| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| A failure of political will |
| 2005-08-14 |
| The case of Omar Bakri is a damning case-study of the apparent inability of Britain's politicians to deal with the danger posed by Islamic terrorism. Bakri arrived here in 1985 claiming asylum. He has lived on benefits ever since, fathering seven children, preaching hatred of Britain, and reportedly applauding terrorism and mass murder. Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, now says that his presence is "not conducive to the public good" - a statement of the obvious, if ever there was one - but it is still not clear that the Home Secretary can stop Bakri returning here from his "holiday" in Lebanon. Human rights lawyers insist that Bakri has the entitlement, under the Human Rights Act, both to continued asylum in the UK, and to "reunion" with his family here. The case has descended into farce. But the issues at stake are deadly serious. That the Government may be forced to take back a man known to foment hatred and violence is a depressing testament to the extent to which it is unable to discharge its most fundamental duty - which is not to enforce the European Convention on Human Rights, but to protect British citizens from threats to their lives and liberty. The Government insists that the judges are responsible for that situation. But while some senior judges have indeed interpreted legislation perversely, the Government itself has consistently failed to enforce the laws which already give it the power to deal effectively with men such as Bakri. The fundamental problem is actually one of political will, rather than law. Abu Qatada, who has an even worse record than Bakri, is now known to be among the 10 foreign nationals Mr Clarke proposes to deport. But the fact that he has been here for so long is hugely embarrasing evidence of the extent to which ministers have dragged their heels. For years, the Jordanian government has been patiently requesting the extradition of Abu Qatada. Although the evidence that he was involved in terrorism was well-known, the Government's response was a contemptuous dismissal of all those requests. Vicious and callous apologists for terrorism such as Abu Qatada have in practice been granted protected status in Britain - to the consternation not only of Middle Eastern states such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but also of our European allies, such as France and Germany. Contrary to the legal myth nurtured by ministers, there is no insuperable barrier to deportation formed by human rights legislation. France, Italy and Spain are all signatories to the Human Rights Convention, with judges as eager to demonstrate their independence from the elected government as ours. Yet they have all sent men they believed to be terrorists back to countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Jordan and Morocco. They have not been intimidated by fear of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. There is no reason why we should not be similarly robust. In this case, at least, there is much we can learn from our EU partners. |
| Posted by:Fred |