Jump to content

Abu Qatada released


dune
 Share

Recommended Posts

The radical cleric was released from the maximum security Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire, after six and a half years behind bars, after the final bail conditions were agreed.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100447/Muslim-hate-preacher-Abu-Qatada-walks-free-prison-Security-operation-costing-10-000-week.html

 

It's a disgrace that we have not ignored the continental court just like France and Italy have done when they deported foreign terrorists. The worst that could happen is a tiny fine in the region of 20k, but oh no we're gonna be paying hundreds of thousands to keep him here.

 

There is a great deal of misinformation about the EDL, but at the end of the day their cause is an honourable one which is borne out by the fact that patriots of all creeds and faiths attend their demos. With the release of Qatada who can blame the disenfranchised loyal patriots from feeling dismayed? Here is an unbiased interview (that you would never get in this country) and I think you'd have to be ultra left wing to disagree with what is said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find his views repulsive.

 

"The truth about Islam" - What truth, that 99.9% are peace loving, tax paying, tolerant people.

 

Every sufficiently large group in society has fringe nutters / extremists. "I hate nazis as much as I hate islamists", well no wonder they want to kick your ****ing head in with stupid statements like that.

 

Hopefully next time he'll get some sense knocked into him, inshallah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find his views repulsive.

 

"The truth about Islam" - What truth, that 99.9% are peace loving, tax paying, tolerant people.

 

Every sufficiently large group in society has fringe nutters / extremists. "I hate nazis as much as I hate islamists", well no wonder they want to kick your ****ing head in with stupid statements like that.

 

Hopefully next time he'll get some sense knocked into him, inshallah.

 

I'm afraid I would have to say your last sentence there is not worthy of a moderator. You'd do well to edit it (and this reply).

 

As for some of this guys claims, well as you say his attacks on wider Islam due to the actions of a minority are unwise, unhelpful and unnecessary. It would be like hating Christians due to the actions of the congregation of Westboro Church or the other "nutty" minorities that reside in every society or culture.

 

I might give him a little bit of my time if he limited his attacks to the minority of Islamic extremists, but even then I'm not sure I would want him to replace the rule of law in countering them as we don't need his boot boys running around with their No Surrender and In-ger-lund nonsense.

 

The EDL and Islamic extremists exist in a symbiotic relationship of hate and destructiveness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dune, do you lack self awareness? Patriotism is great, This country is great. Have you ever truely considered why? Because we have a rule of law and freedoms that were fought for. Law and freedoms that demonstrate we are a civilised and mature society, granting freredom of speech to complete dickheads like the EDL, no matter what biggotted spiteful drivel they spout, and a rule of law that despite perhaps not being perfect is nonetheless mature enough accept that you cant have it both ways - and keep people locked up indefinitely or extradite them in circumstances where a fair and due process is unlikely.... no matter what the crime or how spiteful the beliefs.

 

Its this sort of thing that despite having to put up with the tiny minority or extremists (EDL and nutters who pretend to be following their religion) is what is truely great about Britain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is very skilled at playing the legal system

 

There are always 'clever' lawyers who are willing to take on the system to whatever self serving end they see fit, particularly in the field of Human Rights legislation. However, as far as I am aware, Abu Qatada has not committed any crime whilst resident in the UK. ( You can argue that he gained entry illegally, but Britain has always had problems with deporting IIs ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are always 'clever' lawyers who are willing to take on the system to whatever self serving end they see fit, particularly in the field of Human Rights legislation. However, as far as I am aware, Abu Qatada has not committed any crime whilst resident in the UK. ( You can argue that he gained entry illegally, but Britain has always had problems with deporting IIs ).

not entirely true...just that the methods used to prove him guilty are probably not allowed to be revealed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I would have to say your last sentence there is not worthy of a moderator. You'd do well to edit it (and this reply).

 

As for some of this guys claims, well as you say his attacks on wider Islam due to the actions of a minority are unwise, unhelpful and unnecessary. It would be like hating Christians due to the actions of the congregation of Westboro Church or the other "nutty" minorities that reside in every society or culture.

 

I might give him a little bit of my time if he limited his attacks to the minority of Islamic extremists, but even then I'm not sure I would want him to replace the rule of law in countering them as we don't need his boot boys running around with their No Surrender and In-ger-lund nonsense.

 

The EDL and Islamic extremists exist in a symbiotic relationship of hate and destructiveness.

 

The conflation of Qatada's release and an attack on the leader of the EDL is either woefully naive or it has something of the skilled spin of a Goebbels - I'll leave the reader to decide which.

 

I find the situation around Qatada both frustrating and a source of great pride. It's frustrating that IF we've determined through due process that he should be repatriated then surely we should just do it. But, how far has our society come that we will listen to another view of the situation and despite being able to 'get away with a small fine', we decide that we'll abide by the ruling and attempt to challenge it in the right way? Principle over patriotism.

 

As to your post Um Pahars, personally I agree with your distinction between Islam and extremist Islam, but I also feel that Tommy Robinson has every right to dislike Islam in principle.

 

I once heard an interview with Geert Wilders - the Dutch right-wing politician where he made a very eloquent and defensible attack on the principles at the heart of even moderate Islam. His argument centred around what he saw as the inherent mismatch between Islamic teaching and the western world. Now personally, I don't hold these views. But I can at least follow the logic. At the same time I can also see the problems that organised protest based on these views can cause our society. I can also see how such a movement can easily be hijacked by people who have more extremist views and less intellect.

 

But I do feel these people have the right to hold these views. The organised protests based around these views are where the problems lie.

 

Perhaps our society will be better in 50 years for the frictions that these competing groups make us address?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deport him to Jordan and to hell with the European court, I don't want my taxes going towards scum like him.

 

who cares about the European Court anyway, you'd just get a fine and they'd take years to make you pay it.

When Sarko chucked the Roms out the EC whinged and whined but it all blew over pretty quickly.

 

Saw a bloke on Sky News yesterday who said that if you aren't kicking Qatada out then there must be a far more important reason for it than the European Court, like his network being infiltrated or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dune, do you lack self awareness? Patriotism is great, This country is great. Have you ever truely considered why? Because we have a rule of law and freedoms that were fought for. Law and freedoms that demonstrate we are a civilised and mature society, granting freredom of speech to complete dickheads like the EDL, no matter what biggotted spiteful drivel they spout, and a rule of law that despite perhaps not being perfect is nonetheless mature enough accept that you cant have it both ways - and keep people locked up indefinitely or extradite them in circumstances where a fair and due process is unlikely.... no matter what the crime or how spiteful the beliefs.

 

Its this sort of thing that despite having to put up with the tiny minority or extremists (EDL and nutters who pretend to be following their religion) is what is truely great about Britain.

+ 1 A mature and civilised response to the immature an uncivilised OP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oct 2011: Senior judge raises doubts over power of European court

 

Lord chief justice Lord Judge says UK courts not bound by rulings of Strasbourg-based court of human rights

 

Head of Legal: Lord Irvine: British judges should decide human rights cases for themselves

 

 

Lord Irvine tonight weighed in to the debate about Britain’s relationship with the European Court of Human Rights – and effectively accused the Supreme Court of having surrendered its intellectual independence, and shirked its judicial responsibility.

 

His at times toughly-worded lecture to the UCL Judicial Institute and the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law chimes with what the Attorney General Dominic Grieve has been saying recently about the need for primary responsibility for human rights protection to lie with states, not Strasbourg – and Grieve will surely approve of both the content and timing of Lord Irvine’s intervention, on the eve of the European Court’s ruling in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. UK and in the context of Britain’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe. I’ll link to the text of his speech when it’s available.

 

Lord Irvine stressed his unswerving support for the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, but made clear his view that British judges have shown too much deference to the Strasbourg court – more than the Human Rights Act 1998 requires or entitles them to show.

 

He said of section 2(1) of the Act that “its terms are simple”,

 

(1) A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account any—

(a) judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights ..

 

and that it was “surprising” it’s given rise to any difficulties. He asserted repeatedly that it was clear from its wording and from the Parliamentary record that Parliament intended domestic courts to “have regard to”, to “consider” or to “bear in mind” Strasbourg judgments. He said

 

It is untenable to suggest that judges are entitled to treat themselves as bound by them. The courts have, however, he argued, strayed considerably from what Parliament intended.............

 

http://www.headoflegal.com/2011/12/14/lord-irvine-british-judges-should-decide-human-rights-cases-for-themselves/

 

.

Edited by Saint in Paradise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should ask why he's been in prison for nearly 10 years without being charged with any crime

 

If he's broken the law he should be put on trial.

 

Qatada is the beneficiary, if that's the word, of an 'arrangement' whereby evidence gathered by intelligence agencies is not made available to the courts. Nowhere else in Europe is such a restriction tolerated. Only in the US - where not a single prosecution has resulted from the numerous 'rendition' and torture scandals - is such a restriction tolerated. The British intelligence services are still - after 9/11 and 7/7 - more concerned with clinging on to this privilege than with bringing idiots like Qatada to court. They claim it is 'essential', yet fail to explain why the rest of Europe, or Israel for that matter, manage to get by without it.

 

I have no doubt that if MI5 or 6 had revealed what they knew in a court of law, Qatada would have been convicted long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Qatada is the beneficiary, if that's the word, of an 'arrangement' whereby evidence gathered by intelligence agencies is not made available to the courts. Nowhere else in Europe is such a restriction tolerated. Only in the US - where not a single prosecution has resulted from the numerous 'rendition' and torture scandals - is such a restriction tolerated. The British intelligence services are still - after 9/11 and 7/7 - more concerned with clinging on to this privilege than with bringing idiots like Qatada to court. They claim it is 'essential', yet fail to explain why the rest of Europe, or Israel for that matter, manage to get by without it.

 

I have no doubt that if MI5 or 6 had revealed what they knew in a court of law, Qatada would have been convicted long ago.

 

I think it's right that we are putting national security ahead of his human rights. If MI5 took this to court it might reveal things that would help terrorists and it might blow the cover of people infiltrating terrorist cells. This is matter of preventing mass murder. It's not ideal but it is the right thing to do in these dangerous times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's right that we are putting national security ahead of his human rights. If MI5 took this to court it might reveal things that would help terrorists and it might blow the cover of people infiltrating terrorist cells. This is matter of preventing mass murder. It's not ideal but it is the right thing to do in these dangerous times.

 

More often a cover for things it doesn't want people to know to avoid embarrassment. A bit like you being a minor cog in a wheel that has kept Mugabe in power in Zimbabwe. (Hint: who benefited from the nationalisation of the tobacco farms in early 2000s? Step forward a company you should know well: BAT).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More often a cover for things it doesn't want people to know to avoid embarrassment. A bit like you being a minor cog in a wheel that has kept Mugabe in power in Zimbabwe. (Hint: who benefited from the nationalisation of the tobacco farms in early 2000s? Step forward a company you should know well: BAT).

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's right that we are putting national security ahead of his human rights. If MI5 took this to court it might reveal things that would help terrorists and it might blow the cover of people infiltrating terrorist cells. This is matter of preventing mass murder. It's not ideal but it is the right thing to do in these dangerous times.

 

Once these dangerous times are over, can you tell me where the next threat will be coming from so that I can order in enough canned food/fresh drinking water etc so that I never have to leave the house? We've had the Nazis, the Irish and now Muslims. Who is to be next?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once these dangerous times are over, can you tell me where the next threat will be coming from so that I can order in enough canned food/fresh drinking water etc so that I never have to leave the house? We've had the Nazis, the Irish and now Muslims. Who is to be next?!?

 

Here you go 3 suggestions :lol:

 

1 A Pole shift meaning the North Pole will be somewhere in Brazil

 

2 Yellowstone volcano will errupt causing major major problems as bad as a nuclear winter

 

3 Planet X turns up

Edited by Saint in Paradise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...