Abu Qatada won't be the last of this.....

 





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

The European Court of Human Rights is to blame for the Abu Qatada Debacle - not the founding principles of the European Convention of Human Rights

It is a myth to suggest that the European Convention of Human Rights is responsible for the UK's inability to send Mr Qatada back to Jordan.

The actual Convention was framed by mainly British Judges after the Second World War, with the intention of avoiding any repeat of the horrors of Nazi Germany. The actual principles of the Convention are very noble and clear in their intention.

In fact, Articles 16 and 17 (Section One) clearly would permit the Hone Secretary to deport Mr Qatada.

The problem is not with the ECHR, but with the European Court. The judges of the court, some of whom come from countries, with their own questionable human rights record, seem to be wilfully subverting the original principles of the Convention. The Court has extended its remit to areas which were never intended and clearly needs reform.

My own view is that the UK should temporarily withdraw from the ECHR, and work with other countries to reform the Court.

This was the question I asked yesterday to the Home Secretary:

Robert Halfon (Harlow, Conservative): Does my right hon. Friend accept that article 17 of the European convention says explicitly that human rights law should never be used to defend those aiming "at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms…in the Convention" such as the activities of Abu Qatada? Article 16 makes it clear that Governments can restrict the political activity of foreign nationals in self-defence, and the Jordanian hate-preacher Abu Qatada is a clear case of that. Does she agree that it was never the intention of the framers of the European convention, which was founded to avoid a repeat of the horrors of Nazi Germany, to let the poison of Islamist terrorists go free?

Theresa May (Home Secretary; Maidenhead, Conservative): I agree with my hon. Friend that the way in which the European Court operates is not how it was originally intended to operate. That is precisely why we are looking at possible reform and, as I have said, discussing with the other countries involved whether that reform would be possible in a way that enables us to be in a better position in future to deport those who are a danger to us.

______________________________________________________________________________

You can see the founding Principles of the European Convention of Human Rights if you click HERE.

Would the European Court of Rights have given Albert Speer and Rudolph Hess the vote?

For weeks now, we have been told that the European Court of Human Rights, will force the Government to give prisoners the vote - as this is seen by ECHR judges as 'a basic human right'.

The good news is that Parliament, will not take this lying down - and today fought back. An amazing afternoon in the Commons, as MPs voted by 234 to 22 against giving prisoners the vote.

I made four interventions:

1.  Why were judges from the Court of Human Rights, many who came from countries with authoritarian regimes, ordering our democracy to give prisoners the votes?

2.  Was it not time for Britain to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights?

3.  How was it that Sweden was able to withdraw from the Court of Human Rights in 2002, as the country had a problem with a particular aspect of the convention, and then re-enter, having renegotiated its terms?

4.  Given that the European Convention of Human Rights was established after the Second World War - to ensure that the Nazi tragedy never happened again, was it really the case that the founders of the declaration, really wanted Albert Speer and Rudolph Hess (two leading Nazis who served long jail sentences post war) to have the vote?

It was good that the Commons showed their displeasure against giving Prisoners voting rights.  A shame so few Labour MPs were in the Chamber - or bothered to vote on this fundamental issue.

You can read more HERE and HERE.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com