Laughing Stock
Private Eye has done a great job in lampooning the the decision that the UK government cannot deport a suspected terrorist - Abu Qatada - because it would infringe the gentleman's human rights.
SHOCK HUMAN RIGHTS
COURT VERDICT
by Our Legal Staff Joshua Rosenkavalier
The court found that the British government had been quite wrong in attempting to deport Mr al Qaeda to Jordan on the grounds that he couldn't possibly receive a fair trial because he had attemtped to blow up large numbers of people in that country, not to mention various other parts of the world.
The 47 judges rejected the British government's argument that a Palestinian who comes to this country on a forged passport and plans terorist outrages should perhaps be sent home to his own country.
The judges decribed this argument as totally unacceptable and found that Britain had further infringed Mr al Qaeda's rights by keeping him in prison where he was unable to practise his profession.
They further found that the government must pay Mr al Qaeda's family "substantial benefits" as compensation for the fact that he is unable to support them through his work as an international terrorist.
Mr al Qaeda's QC, Ms Deirdre Spart, asked the court, "What torture will the British government come up with next for my client? No doubt they'll expect him to work in Poundland, stacking shelves, when he could be using his exceptional talents to murder very large number of people."
Now things are a little more complicated than the Private Eye would have us all believe - but that's the point about good satire - it's close enough to the reality of a situation to be making a fair point.
I'm a great supporter of human rights - but to my mind these ludicrous decisions are bringing the while system into disrepute - and jeopardising fair treatment of genuine asylum seekers.
The man on which the Private Eye article is based did indeed enter Britain using false papers - so why should he have any significant rights after behaving like that?
The judges considered that the man might face trial where evidence might be used against him - that had been obtained by torture.
Well that's a possibility, I suppose - but then again maybe not.
Who are we to second guess the judicial system in another country - where there appears to be strong prima facie evidence against a suspected terrorist - who entered the UK by deception?
The next thing we'll get is an objection based on the prison conditions that exist in other countries - as if the UK is responsible somehow.
Next thing you know is that suspected terrorist and criminals will start to argue that they should not be deported - because prison sentences in other countries are much tougher than those handed out in the UK - or that they don't have pleasant enough living conditions.
Down the years I've been a great supporter of human rights legislation - but some of these court judgements are turning the issue into a laughing stock - which Private Eye is right to point out.
