This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/08/abu-qatada-british-judicial-system

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Abu Qatada's deportation is a victory for the British judicial process Abu Qatada's deportation is a victory for the British judicial process
(2 months later)
Justice delayed is justice denied – denied to everyone. The state is entitled to deport people it considers a threat. The British public is entitled to that justice, as is the potential victim of deportation. For Britain to become a haven for fallen dictators, mass killers, tax evaders and villains is neither right nor safe.Justice delayed is justice denied – denied to everyone. The state is entitled to deport people it considers a threat. The British public is entitled to that justice, as is the potential victim of deportation. For Britain to become a haven for fallen dictators, mass killers, tax evaders and villains is neither right nor safe.
I have no problem in sending home people in the category of Abu Qatada, who arrived on false documents, became an ally and counsellor to terrorists and then cited fear of torture as a reason for not being deported. Such people take a risk. They swim in a murky sea and should accept the consequences. British citizens are entitled to some benefit of doubt, but the state is entitled to demand good behaviour from visitors or potential citizens or send them home.I have no problem in sending home people in the category of Abu Qatada, who arrived on false documents, became an ally and counsellor to terrorists and then cited fear of torture as a reason for not being deported. Such people take a risk. They swim in a murky sea and should accept the consequences. British citizens are entitled to some benefit of doubt, but the state is entitled to demand good behaviour from visitors or potential citizens or send them home.
That said, Abu Qatada by all accounts does not fall into the ranting cleric category of his contemporary, Abu Hamza. He is closer to the vagrant revolutionary tradition to which London has offered refuge throughout history. The city should be big enough to encompass him, even if his activities merited watching. To spend 10 years and £1.7m to get him to a home was a waste. It arose from post-9/11 hysteria, when we now know that human rights were of little concern to the British and American governments.That said, Abu Qatada by all accounts does not fall into the ranting cleric category of his contemporary, Abu Hamza. He is closer to the vagrant revolutionary tradition to which London has offered refuge throughout history. The city should be big enough to encompass him, even if his activities merited watching. To spend 10 years and £1.7m to get him to a home was a waste. It arose from post-9/11 hysteria, when we now know that human rights were of little concern to the British and American governments.
The British judicial system and the home secretary, Theresa May, at least played the case by the book. America would have left Qatada to a red list, a drone attack, kidnap or Guantánamo Bay. By demanding, and apparently securing, fair treatment for Qatada in Jordan, May has probably done more to improve civil rights in that country than anyone else.The British judicial system and the home secretary, Theresa May, at least played the case by the book. America would have left Qatada to a red list, a drone attack, kidnap or Guantánamo Bay. By demanding, and apparently securing, fair treatment for Qatada in Jordan, May has probably done more to improve civil rights in that country than anyone else.
But she should not spoil it by weakening a system that has given her such a political coup. She constantly cites judicial oversight as cover for her multifarious extensions of state surveillance and control. She can hardly now claim they should be weakened.But she should not spoil it by weakening a system that has given her such a political coup. She constantly cites judicial oversight as cover for her multifarious extensions of state surveillance and control. She can hardly now claim they should be weakened.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.