Earlier in the week, I gave a BBC Interview about Abu Qatada: My main points were:
1. Britain should have the right to decide who is a threat to national security and who should remain in the country.
2. The European Convention Principles (especially Articles 16 & 17, Section One), allow for the removal of those regarded as a terrorist threat. It is the European Court that is subverting those founding principles, by wilfully extending its role to judicial activism.
3. What about the human rights of those who wish to be free from terrorism? Why all the focus on the rights of Mr Qatada?
In the interview, I also noted that the Home Secretary was working overtime to solve this problem and, as has been announced today, is due in Jordan, to get the guarantees that will satisfy the European Court and allow us to deport Mr Qatada.
Part of the problem has been that because the last Labour Government incorporated the ECHR into British law, the Coalition cannot just defy the European Court and send Mr Qatada back to Jordan.
But there is a further cause for concern. Even if the Home Secretary does manage to rid our country of Mr Qatada, it won't be the end of it. This will amount to a sticking plaster to control a gaping wound.
The European Court will interfere again, when we want to deport another individual, whom is deemed a threat to our national security, or give the Coalition Government further trouble on prisoner votes, or some other issue that will cause national upset.
So, even if we solve the problem of Mr Qatada, that doesn't mean we solve the problem of the European Court. The answer is either a suspension of our membership, reform of the court, and then re-adoption of the ECHR, or a new British Bill of Rights to replace the European Court Remit.
My own view is that the European Convention of Human Right founding principles are both noble and just. It is the Court that is at fault. It is the Court that needs fundamental change.
by Robert Halfon - Working Hard for Harlow
No comments:
Post a Comment