Qatada: New Court Blow For Theresa May

H/T Softly Bob

Sky News:

Court of Appeal judges refuse permission to go to the Supreme Court but the Home Office is unbowed and promises to fight on.

Qatada family court caseAbu Qatada has thwarted deportation to Jordan for years

Court of Appeal judges have rejected the Government’s bid to take their fight to deport Abu Qatada to the Supreme Court.

The ruling is the latest blow to Home Secretary Theresa May, who is battling to send the radical cleric back to Jordan to face terror charges.

Now the only avenue left is for the Home Office to appeal directly to the Supreme Court – which it immediately vowed to do.

A spokesman said: “We are disappointed with the Court of Appeal’s decision but will now request permission to appeal directly from the Supreme Court.

Click to continue:

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

2 Replies to “Qatada: New Court Blow For Theresa May”

  1. Abu Qatada argued that MI5 “knew the sort of views he was expressing and took no steps to stop or warn him, to prosecute him or prevent his fundraising for groups which are regarded as terrorist groups”. Is this a reason why he is not prosecuted here? Would it be embarrassing if this was used in his defence in a criminal trial? I would say yes. Qatada was actually an MI5 asset at one stage, and his trial in the UK would be far too embarrassing to the Government.

    The Times seemed to think this was the case in 2005 (link to screen-print for firewall dodgers like me here)

    Indignant French officials accused MI5 of helping the cleric to abscond. While he remained on the run one intelligence chief in Paris was quoted as saying “British Intelligence is saying they have no idea where he is, but we know where he is and, if we know, I am quite sure that they do. Almost a year later Abu Qatada was found hiding in a flat not far from Scotland Yard

    The question that is rarely asked, and never answered, is why has he not been tried in an English court? Its a question I have asked many times over the last decade about him and other ‘terrorist’ suspects. If there are allegations of criminal behaviour then put these people on trial. If found guilty then jail or fine them. If not guilty then let them go about their normal business . That’s the way the English justice system used to work before it was debauched by Thatcher and Blair. In ’94 he claimed asylum here in the UK, was recognised as a refugee and allowed to remain.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16584923

    I believe the Tories were in power then.

    “Why hasn’t Abu Qatada been tried in an English court?”

    Because the alleged ‘war on terror’ has made nonsense of precisely the rights and freedoms it was supposed to protect. In the name of protecting people’s freedom….we lock people up for 7 years without trial ! This is almost Orwellian in its doublethink, but then that’s nothing new for governments since 911. I find it rather reassuring that the law is followed. The fact that even a universal hate figure like Abu Qatada is given the protection of the law shows that we do live in a civilised society with a legal system which is respected. The law is not always right and it does not always deliver justice but it is a whole lot better than witch hunts and lynching and the rule of the mob. The government – democratically elected or otherwise – cannot ignore a SIAC ruling. Separation of Powers is one of the main pillars of our constitution. The ECtHR is not made up of a “set of foreigners”. The ECtHR was set up with strong British backing from no less a person than Winston Churchill himself. The European Convention on Human Rights was largely drafted by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, 1st Earl of Kilmuir. The fact that it is situated in Strasbourg doesn’t make it “foreign” any more than the UN Security Council, on which we have a permanent seat is “foreign” because the UN happens to be based in NYC.

    This whole situation has arisen because Mrs Teresa May and other politicians have made the deportation of Mr Abu Qatada a test of their virility. No evidence has been produced that Mr Abu Qatada has committed any crime in Britain. Jordan is an undemocratic nation where torture is regularly used against those opposed to regime. Is a person opposed to such a regime, perhaps acts against it, a terrorist? Politicians and hysterical members of the public should get a grip,
    IA
    http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

  2. This is a game that the government is playing.

    Britain is not a republic but a constitutional monarchy. A minster of the Crown, acting on behalf of the Crown, can deport anyone, or deprive anyone of their citizenship, and that cannot be challenged in any court of the land.

    Thus I believe that the British government is playing an intelligent game, with distant objectives in mind.