Human Rights and National Suicide Pacts
British human rights laws make it extremely difficult for the state to protect itself from terrorists.
February 5, 2012 - 12:00 am
Abu Qatada, a charming Palestinian who is known as Osama bin Laden’s “ambassador to Europe,” has associated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (from Iraq), Zacarias Moussaoui (of 9/11 fame), and Richard Reid (shoe bomber). Though Abu Qatada arrived in the United Kingdom on a forged passport, he was permitted to settle as a political refugee. For about the past ten years, the United Kingdom has sought without success to remove him as the courts block every attempt in the name of human rights.
There is no need to discuss this case in any detail as you can read any number of similar cases in the British courts in which individuals enter the country on false papers, claim asylum, never work, and live off state benefits. Either they become directly involved in terrorist activities soon after their arrival, or do so after a life of crime and conversion to Islam in prison.
How is it possible that a country as important as Britain with its fine traditions of values, ethics, and common sense can have reached a situation that it cannot control its borders, nor remove those who openly wish to kill its citizens (and be foolish enough to pay for it)? The answer is the Human Rights Act.
Though space does not permit a full discussion, the scale of the problem must be described. Recently, some of those who aided the 7/21 bombers (the second wave of attempted bombings of London transportation after 7/7) were released. After numerous legal battles, at vast expense to the British taxpayer (legal aid was granted), the courts held that deportation to Eritrea for one individual would breach human rights. Therefore, the individual is free to live in London (on welfare) and must be monitored 24/7 by the security forces (I forgot to add — at great expense).
So a foreign national, who has participated in violent jihad with the aim of slaughtering as many British citizens as possible, cannot be removed — not even for the sake of the safety of the population.
Recently, several members of a terrorist cell were arrested in Manchester. Bizarrely, two of the terrorists argued that it would breach their human rights to be returned to Pakistan, while two others did not raise this argument and were returned. There are hundreds of cases pending before the European Court arguing that the return of petty criminals to Islamic states could violate the criminals’ human rights since Islamic states impose Islamic punishments.
Our authorities are unable to try terrorist suspects in many cases, because our courts have ruled that a fair trial requires cross examination of witnesses and therefore MI5 must expose its informers. This, of course, is likely to result in the informers’ death (unless a new identity and country is given) and is a somewhat limiting factor in securing new recruits. All in the name of human rights.
There is nothing to worry about. To prove this, the archbishop of Canterbury and the lord chief justice have called for the introduction of Sharia law in the United Kingdom, lamenting how woefully misunderstood it is.