Abu Qatada's deportation is a victory for the
British judicial process
Justice delayed is justice denied –
denied to everyone. The state is entitled to deport people it considers a
threat. The British public is entitled to that justice, as is the potential
victim of deportation. For Britain to become a haven for fallen dictators, mass
killers, tax evaders and villains is neither right nor safe.
I have no problem in sending home
people in the category of Abu Qatada, who arrived on false documents, became an
ally and counsellor to terrorists and then cited fear of torture as a reason
for not being deported. Such people take a risk. They swim in a murky sea and
should accept the consequences. British citizens are entitled to some benefit
of doubt, but the state is entitled to demand good behaviour from visitors or
potential citizens or send them home.
That said, Abu Qatada by all
accounts does not fall into the ranting cleric category of his contemporary, Abu
Hamza. He is closer to the vagrant revolutionary tradition to which London has
offered refuge throughout history. The city should be big enough to encompass
him, even if his activities merited watching. To spend 10 years and £1.7m to
get him to a home was a waste. It arose from post-9/11 hysteria, when we now
know that human rights were of little concern to the British and American
governments.
The British judicial system
and the home secretary, Theresa May, at least played the case by the book.
America would have left Qatada to a red list, a drone attack, kidnap or
Guantánamo Bay. By demanding, and apparently securing, fair treatment for
Qatada in Jordan, May has probably done more to improve civil rights in that
country than anyone else.
But she should not spoil it by
weakening a system that has given her such a political coup. She constantly
cites judicial oversight as cover for her multifarious extensions of state
surveillance and control. She can hardly now claim they should be weakened.
