The Axis of Incredulity

Theresa-May_1716248cDespite the litany of threats and ‘warnings’ of the dangers of self-governance, the reality is that we are governed by reckless ideologues. Cameron threatens to ‘temporarily withdraw’ from the European Convention on Human Rights in order to expedite radical cleric’s deportation.  Alyn Smith explores the ‘axis of incredulity’.

Human rights “protect ourselves against any risk of being overrun, crushed by whatever form of totalitarian tyranny” by our own state. Not my words but those of Winston Churchill at the emergent Council of Europe in 1949. He argued that “there is no reason why we should not succeed in achieving our aims and establishing the structure of this united Europe whose moral concepts will be able to win the respect and recognition of mankind.”

That the UK Government should say, as it said last week, that it was considering a temporary withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights should terrify us all. It didn’t seem to appreciate what it was suggesting. Firstly, it’s not something you just step out of for a few moments; it’s an important international treaty recognised by the 47 member states of the Council of Europe. Founded in the aftermath of the Second World War to help promote peace and the rule of law, the Council has a record of achievement which includes the promotion of human rights.

Abu Qatada’s human rights should be respected and protected. He should be allowed full access to all legal channels to defend his human rights in the face of challenges which may impinge upon or infringe his human rights. Not only that, we should back him and make sure that his human rights are defended and that he has those legal options. If we don’t do that we damage our own human rights.

If Abu Qatada’s human rights are infringed so are mine and so are yours. If his rights can be stripped then so can ours. If a government thinks that it can ignore people’s rights when it suits them then we’re all damaged and the protections we take for granted are diminished.

Secondly, the UK’s membership of the European Union is predicated on the UK being committed to the protection of human rights and even this UK Government isn’t advocating withdrawal from the EU. The UK withdrawing from the strictures it agreed to be bound by under the Council of Europe’s Court of Human Rights would still leave it open to action in the European Union’s Court of Justice through an action under article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Thirdly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also has provision against torture and in favour of fair trials. There is no indication that the Cameron/May axis of incredulity is recommending a withdrawal from the United Nations.

Lastly, there is the not-so-small matter of the Human Rights Act 1998 – the human rights in the European Convention on Human Rights are enshrined there to prohibit torture and promote fair access to justice. There is not, as yet, a proposal to repeal or amend that.

The UK Government faces several logistical problems if it seeks to bypass the human rights that the court in Strasbourg presides over – not the least of which is the UK legislation embedding those rights in domestic law – but those problems are as nothing compared to the sheer moral edifice facing it. That edifice is immense but simple – if the human rights of one person can be disregarded to pursue a particular policy agenda or populist agenda then what is to protect the human rights of any other person when they are in the way of another policy agenda or another populist agenda?

If the right wing fixation moves on from Abu Qatada to another individual then who will protect her or his human rights? If human rights legislation can be disregarded in order to have this one man deported to Jordan where people have already been tortured to provide evidence for his trial what is to stop governments deciding to overturn some other human rights to deliver some other person or persons into repressive regimes or, indeed, merely to dispose of opponents? The extradition agreement with the United States is bad enough without removing some of the few safeguards which internationally accused persons may have.

As Cameron asks “who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” we should be asking “who will protect us?” Qatada has been the bogeyman for successive UK governments and we should be glad that he has been.

I don’t intend to rehearse the charges levied against this man nor, indeed, his behaviour in court or out of it; the decisions on his guilt or innocence are for m’learned friends; but I will argue that he has done us all a favour without intending to.

A nation can be measured by how it treats those who would do it harm as much as by anything else; we can be measured by how well we respond to such people seeking to use the safeguards we have set up for ourselves. We should be grateful to Qatada for at least one thing – he has tested and tested the lengths to which some governments might go to get their way or satisfy their press.

His lengthy battle through the UK’s legal system and through the legal system of the Council of Europe has tested how well those systems can stand up to populist pressure and political pressure. Human rights need protection and this saga has tested how well we have protected them; our response to the UK Government’s latest calls and forthcoming action may well test how far we are prepared to go to defend human rights which are, after all, our rights.

Comments (0)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Ray Bell says:

    Abu Qatada is a Fascist, misogynist and bigot. The man’s revolting and I have little sympathy for him. He damages the position of ordinary Muslims in the UK.

  2. Richard Cain says:

    As was said of Voltaire (not actually by him): “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

    What happens if someone in authority finds YOUR views objectionable?

  3. Abu Qatada has been a hugely useful figure for the extreme right/anti-Europe brigade in recent years. While he is here we can expect more front page photos of him associated with Europe, Strasbourg, the EU, and namby-pamby Human Rights. All part of the campaign, and the Europhobes would, I guess, hope he stays here as long as possible, while trying their hardest, LOL, to extradite him.

    There may be good legal reasons for not bringing charges in the UK, but there is also an excellent political one. When UKIP brings home huge numbers of votes tonight, the succession of Abu Q headlines will definitely have played their part.

  4. picpac67p says:

    Part of a disturbing trend to ignore or arbitrarily overturn national law, international law and constitutional law, especially in the last 12 or 13 years: two invasions and occupations; war crimes; rendition and torture; pre-emptive war; targeted assassinations – all illegal. There should be a long queue of politicians, military and others for trial at the ICC – but it doesn’t try western criminals.
    Add to that pre-emptive trial by media – as most recently in the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who has been branded a terrorist on the flimsiest evidence and before any trial. He was illegally interrogated for 16 hours without a lawyer being present (he wasn’t read his rights). The readiness of people like Ray Bell – and there are very many of them, encouraged by the disgustingly biased mainstream media – to allow their baser knee-jerk emotions to judge those they take a dislike to is extremely worrying. Everyone should recall the words of Martin Niemöller: “First they came for the socialists/communists etc etc, but I didn’t speak out for them …. finally they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me”.

  5. Ray Bell says:

    And I suspect that given half a chance, he’d defend his right to say it by *your* death.

    Freedom of speech does not require public subsidy in all cases.

    This man makes David Cameron look like a moderate.

    I find it curious that the same folk who march against the SDL and BNP don’t do the same about far right people such as Qatada. (or indeed the Orange Order) In fact, folk like Qatada are Brit Nazis’ dreams come true.

  6. Ray Bell says:

    “The readiness of people like Ray Bell – and there are very many of them, encouraged by the disgustingly biased mainstream media – to allow their baser knee-jerk emotions to judge those they take a dislike to is extremely worrying.”

    And I suspect if Qatada wasn’t from a minority, you wouldn’t back him. That’s a form of hypocrisy.

    The man’s a racist, a homophobe, a Fascist, a religious bigot, a hater of women… no better than Tyndall, Mosley, Griffin or Brons, just from a Middle Eastern background.

    How can we campaign for equal rights, and complain about hate speech on the left, when we let off Fascists from exotic backgrounds? I remember the fuss over Nick Griffin speaking on Questiontime or all the “Stop the racist SDL” posters. I don’t think this far right cleric deserves deferential treatment.

    This man encourages racism from his supporters and his detractors as well as religious intolerance. He’s a menace.

    By the way, you’re wrong about me and the media. I don’t own a television of my own and rarely buy newspapers these days.

    1. Ray Bell says:

      And by the way, re Niemoller, Qatada is the would be gaoler, not the pastor himself.

      About the only thing I can agree with him on is that the West should stop its long term interference, bombing, invasion and occupation of various majority Muslim countries, which is wrong.

Keep our Journalism Independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address to subscribe for free here and receive Bella direct to your inbox.

 
Bella Caledonia