back to his home country of Jordan.
This man arrived in the UK in September 1993 on a forged United Arab Emirates passport. He spent most of his time in the UK preaching hate and supporting terrorism. He was found on several occasions with incriminating evidence including being in possession of £170,000 cash, including £805 in an envelope labelled "For the Mujahedin in Chechnya" notwithstanding that the father of five lived on UK state benefits.
His legal fight to remain in the land of the kaffur is paid for by the state and his legal appeal to the EU will be paid for by the people of the UK.
Is there anyone here who believes he should be allowed to stay in the UK and that the people of the UK should continue to pay his bills?
If Abu Qatada has been inciting hatred and violence, then he has certainly fallen foul of the law. As far as I'm concerned, he should be tried fairly and, if found guilty, prosecuted. It's that simple.
Regards
Last edited by Uthman; 02-18-2009 at 06:00 PM.
Reason: Made it better I guess lol.
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
I had a lengthy discussion with my husband about this topic this evening.
The thing is, in our society people have the right to legal representation - even people who may not actually be very nice people, even people who may stand accused of inciting hatred ...
Abu Qatada claims that he does not want to return to Jordan, because there he will be tortured.
As a liberal society we resent the idea of torture ... and if we truly mean that, then we also do not send people back to leave the torturing to somebody else.
In my heart of hearts I find it very difficult to find even a shred of grace and sympathy for this man. But our legal system grants him the human right to fight his case.
Who knows, perhaps it will help him see the light that not everything about Western societies is bad, and that human rights are there to be enjoyed by all!
Perhaps he doesn't, perhaps he will just go wherever he ends up and continue to spout hatred and aggression ... but even then, the British legal system will have acted fairly and justly ... as they should.
Peace
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
Whatever we think of Abu Qatada there's no excuse for abandoning due process and the rule of law
I first heard of Abu Qatada back in the mid-1990s, a couple of years after he arrived in Britain seeking asylum. I was advised by some senior figures in the Muslim community in London at the time to keep away from him because he was regarded as an irresponsible preacher and – it was suspected – was close to the security services. In short, the man was regarded as trouble.
I never really thought about him again until after 9/11 when he went on the run just as the UK government was about to announce new anti-terror laws allowing foreign nationals to be detained without trial or charge. He was finally captured in October 2002.
He then spent around six years behind bars without being charged with any actual crime by our government. After the July 7 bombings and Blair's menacing declaration that "the rules of the game" had changed, the government agreed a "Memorandum of Understanding" with Jordan as it sought to deport Abu Qatada to that country where he had been convicted in absentia of terror-related charges.
The Home Office has claimed that Abu Qatada is a "truly dangerous individual" and "heavily involved, indeed at the centre of terrorist activities associated with al-Qaida".
That may or may not be true, but surely the place to establish that is in our courts of law. The man has been living in this country with his family for the past 15 years. Surely that is a long enough period to collate any evidence and bring it before a judge and jury. Instead, our government has been busy trying to deport him back to Jordan.
Unfortunately, in the fevered atmosphere of today, seeing someone simply being accused of terrorist-related activity is enough to make otherwise sane people lose their senses, automatically assume the worst and forget about due process and the rule of law.
The Daily Mirror today claimed that Abu Qatada had "called for non-Muslims to be murdered". If that is indeed the case, then it would be regarded as a very serious crime and charges should have been brought. Unfortunately, the Mirror does not tell us what it is that Abu Qatada is actually meant to have said but if they have evidence of any incitement to violence or murder then surely they should be providing that information to the police.
In his inaugural address, President Obama correctly repudiated the excesses of the Bush era saying:
"As for our common defence, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers were faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.
Abu Qatada may well be an "irresponsible preacher" as I had been warned years ago, or he may be "a truly dangerous individual" associated with al-Qaida. But if the government really believes that he may have broken the law then it should be trying to prove that in a court of law.
Being publicly seen to uphold the fine legal principles we profess to believe in order to ensure that true justice prevails will surely do more to deter recruits to the cause of al-Qaida than warmongering, fear-mongering and cutting dirty deals with undemocratic regimes.
Inayat Bunglawala is media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain. He is also an Advisor on Policy and Research at ENGAGE, an initiative designed to encourage British Muslims to interact more effectively in politics and the media in the UK. Funny how we don't see these good initiatives reported in the mainstream media.
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
Inayat Bunglawala is media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain. He is also an Advisor on Policy and Research at ENGAGE, an initiative designed to encourage British Muslims to interact more effectively in politics and the media in the UK. Funny how we don't see these good initiatives reported in the mainstream media.
depends on the motives of the media and image makers. when you want to demonise a section of society, you dont go searching for their good qualities and contributions.
You find the lunatics like Abu Qatada, hire the fraudsters and agents provocateurs and give them media space
The Law Lords have ruled that Abu Qatada, a Palestinian Jordanian, can be deported back to his home country of Jordan.
This man arrived in the UK in September 1993 on a forged United Arab Emirates passport. He spent most of his time in the UK preaching hate and supporting terrorism. He was found on several occasions with incriminating evidence including being in possession of £170,000 cash, including £805 in an envelope labelled "For the Mujahedin in Chechnya" notwithstanding that the father of five lived on UK state benefits.
His legal fight to remain in the land of the kaffur is paid for by the state and his legal appeal to the EU will be paid for by the people of the UK.
Is there anyone here who believes he should be allowed to stay in the UK and that the people of the UK should continue to pay his bills?
the laws regarding supporting terrorism overseas where brought in and applied retrospectively, i.e even though his offenses took place before the law was brought into place it can still be used for before then.
besides which, every muslim who is a sincere believer in Allah, one of ahlus sunnah wal jammat supports his brothers and sisters as best he can whether this be in the uk or chechnya, even if it is only holding up our hands in supplication.
as for living on state benefits, it is illegal for such people to work so he didnt really have much choice, so just tabloid filthy propogranda point.
lets get the govts arguments straight also... they gave him asylum because they agreed a strong possibility of torture in jordan, a state known for doing the toe nail ripping and soddomising for the west in their dirty war against the muslims.
but now the jordan govt says they wont, but that they never did anyway (when everyone knows they did) so its all ok and he can go back now.
as for those saying let him have a fair trial, that is exactly the point, his offenses are not in the uk, if he did do anything there is not enough evidence to convict and so he should be let go.
this whole episode just shows the hypocrisy of the western governments, demanding fair trials etc elsewhere then not applying it and sending people where they know they practice torture because they ask them to do it for them.
I hear what you say with regards to legal principles and fair trial and of course that’s correct. Everybody should adhere to the law. The problem is people like Qatada have been reported as suggesting that Muslims should not adhere to the laws of the country. It just seems a little ironical to me that these people who hate non Muslims want so badly to live in a non Muslim country and Muslims who despise so much western values insist on their rights (human rights) that only exist as a man made ‘western’ law. As a UK citizen and taxpayer, I welcome anyone of any ethnic origin, colour or creed, to live in the UK so long as they abide by the laws of the country, respect our customs, culture and values and aspire to live in unity and harmony with the indigenous population.
Another example is Binyam Mohamed al Habashi is due to return to the UK.
Binyam Mohamed al Habashi was born in Ethiopia on 24 July 1978. In 1994 he arrived in the UK and sought asylum on the basis of his family's opposition to the Ethiopian government. His application was rejected, but in 2000 he was given exceptional leave to remain in the UK for four years whilst he pursued his appeal. A self confessed drug addict, he was working as a cleaner in an Islamic Centre in west London in 2001 when he converted to Islam. He decided to travel to Afghanistan to see what the Taliban regime was like. In 2001 he travelled to Afghanistan. He says wanted to see whether Taliban-run Afghanistan was a good Islamic country and, he hoped, that living in that environment would help him steer clear of drugs because of the Taliban’s reputation as fierce opponents of drug use. Other reports suggest that he attended the al-Faruq Taliban training camp in Afghanistan in June 2001. (A drug addict wanting to steer clear of drugs goes to country which profduces the stuff!!).
In April 2002 when he was seized by the Pakistani authorities as he tried to board a flight to London using someone else’s passport. He was then imprisoned and eventually ended up in Guantanamo.
Is there anybody on this forum that believes his story that, being a drug addict he went to Afghanistan to try and get clean?
Will someone explain to me why the UK is taking this guy back into the UK, why isn’t he going to Ethiopia, Pakistan, Afghanistan or anywhere else?
We condemn Muslims who preach hatred and apologise for their actions!!!!!!!!
There I said it... is that what you wanted to hear???
Over and over we are expected to be apologetic for the actions of some idiot!
Now I would like an apology from you "Thinker" for massacring 1500 innocent people in my country at Jalianwala Bagh within 15 minutes.
Please either condemn it and apologise otherwise you are one of them!
Peace!
it does not make any difference to likes of Mr. Thinker, no matter what you do or say, if you all keep feeding him, he'll never go away and will carry on his marathon
We condemn Muslims who preach hatred and apologise for their actions!!!!!!!!
There I said it... is that what you wanted to hear???
Over and over we are expected to be apologetic for the actions of some idiot!
Now I would like an apology from you "Thinker" for massacring 1500 innocent people in my country at Jalianwala Bagh within 15 minutes.
Please either condemn it and apologise otherwise you are one of them!
Peace!
I don't anything about the instance you speak of at Jalianwala; I've done a quick search on the net and can't find anything but I'll search again later.
Why do some of you feel the need to apologies for the actions of somebody else? In the instances above I am criticising the hypocrisy of the Muslims in question but my main criticism is levelled at UK politicians who put political correctness and the rights of individuals before the rights of the majority.
That said I have noted that some Muslims (possibly because of the concept of Ummah) feel that it is wrong to criticise the actions of another Muslim and others feel that if the action of any Muslim is criticised it is a criticism of all Islam. To my mind that is ludicrous.
I have just been watching Aljazeera news (14:20 GMT 22/02.09) and a clip where Ragi Omar was with a Pakistani Military officer who showed him video captured from the Pakistani Taliban showing children being trained to hate and kill. It showed a child shooting a captured prisoner in the head and another child cutting the throat of a captured Pakistani soldier. Earlier I listened to a news report on the cease fire in the Swat valley and introduction of Sharia law and the question of whether the Taliban in that area would allow girls to attend ordinary school. Qatada supports the actions of these people and Binyam Mohamed is alleged to have been trained by them. I have formed the view that the people of this region of Pakistan are lawless bandits hiding behind Islam. I don’t expect anyone outside Pakistan to apologies for their actions of these people just because they call themselves Muslim.
So why do I submit such posts; am I just trying to irritate some of you? No I am not. I am frustrated at my own politicians but I am also trying to understand why Muslims who find the UK so abhorrent fight tooth and nail to stay here.
I believe that if there any Muslims in the UK that hold the same values and beliefs as people like Quata and the Pakistani Taliban they should join them in Pakistan. To stay in a non Muslim country whose customs, culture and values are so diametrically opposed to those of the Taliban would be the actions of a hypocrite and we all know what the Qu’ran says about hypocrites.
Why do some of you feel the need to apologies for the actions of somebody else? In the instances above I am criticising the hypocrisy of the Muslims in question but my main criticism is levelled at UK politicians who put political correctness and the rights of individuals before the rights of the majority.
That said I have noted that some Muslims (possibly because of the concept of Ummah) feel that it is wrong to criticise the actions of another Muslim and others feel that if the action of any Muslim is criticised it is a criticism of all Islam. To my mind that is ludicrous.
I have just been watching Aljazeera news (14:20 GMT 22/02.09) and a clip where Ragi Omar was with a Pakistani Military officer who showed him video captured from the Pakistani Taliban showing children being trained to hate and kill. It showed a child shooting a captured prisoner in the head and another child cutting the throat of a captured Pakistani soldier. Earlier I listened to a news report on the cease fire in the Swat valley and introduction of Sharia law and the question of whether the Taliban in that area would allow girls to attend ordinary school. Qatada supports the actions of these people and Binyam Mohamed is alleged to have been trained by them. I have formed the view that the people of this region of Pakistan are lawless bandits hiding behind Islam. I don’t expect anyone outside Pakistan to apologies for their actions of these people just because they call themselves Muslim.
So why do I submit such posts; am I just trying to irritate some of you? No I am not. I am frustrated at my own politicians but I am also trying to understand why Muslims who find the UK so abhorrent fight tooth and nail to stay here.
I believe that if there any Muslims in the UK that hold the same values and beliefs as people like Quata and the Pakistani Taliban they should join them in Pakistan. To stay in a non Muslim country whose customs, culture and values are so diametrically opposed to those of the Taliban would be the actions of a hypocrite and we all know what the Qu’ran says about hypocrites.
It took several months of beatings, freezing rooms, white noise, and eventual slashing of his body and genitals for Binyam Mohamed to admit he was a terrorist.
i am 100% certain if you went through the same process you would confess to being a terrorist also, and some smarty pants would be sitting at his computer arguing you shouldnt be allowed back into your home country also.
It took several months of beatings, freezing rooms, white noise, and eventual slashing of his body and genitals for Binyam Mohamed to admit he was a terrorist.
i am 100% certain if you went through the same process you would confess to being a terrorist also, and some smarty pants would be sitting at his computer arguing you shouldnt be allowed back into your home country also.
If he was tortured, his torturers should be punished.
I don’t know if he was tortured and I don’t know what he admitted to. I do know what he has said since in giving his reasons for being with the Taliban and that is that he was a drug addict and he went there to get clean! There is also the fact that he attempted to get on a flight to the UK on a stolen passport. As some wise man once said “if it walks with a waddle, has feathers and quacks, it’s probably a duck.”
If he was tortured, his torturers should be punished.
I don’t know if he was tortured and I don’t know what he admitted to. I do know what he has said since in giving his reasons for being with the Taliban and that is that he was a drug addict and he went there to get clean! There is also the fact that he attempted to get on a flight to the UK on a stolen passport. As some wise man once said “if it walks with a waddle, has feathers and quacks, it’s probably a duck.”
his torturers will never be punished (in this life), just like henry kissenger will never be in the dock for his support of the kimear rouge, only the poor and weak end up in secular courts for such offenses.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Re: Abu Qatada - deportation
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks