This, particularly enraged me yesterday. According to Agence France-Presse, radical cleric Qatada, once labelled Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe by a Spanish judge, was awarded $5400 by the Strasbourg European Court of Human Rights - which will also rule on a final appeal against his deportation from Britain. It was this very court that also ruled against the UK's DNA project, hampering what could possibly have been a major milestone in the development of scientific research in DNA and the history of Man.
The European court noted that the level of compensation was "substantially lower than those which it had made in past cases of unlawful detention", and that it reflected the fact that his detention "was devised in the face of a public emergency" and weighed protecting the public against a duty not to return people to countries where they faced a real risk of ill-treatment. The ruling was of course made a day after the House of Lords ruled that he could be deported to Jordon - where he already has been sentenced to life imprisonment for terror offences - and could possibly face torture.
I am personally against the ruling.
The sentence ruled on the following bases:
1) That it was ultimately an unlawful detention.
2) That the duty not to return peoples to a place where they could face torture outweighs the duty to protect the public.
Simplified as such, the ruling is stupid, idiotic and beyond the claims of common sense. If the sentence is to be believed, it is clear that the Strasbourg Court believes that the right of one outweighs the rights of the people. The logic goes like this:
Fact: Qatada is a convict in Jordan who has been sentenced to life imprisonment for terrorist activities.
Fact: Torture is prevalent in Jordan.
Premise 1: Man has the right to be protected from torture and from dangerous terrorists.
Premise 2: However, Qatada has been detained without clear evidence for terrorism in Britain.
Conclusion: Since his threat to the public is not immediate as such, his right to freedom from unlawful detention supersedes the concerns of the public and their desire for preventive detention, which is in this case deemed unlawful. And, until he is proven guilty otherwise, he shall enjoy the same rights as any other man in Europe, namely the right to protection from torture.
Let us re-examine the case...
Firstly, Qatada is a convicted terrorist, albeit in Jordan. He is therefore a threat - underlying and possibly subversive, though not immediate. There is therefore absolutely no guarantee that society is free from his machinations in the future. There is also absolutely no indication that he 'has turned over a new leaf', or that he has embraced Western culture and values. NYET! NON!
It is a given that every man has the right to certain basic provisions under the rule of law as law-abiding citizens. However, Qatada's status as a 'law-abiding' citizen is at best doubtful. While he may not have committed a crime under European soil as such, there is little doubt that the crimes of which he is convicted of in Jordan would similarly apply in the UK and in Europe. He cannot therefore be given the same status as with any other ordinary citizen. He is not.
Finally, while the judiciary has to be wary and mindful of the 'mob-mentality' so precarious in democracies (note: Atheneins killing Socrates), I find little in this case to support the idea that Qatada should have been COMPENSATED. This sends the wrong signal to the world, and to all terrorists out there who are seeking to undermine the fundamentals of our society - namely, our human rights.
The Court could have ruled against unlawful detention, but need not have compensated him.
That having said, I am against the use of torture on any man. However, as my concern ultimately lies with the safety of the public AND the protection of our value and way of life, and that no immediate conviction can be made in the UK, the only way to safeguard the safety of my citizens is to sentence Qatada to deportation to a country where he has indeed already been convicted of terrorism - the crime which seeks actively to subvert the prevailing order of society - so that he can be safely displaced from society. Qatada is no lamb or scapegoat. HE IS A CONVICTED TERRORIST! HE DESERVES IT! We should NOT in any way kid ourselves to think otherwise! He is NOT INNOCENT ON ANY ACCOUNT AND SHOULD NOT BE TREATED LIKE ONE. He needs to be put away for the sake of the world.
What the UK govt can do is to solicit a guarantee from the Jordanian govt for his freedom of torture. This compromise is arguably the lesser evil than releasing him back into the arms of the society of which he seeks actively to destroy. In fact, he hell shouldn't even have been granted asylum in the UK in the first place. What is wrong with these people????
---
On another note,
I found a Lonely Planet Guide on AFGHANISTAN yesterday and I just had to buy it. It's not as thick as the usual guides, 80% of the book is peppered with security warnings, that I have absolutely no idea how those guides even got round Afghanistan in the first place. It's quite cool really, with awesome pictures. Anyway, here's a picture of the Shah-e Doh Shamshira Mosque, which i got from http://flickr.com/photos/56905260@N00/2551848509/
I would still like the opportunity to work in some third world country for a period of time. Maybe not Afghanistan or any 'hot' war zone at the current moment. Somewhere relatively stable preferably. I'll like to make a real contribution, where politiking often fails. It's something I'll like to do soon. At least once in my life and not when I'm 60.
It is something so Singaporean to lament about the horrible state of affairs in the world whilst reading the newspaper, but forgetting it as soon as you close it because 'it doesn't directly concern you'. These are also the people who profess religions and morals. They fawn over people who actually do volunteer work, but when asked, shy away for 'personal reasons'.
I think double-standards governs every aspect of our lives, and that is should be the 8th deadly sin.
One of the first things you notice when growing up are your parent's double-standards. I should know. I had intimate encounters with them. So would you. However as time goes by, you lose that childish curiosity and the natural inclination to question, accepting things as the way they are and becoming immune to them. Many begin to adopt similar positions. When pressed further, they shut you out by means of linguistic or authoritative turns - as with what their parents once did.
There are also those who survive and become a better person.
Many however still bandy about postmodernist lingo like how 'there's nothing certain the world', or that 'no one is right or wrong', and adopt these positions for expediency to support a particularly whim at a particular moment in time.
Mommy, why does the maid not eat at the table with us?
Because she's the maid.
But why?
Shut up and eat your food. and it's because I say so.
.. and we should all strive to save paper in this office for the sake of the environment!
OH and secretaries, pls make sure that you print all documents with font size 14 only, and pls don't put 2 pages into one sheet as it will spoil my pretty eyes. remember! single-side for extremely classified documents...
double-standards. we all burn in hell.
BECAUSE I SAY SO.
No comments:
Post a Comment