|
Case not proven
When the prime minister announced his anti-terrorist plan a week ago
he declared that the mood of the country had changed. There can be
no argument about that. For understandable reasons, many people -
from both main opposition parties too - want firmer action against
foreign Muslim clerics and others who incite extremism. Yesterday
the home secretary announced that 10 foreigners whom he believes to
be a threat to national security had been detained ahead of
deportation. The Jordanian Abu Qatada - accused of being "at the
centre of terrorist activities associated with al-Qaida in Britain"
- and as many as eight others apparently previously detained in
Belmarsh without charge or trial are believed to be among those
arrested.
Charles Clarke said the 10 were being held in secure prison
accommodation but the main obstacle to their later deportation had
been cleared. "Following months of diplomatic work we now have got
reason to believe that we can get the necessary assurances from the
countries to which we will return the deportees so that they will
not be subject to torture or ill-treatment." Could there be a better
example of Tony Blair's declaration last week: "Let no one be in any
doubt the rules of the game are changing." That might have been the
intentional message yesterday but reality is different.
Prime ministers can declare that rules are changing, but in a
country governed by law they do not change until laws have been
amended. Suspects - no matter how dangerous - still have the right
of appeal to courts against executive actions. Not even Mr Blair can
get round that. The 10 new prison inmates will not be "on their way"
today. Two legal avenues are open to them: a judicial review of the
decision and an appeal to the special immigration appeal court
against removal. Both no doubt will be tried.
Such appeals are not a disgrace - as some will claim. They are a
perfectly legitimate scrutiny of the home secretary's decision.
There is no right under the European convention on human rights -
now part of British law with the enactment of the Human Rights Act -
for foreigners to choose their country of residence. There is no
right for a foreigner in Britain to remain in this country once
declared "non-conducive to the public good" save for two important
caveats: that deportation does not lead to torture or ill treatment
(article three) or capital punishment (article two). Neither is
legal in Britain, and this extends to people overseas if sent by our
direction.
What the judges will be required to scrutinise is the agreement
which the Home Office has reached with Jordan (and any others that
emerge from the 10 other states ministers wish to talk to). With
good reasons civil rights groups - Liberty, Amnesty International
and the UN's special rapporteur on torture - have all expressed
concern over such deals. Amnesty's Mike Blakemore rightly noted
yesterday: "Going soft on torture is not the answer to terrorism. We
must remain steadfast in our opposition to this vile practice. The
assurances of known torturers - many of whom deny the use of torture
even when it is widely documented - are not worth the paper they are
written on."
The prime minister was blunt last Friday signalling that if the
judges do not recognise the change in mood, he would introduce
legislation allowing suspects to be deported. Rights of appeal would
henceforward be limited - lodged from the country to which suspects
were deported. The French and Spanish already use such a system.
Even this is not as simple as it may seem: suspects can still seek
an emergency order from the European court. We need to see the
detail of the proposals, but the fundamental concern is that the
government has embarked on a course of diminishing our human rights.
Their case remains not proven.
Source: The Guardian
12 August 2005
|
%20enjoins%20justice.gif)
