Here's another summary:
"In a different world, this entire case might be seen as showing the best of the British state. Despite the contempt often shown towards the Human Rights Act and the ECHR by politicians from both main parties, successive governments have abided by the decisions made in line with it, refusing to countenance ignoring the rule of law in this specific case, and have gone so far as to push Jordan towards making genuine judicial reforms. Pushing any authoritarian state in the direction of respecting basic human rights is something to be proud of, regardless of the circumstances."
Well it would make more sense to me if it were easier to get into the UK as a post-doc than as a jihad-preaching imam. I did once try to get in circa 2004 as a political refugee from George Bush and see how long I could get through the process. The funny thing is every time I visit now I'm held up at LHR by Customs & Immigration as they think I'm trying to sneak in and stay on my old expired work permits.
"The Rule of Law" doesn't mean every Law is correct.
A Human Rights law that protects murderers, criminals and terrorists is not a law that's a whole lot of use to us.
[If he is one or all of these things, then the govt needs to provide the evidence in court. So far its been very shy of doing so. Its almost as if it knows it doesn't actually have any evidence -W]
The likes of Abu Qatada should have no recourse to Human Rights laws which protect "rights" that he does not even accept exist.
60 years ago he would have been taken to the Tower and then most likely taken out and shot. This is the best and most effective treatment for all those of his ilk. Treating them to the benefits of our legal system is a very bad joke that serves no purpose.
[Read Timmy. I support what he says. We don't live in a country where the govt can say "we have no evidence against you, but nonetheless we're going to shoot you.". That is a good thing, not a bad one -W]
The whole point about human rights is that by definition we posess them by virtue of being human beings, not because we are particularly "deserving" of them as individuals.
An essential element of that is to have proper safeguards and due process when people are accused of breaking the law, in order to prevent arbitrary arrest, punishment and other abuses. In the UK, despite the fact that injustices do undoubtedly occur, I think it's fair to say that in general those people who find themselves at the sharp end of the criminal justice system and so in need of the kind of protections mentioned above will in more often than not be criminals, and sometimes particlarly nasty ones. You can't just remove these protections from "bad" people because the whole point of them is to ensure we properly distingush the guilty from the innocent.
Thanks for the tip about Timmy. Having never agreed with him on anything before it was an unexpected pleasure to go over there and applaud his right wing libertarianism.
I'm having difficulty reconciling this issue. It's no secret amongst Moderate Muslims who monitor this guy that his whole schtick is death to apostates. It's people in Muslim countries who have more to fear from this guy than the West and they aren't happy about Britain harbouring him. I don't buy this idea that once you have given someone protection you are bound to continue doing so once it becomes clear that they are an abhorrent piece of work. It isn't Britain's job to protect every scumbag from harsh justice.
[That wasn't really my point. There are a number of legal issues around this, some of which I'm happy with and some I'm not. But the good thing is that we're following the rule of law -W]
It does show British law in a horrible light that a youngster burning a book, a book preaching murder and bigotry, can be arrested for inciting crimes when this guy can preach (even if he does it in a circuitous way) the killing of masses of people.
[Alas, you didn't bother provide a link, so I don't know what you're talking about -W]