What we are seeing in Egypt is counter-revolution pure and simple, military hardliners who are going to be friendly with Israel and the US, and are committing gross human rights abuse.
Western backed counter-revolution is going to be sweeping back across the Middle East; do not be distracted by the words of the West, watch the deeds. It will of course be in the name of secularism. There is an important correlation between what is happening in Turkey and Egypt. I made myself unpopular when I pointed out what the media did not tell you, that behind the tiny minority of doe-eyed greens in the vanguard of the Istanbul movement, stood the massed phalanxes of kemalist nationalism, a very ugly beast. “Secularism” was the cry there too.
Abu Qatada is more dangerous than any of the more flamboyant mullahs. Just as we do not allow White Supremacists from the USA to alight upon these shores, so too ought we to bar other dangerous supremacist leaders. Personally, I’ll be glad to see the back of him. I do not think anyone should be tortured. If that’s a concern, which it is, then as well as justifiably criticisng the UK Government (which of course is in cahoots with the Islamists in Syria/Libya, etc. and which uses the Qatada case as it’s PR vehicle in the opposite direction) for its rank hypocrisy, maybe we should be looking also at Jordan and why the regime there (and why all regimes in those countries) do what they do to their own people.
Habbabkuk, I thought you had some intelligence. If you read the article you will see that Abu Qatada, a family man, born in Bethlehem, and without any apparent criminal record in this country is a is a middle-eastern Muslim that the Home Secretary and David Cameron have, together with former prime ministers, tried to split up from his family. On the other hand Sean Patrick Breach a “white shit” is a serial white South African wife-beater who has an alleged criminal record in South Africa as well as here. One is a prime target for deportation – the other has not even been considered for deportation and nothing of his crimes (Kempe take note) appear in the mainstream media. I am posting the link again so that you can read it and make your own judgement.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2013/05/03/is-hatred-of-islam-the-uk-home-secretarys-religion/
Sub-contractors working on the gas supply in Birdcage Walk have cut through a water main which, apart from causing a flood, has deprived Downing Street, parts of Whitehall, the House of Lords and Wellington Barracks of their water supply. What a shame. Agent Cameron and the others are said to be not best pleased. That will teach them a lesson about privatising public services.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23248549
Tomorrow the £3bn privatisation of the Royal Mail kicks off. There will be a donation of shares (a bribe) to the staff. It will be the end of universal delivery to all parts of the UK for the same price and we will see hundreds of delivery vans running around all working for different companies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-mail/10167373/Royal-Mail-WILL-be-sold-off-in-biggest-state-privatisation-for-two-decades.html
Victoria Britain’s opinion of Abu Qatada is different to the general view.
I know Abu Qatada – he’s no terrorist
Security services and politicians turned this man into an Islamic counter-terrorism myth. If only they’d talked to him instead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/07/abu-qatada-no-terrorist
I haven’t looked at the 1140 comments but can guess at some of the content.
Abu Qatada allegedly is a very clever ideologue and what’s worse, a clever recruiter of youth who, it is reported, speaks one way in public, in English (allegedly to fool people) and another, when allegedly indocrinating gullible youths with his poisonous doctrine. He allegedly has links with training camps abroad. He also is an expert in theology – which the other, more theatrical, mullahs of hate were not. As I said, there must be no compromising of human rights, no matter how heinous the individual concerned. But there are individuals far more deserving of your good conscience, John, than Abu Qatada. It is people like him – his pals, actually – who are commiting much of the killing in Syria. It is a pity the issue has become a political football of the Far Right in this country. It’s bigger than that.
“If only they’d talked to him instead…” Flaming June.
Yeah, he’ll have told Ms Brittain exactly what she wanted to hear. As I said, he’s very clever. He knows how to milk liberals.
“… his moral standards could have been useful in engaging Muslim youth and healing the wounds in our divided society.” [from the Brittain article]
No, no, no! This man is a Far Right supremacist.
“The Guardian Newspaper reported that in 1995 Abu Qatada issued a fatwa justifying the killing of Muslims who renounce their faith, and of their families.” [from Wikipedia]
That’s just one example. This is the kind of man he is. So yes, let’s be absolute in our stand against evidence-from-torture, etc., but let’s not kid ourselves that this is a good man. In fact, our knowledge that he is not a good man and our steadfastness against torture actually strengthens our position.
Murdoch won’t have Wendi Deng to save him next time.
Rupert Murdoch Recalled By Commons Committee
The media mogul is asked to appear before MPs after a tape recording emerged of a meeting with journalists at his newspapers.
http://news.sky.com/story/1113515/rupert-murdoch-recalled-by-commons-committee
@ Suhayl
Thank you for those interesting posts on Abu Qatada. They are all the more valuable as the Eminences will not be able to shout “fascist” or “troll” or “hasbara agent” at YOU (this will of course deprive them of seven-eights of their ‘argument’)
I would actually have used a couple of your points for my “debate” with John Goss – once he would have started to debate by setting out his reasons for maintaining that Abu Qatada should NOT have been deported (if you read his latest, you’ll have seen that he hasn’t actually done so, preferring instead to introduce Sean Patrick Breach into the discussion).
From Flaming June re Abu Qatada:
“If only they’d talked to him instead”
_________
Well, according to some of your fellow-Eminences, they did – because they suggest that he was an MI6 asset.
No, seriously, this is a desperate argument. Oh, if only we’d have talked to x, y, z (fill in the names of some pretty unpleasant figures here yourselves), they wouldn’t have been so horrible!
And while I’m at it, calling another Fundo Preacher, Qaradawi, “progressive” is the height of naivete (to be kind to Ken Livingstone et al). Qaradawi and his ilk are NOT progressive. He’s Muslim Brotherhood – and we just saw what they were trying to do to Egyptians and we see what their pals are doing right now in Libya and Syria (with the help of MI6, the CIA, the Saudis/UAE and the French). That is what happens when these people get power. They are not, could never be, should never be, friends of the Left. We saw what their theocratic Shia equivalents in Iran did to the Left when they hijacked the Revolution of 1979 – mass murder. Bani Sadr had to flee Iran disguised as a woman, on the back of a donkey.
It is necessary to be against imperialism and in this regard, it is necessary clearly to see that one of the key tools of imperialism in the ‘Middle East’ is religious fundamentalism.
@ John Goss :
“Habbabkuk, I thought you had some intelligence. If you read the article you will see that Abu Qatada, a family man, born in Bethlehem, and without any apparent criminal record in this country is a is a middle-eastern Muslim that the Home Secretary and David Cameron have, together with former prime ministers, tried to split up from his family. On the other hand Sean Patrick Breach a “white shit” is a serial white South African wife-beater who has an alleged criminal record in South Africa as well as here. One is a prime target for deportation – the other has not even been considered for deportation and nothing of his crimes (Kempe take note) appear in the mainstream media.”
___________
I’m assuming that you read my post before posting the above; you’ll recall that I suggested that you start off the debate by saying why you maintain that Abu Qatada should NOT have been deported.
Does your post (reproduced above) constitute that statement of your reasons?
If so, I note that your reasons for opposing the deportation of Abu Qatada appear to be :
– that he is a family man born in Bethlehem
– that he has no apparent criminal record in the UK
– that various UK politicians have tried to split him from his family
– that he is in complete contrast to Sean Patrick Breach, who has however not been deported.
So before we go any further, please confirm that you have given me the reasons why you think that Abu Qatada should not have been deported and that those reasons are the ones eproduced above.
Thank you.
[Mod/Jon: excessive focussing on one particular poster, will continue to remove these]
First of all Habbabkuk, it was you who was “happy to discuss” why Abu Qatada should, or should not, have been deported to the torturous state of Jordan. Theresa May, and other home secretaries from the time of Blair and Bush’s ‘war on Islam’ as I prefer to call it, has imprisoned people, including Abu Qatada, people like Babar Ahmad and Syed Talha Ahsan for collectively more than 14 years without charge or trial. That is not what we used to do in this country. That is why I raised several FOI requests suggesting that the FCO might be illegally bigoted towards people of Muslim faith.
Suhayl you might be right, and I respect your opinion, but the Guardian timeline is not sourced. There are great writers on the Guardian, even more so since Glenn Greenwald joined. But those of us who have followed it over the years knows that the spooks have an input too. The bit about the Germans finding “recordings of some of his radical sermons in a home used by some of the September 11 attackers” in April 2002 is almost certainly disinformation of the nature of the videotapes of Osama Bin Laden found in caves.
It’s so good to have one’s comments copied out and repeated. Free double exposure.
“It’s so good to have one’s comments copied out and repeated. Free double exposure.”
______________
Absolutely, and always happy to be of service to a valuable and valued contributor.
There! I’ve done it again!
Man’s inhumanity to man.
In photos: Palestinian workers’ everyday nightmare at Israeli checkpoints
Daniel Tepper
Qalqiliya 9 July 2013
http://electronicintifada.net/content/photos-palestinian-workers-everyday-nightmare-israeli-checkpoints/12597
@ John Goss :
“First of all Habbabkuk, it was you who was “happy to discuss” why Abu Qatada should, or should not, have been deported to the torturous state of Jordan. Theresa May, and other home secretaries from the time of Blair and Bush’s ‘war on Islam’ as I prefer to call it, has imprisoned people, including Abu Qatada, people like Babar Ahmad and Syed Talha Ahsan for collectively more than 14 years without charge or trial. That is not what we used to do in this country. That is why I raised several FOI requests suggesting that the FCO might be illegally bigoted towards people of Muslim faith.”
______________
Let’s be clear : I originally asked whether there was anyone on this blog who thought that Abu Qatada should NOT be deported, and added that I should be happy to discuss.
Yo indicated that you were such a person but, apart from so indicating, you have not given me your reasons. Once I have them, I shall be able to answer them.
You did post some stuff but have not yet responded to my request to tell me whether that stuff constitutes your reasons for opposing Abu Qatada’s deportation and whether I have captured what you said accurately.
You have now posted yet more stuff, bringing in another couple of people in addition to the South African murderer you mentioned previously and recalling for the third time that you sent off a Freedom of Information request. But still no exposition of the reasons for which you are opposed to the deportation of Abu Qatada.
I’m seriously beginning to doubt your wish to discuss this question. If you are unwilling – or perhaps unable – to set out the reasons for your opinion, please just say so and we can drop the whole thing.
@ John Goss
And I have of course not failed to notice that you are doing your best to rubbish Suhayl’s sources, Suhayl having cast some doubt on the angelic and anti-terrorist disposition of the now departed Mr Qatada.
I think they must have taught you that trick at Party school along with the dialectical materialism, no?
Fred, I’m in mod-mode at the moment, so I won’t join in. But, in the interests of stimulating debate: either side of the independence campaign may have one or two unpleasant individuals willing to make death threats. However, neither side is going to publicly support that sort of thing, and 99% of unionists and 99% of independence supporters will not use this tactic.
With that in mind, it might be best not to rest your argument on “nationalists are violent” – in the main, this is a peaceful campaign, both ways. Can we focus instead on the political and economic effects (good or bad) of separation?
Thanks, John. Yes, that was just one example, as I said. Abu Qatada has been roundly criticised, his speeches and works negatively critiqued, by Islamic religious scholars (not just those in the UK, not just those of the obvious bodies) across the (sane) board whom he, in turn, has disparaged, and many others, not just by the spooks or elements of the Left or Right or whatever.
He also allegedly had systemic links with the Algerian GIS, an organisation that massacred civilians in the thousands (even other Islamist who were not sufficiently psychopathic) as, of course, did the Alegrian state during the civil war there of the 1990s. He’s been a key (practising and theoretician) Rightwing religious supremacist for many years.
As I said earlier, that is not to say that he automatically forfeits all rights or that we descend to the same level by using evidence gained through torture, imprisonment wihtout charge, etc. Everyone, even the biggest murdering bastard, is entitled to due process. I wish that for example, General Pinochet had been exposed to due process as had been demanded by the Spanish judge.
And I wish Anthony Blair would be exposed to due process.
Habbabkuk, this article is by Moazzam Begg. If your recall Moazzam Begg was one of the 779 men ever held in Guantanamo Bay, of which 15 were children. Of that huge total of Muslims (because I know of none practising other religions) only 13 have ever been charged with a crime, and 9 men have died there. Only 1 to my knowledge has been convicted. These figures speak for themselves. They are the joint intelligence of European countries, including the UK who condemn Muslims without them having committed a crime. Anybody who thinks differently needs to stop watching MSM. How good the intelligence is from intercepting people’s communications speaks for itself. But here is Moazzam Begg’s article. You worked out roughly what my arguments were as to why Abu Qatada should not have had to go to Jordan.
http://www.cageprisoners.com/our-work/opinion-editorial/item/4002-from-bethlehem-to-belmarsh-abu-qatada%E2%80%99s-ordeal-in-britain
He did not run away because he was a lefty. Bani Sadr was “planted” in among the leadership entourage from the word go, by the CIA. His handler was one Guy Rutherford purporting to represent Carver and Associates of Pennsylvania, US. However Guy Rutherford also was known as William Foster, and in fact was Vernon Cassin of the CIA. Cassin had been operating since mid 1950s in the mid east, and he was posted as the CIA Station Chief in Damascus, later being assigned as the Station Chief in Amman, Jordan. Cassin also had a close working relationship with Thomas Ahern the Station Chief in US Embassy in Tehran.
However, as ever any data concerning Iran does not necessarily need to be grounded in facts, so long as it conforms to the jaundiced view so prevalent with regards to all matters concerning Iran; portraying Iran in the most negative light, it should suffice. Fact that Bani Sadar was the fifth columnist sabotaging the Iranians war efforts, directed at countering the Saddams attacks, and defending Iran during the imposed war on Iran by Saddam. Hence his ignominious departure from Iran attired in tribal women’s outfit.
Well, who knows? Bani Sadr, of course denies that he was a CIA asset, saying only that they attempted to recruit him but that he rejected their overtures. Whatever, many thousands of leftists and others were murdered by the theocratic regimes in the early 1980s. My point here being that people on the Left should never, ever ally themselves with religious extermists because when they do, they usually end up dead.
But if you agree with Abu Qatada’s ‘preaching’ and alleged actions, then what can one say?
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NCwOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=Bani+Sadr,+CIA&source=bl&ots=56YKXwCXv9&sig=r0THqqDRg5nqh1z_0l5SPqMShgg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-oHcUafcKYi0hAf9mYCYAw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAjgK
@ John Goss:
On second thoughts, I shall take your last two posts as indicating the ‘reasons’ for which you are opposed to the deportation of Mr Qatada and go through them point by point. When reading, please keep in mlind what Suhayl has posted.
Perhaps that will encourage you to engage in the discussion you have indicated you want.
Firstly, let me point out two facts :
1/. There is nothing in international law granting aliens the unconditional right of entry into the territory of a state or, if the alien is already in the territory of that state, the unconditional right to remain.
2/. UK Home Secretaries have absolute discretion in matters of right of entry and deportation, subject only to the provisions of relevant international law (notably the ECHR and EU legislation).
Now to your posts, taking the latest one first.
a) “..deported to the torturous (sic) state of Jordan.”
The basis of Mr Qatada’s suit at the ECtHR was that evidence at the retrial he would face in Jordan might have been obtained by torture and that his trial would therefore be contrary to the ECHR’s provisions on the right to a fair trial. This objection has now been met by the recently-negotiated Agreement between the UK and Jordan that any such evidence would not be used at his trial. It therefore falls.
________
b) “..has imprisoned people, including Abu Qatada, people like Babar Ahmad and Syed Talha Ahsan for collectively more than 14 years without charge or trial.”
Irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion on two counts : (1) we are discussing the case of Mr Qatada and not Messrs Ahmad and Ahsan; (2) we are discussing the deportation and not what preceded it.
________
c) “That is not what we used to do in this country.”
This is not accurate : deportation powers have been used by successive Home Secretaries as far back as I can remember. Even if they had not been, this cannot be a reason as we are discussing a specific case of deportation now. If your reference is to 14 years of imprisonment, please see above under point b)
d) “That is why I raised several FOI requests suggesting that the FCO might be illegally bigoted towards people of Muslim faith”
The fact that you have submitted a FOI request is not a reason why Mr Qatada should not have been deported. And, by the way, if it were, you should have addressed it to the Home Department and not the FCO
_________
Now on to your first post.
e) “Abu Qatada, a family man, born in Bethlehem”
Irrelevant for the purpose of arguing that he should not be deported (by the way, he is a Jordanian citizen – and is a fugitive from Jordanian justice, wanted for retrial in Jordan.
f) “…Home Secretary and David Cameron have, together with former prime ministers, tried to split up from his family.”
Untrue (and therefore invalid as a reason). Mr Qatada’s suit at the ECHR, interestingly enough, was based on the claimed violation of his right to a fair trial and not to the right to have a family (or ‘enjoy a family life”). The UK govt wants hum out because he is deemed to be a threat to the security of the UK and that his poresence is not conducive to the public good. In adddition to which, he is wanted for retrial in a friendly state.
_______
g) “On the other hand Sean Patrick Breach a “white shit” is a serial white South African wife-beater who has an alleged criminal record in South Africa as well as here. One is a prime target for deportation – the other has not even been considered for deportation and nothing of his crimes (Kempe take note) appear in the mainstream media.”
All irrelevant to the question of whether Mr Qatada should have been deported or not. I think you might agree that each case should be dealt with on its own merits and the absence of action in one case should not bear on another?
************
Now, having re-read the above, I am forced to one of two conclusions:
1/. Either you have set out your reasons for opposing the deportation of Mr Qatada in those two posts of yours, in which case I think that I’ve shown that those ‘reasons’ are either irrelevant or erroneous
2/ Or your two posts have just been you sounding off and you have not so far seen fit to put the reasons for your opinion into the arena of discussion. If this is the case, I now again invite you to do so.
“However, as ever any data concerning Iran does not necessarily need to be grounded in facts, so long as it conforms to the jaundiced view so prevalent with regards to all matters concerning Iran; portraying Iran in the most negative light, it should suffice.” Fedup.
Not by me. No evidence of that whatsoever.
@ Suhayl
I expected better from you. He HAS been subject to due process, for Christ’s sake – why do you think it took years to get rid of him?
Habbabkuk, I was not suggesting that Abu Qatada hadn’t been subjected to due process. I was reinforcing the importance of due process in all cases, and also of not obtaining ‘evidence’ via torture, the latter of which I think had been an issue in this case.
Talha Ahsan, on the other hand, for example, in my view, has not had the benefit of proper due process. There may be the impression of due process in the Ahsan case, but that is not enough.
“My point here being that people on the Left should never, ever ally themselves with religious extermists because when they do, they usually end up dead.” Me.
Also of course because Right-wing religious supremacism is completely antithetical to everything the Left is supposed to satnd for. In majority-Muslim countries, for example, people on the Left are totally opposed to the religious extremists. No left-wing leader would ever dream of celebrating Al Qaradawi as “progressive” like Ken Livingstone did. And the SWP at times also at times behaves in an apologetic manner. We must get away from this ‘Third Worldism’.