About time. Anti-dhimmitude in Britain. By Philip Johnston and Joshua Rozenberg in The Telegraph, with thanks to Sr. Soph:
The Home Office won a key legal victory yesterday in a five-year battle to eject a suspected al-Qa'eda terrorist leader from Britain.A court ruled that Abu Qatada, a radical Muslim cleric described as Osama bin Laden's spiritual representative in Europe, can be deported to his homeland.
Abu Qatada, a London-based imam, has been fighting Government efforts to remove him to Jordan since 2002, claiming he faces torture or death.
Wait a minute. Isn't Jordan supposed to be modern, moderate, forward-looking and Western?
By bet is he's Muslim brotherhood. He should look on the bright side. He could have been deported to Egypt or Syria.
My main concern is this parasite is evicted from the civilized nation known as the United Kingdom. Send him back where living is more rough, with a lot more 7th century options
Is the Muslim terrorist supporter afraid of Muslim terrorists?....
Ban Muslim immigration now...
To put in clear terms, terrorism is thriving because, not inspite, of Islam, blowing the lie that Islam is a 'Religion of Peace'. But then, we all know that, except ofcourse, you-know-who:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
God bless America!
This is still dhimmitude.
He should have been executed.
Abu Qatada, a London-based imam........, claiming he faces torture or death.
So?
If he faces torture and death, in a peace loving Muslim country(not another one), he should be allowed to stay.
As long as he publicly renounces Islam and swears an oath of loyalty to the United Kindom in writing. He will not be allowed in a mosque anymore, but is free to become a Hindu, or Christian, or Satanist or whatever.
If found in a Mosque(Arsenal?), or preaching Islam, then he should be deported immediately. That would be more fun.
Ian
I'm pleased that he will be deported but I think the main piece of good news in this is that the Law Courts recognised him and what he did as a serious threat to national security.
I think this will set an excellent precedent as courts will be more able to expel any foreign national who actively seeks to subvert UK interests.
And lets face it, there are a lot of people like that in the UK at the moment.
I'd rather have him in jail, because deporting him won't solve anything (he'll just spew his crap via the Internet). The problem with jailing him is that he'll then get whatever he likes at taxpayer expense. I think I like the idea of exile in some remote place-too bad we can't stick all these jihadists on some desert island. If nothing else, it would be an interesting sociological experiment.
Ofcourse Jordan is a moderate Islamic nation, and that means it deals harshly with scum such as Qatada.
We seem to think that being miderate means that we tolerate the very worst mass murderers of the world, let them into our civilised nations, and the support them by giving them tens of thousands of pounds a year. That is not moderate - it is stupid beyond comprehension.
The trouble is, that his huge family is still going to be in Britain, all at the expense of the taxpayer.
Why did it take so long? How much money was wasted extending every legal courtesy that the Western world has to offer to a primitive who utterly rejects every detail of the legal and political institutions of that same West, and is working to destroy them? How much government money was spent on him, on his upkeep, on the lawyers on both sides, on the judges, on the heating of the courtroom, on the recording of testimony.
The Law is not an ass. But sometimes, as in wartime, other rules, quicker rules, apply. Niceties are no longer so nice. This should now be defined, or at least understood by many, to be wartime. It will save a lot of time, a lot of money.
And do not be impressed, much less susceptible to their meretricious arguments, when groups wrapping themselves in the mantle of "rights -- the ACLU for example -- thoughtlessly take the side of those who, just like the Nazis, would undo or destroy everything of value in the Western world. What was once a noble enterprise now has a different set of people, less intelligent, less wise, much more hell-bent on promoting themselves and a certain ideology of mad tolerance of the real and very powerful enemies of tolerance in the Western sense. Many of the groups -- not all, but many -- that like to call themselves "human rights activists" or "civil rights activists" have been taken over by those who would not be recognized as such by those who founded those organizations, a hundred or even thirty years ago. They are now, these people, in many cases -- and the ACLU is one -- in the "rights racket." Don't help them, don't lend them support or credibility, but mock and expose them and their tendentiousness, so that the true, as opposed to the false, defendes of individual liberties, can proceed.
Islamic punishment for Koranimals, why argue against it?
Allah knows best!
Undoubtedly his family will not be deported. Will continue to be sponging off the UK. --->>
Profile: Abu Qatada
But his lawyers have argued that the agreement with Jordan does not guarantee his safety.
His defeat at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in February 2007 represents a major victory for the government's strategy of finding ways of deporting terrorism suspects who it says it cannot put on trial in the UK.
Qatada became one of the UK's most wanted men in December 2001 when he went on the run on the eve of government moves to introduce new anti-terror laws allowing suspects to be detained without charge or trial.
The 45-year-old father-of-five arrived in the UK in September 1993 on a forged United Arab Emirates passport.
He was allowed to stay in June 1994 after claiming asylum for himself and his family.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4141594.stm
He could be deported; I'm not willing to sign up with "Anti-dhimmitude in Britain" until he is actually deported.
Let us remember that Abu Qattada is the author of the infamous fatwa that allowed the extreme Islamists of Algeria (GIA, later GSPC, now Al QAeda in North Africa) to mass murder their own fellow Algerian Muslims. He has at least 150,000 innocent lives on his hands. So the question becomes not, what will Jordan do to him, but, on what grounds should Britain protect him?
He's not going anywhere. He will stay in Britain for, say, 5 more years. It took many years to throw out that Omar Bakri scumbag.
Till then, hold the champain.
"Abu Qatada, a London-based imam, has been fighting Government efforts to remove him to Jordan since 2002, claiming he faces torture or death."
It appears that this idiot imam suffers from a severe inability to employ forethought.
wrathofasma:
It took many years to throw out that Omar Bakri scumbag.
Strictly speaking, Omar Bakri wasn't thrown out. He left of his own accord. Once he was out of the country, he was then "banned" from the UK.
Perhaps this is the way forward. We offer incentives - e.g. a fully expensed pilgrimage to Mecca - for preachers of hate to go away for a little while and then close the door when they try to get back in. It would be far cheaper than paying months or years of fees to treacherous lawyers.
We could start with Anjem Choudary, then move on to that Trevor Brooks (aka Abu Izzadeen) chappie. Ok, so they're UK citizens, but that's only a minor technicality. They should be much happier in Saudi Arabia than in the UK, although there would be the slight problem for Mr Brooks that his UK state handouts would cease.
How strange that people of this ilk who want to create an Islamic state in Britain are so reluctant to actually live in one. Jordan is one of the countries where sharia law is observed, yet Abu doesn't seem very keen on that type of law.