Casual racism underlies the decision to deport a man who has never been charged with a crime on the basis of secret evidence
Comments (321)
Victoria Brittain
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 18 February 2009 11.30 GMT
Article history
The law lords' decision to uphold the Home Office appeal to deport Mohamed Othman, also known as Abu Qatada, to face a military trial on terrorism charges in Jordan marks a low moment in British justice. The meaningless George Bush phrase "war on terror" may have now been expunged from the official discourse, but, in their different ways, figures as distinguished as the former head of MI5, Stella Rimington, and the former senior law lord Lord Bingham have pointed out this very week, the erosion of civil liberties in Britain under the justification of combating terrorism continues apace.
Othman's civil liberties, and the right to respect for private and family life embodied in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, are no different from anyone else's. The Othman family came here as refugees. Othman has never been charged or tried for any crime in this country. The evidence on which the law lords made their decision was heard in secret, and neither Othman nor his lawyers have the right to know what it is so that it could be challenged. This system of secret evidence against Muslims accused of terrorism is manifestly unjust, and should be denounced by parliament, along with torture, Guantánamo, secret prisons around the world and renditions.
The law lords' judgment joined Othman's case with that of two Algerian men known as Mr U and Mr RB, whom the Home Office wants to deport to Algeria, and who, like him, have spent most of the last seven years in Belmarsh or Long Lartin prisons, or under the effective house arrest regime of control orders. (The two Algerians still have an appeal pending in the court of appeal, unlike Othman, whose lawyers immediately lodged in the European court in Strasbourg an appeal for a stay on his 72 hours for deportation as a result of today's judgment.)
The British security services and the media have successfully demonised these men, and in particular mythologised Othman as posing a super-danger to our society. No proof of any of the damning things repeatedly said and written about him has ever been produced. The fact that he condemned both 9/11 and the London 7/7 bombings has been conveniently forgotten.
Since Othman's bail was revoked in December after a November hearing with secret evidence, he has been in Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire. The day he returned, access to gym and education facilities were withdrawn without explanation from those in the special security wing for Muslim prisoners. Othman's family visits were made in a special secure room where his conversations with his wife and children were taped.
The three men were referred to as "aliens" in the judgment, underlining the attitude that led to the law lords deciding that the issue of torture in the countries where these people are being deported is not the business of the court, and that diplomatic assurances that they will not be tortured are satisfactory. Human rights organisations have repeatedly named both Algeria and Jordan as countries where torture is routine.
The casual racism that allows our society to treat these men's human rights as different from our own is an old cancer in Britain that we prefer to forget. We cannot afford to.
Comments (321)
Victoria Brittain
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 18 February 2009 11.30 GMT
Article history
The law lords' decision to uphold the Home Office appeal to deport Mohamed Othman, also known as Abu Qatada, to face a military trial on terrorism charges in Jordan marks a low moment in British justice. The meaningless George Bush phrase "war on terror" may have now been expunged from the official discourse, but, in their different ways, figures as distinguished as the former head of MI5, Stella Rimington, and the former senior law lord Lord Bingham have pointed out this very week, the erosion of civil liberties in Britain under the justification of combating terrorism continues apace.
Othman's civil liberties, and the right to respect for private and family life embodied in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, are no different from anyone else's. The Othman family came here as refugees. Othman has never been charged or tried for any crime in this country. The evidence on which the law lords made their decision was heard in secret, and neither Othman nor his lawyers have the right to know what it is so that it could be challenged. This system of secret evidence against Muslims accused of terrorism is manifestly unjust, and should be denounced by parliament, along with torture, Guantánamo, secret prisons around the world and renditions.
The law lords' judgment joined Othman's case with that of two Algerian men known as Mr U and Mr RB, whom the Home Office wants to deport to Algeria, and who, like him, have spent most of the last seven years in Belmarsh or Long Lartin prisons, or under the effective house arrest regime of control orders. (The two Algerians still have an appeal pending in the court of appeal, unlike Othman, whose lawyers immediately lodged in the European court in Strasbourg an appeal for a stay on his 72 hours for deportation as a result of today's judgment.)
The British security services and the media have successfully demonised these men, and in particular mythologised Othman as posing a super-danger to our society. No proof of any of the damning things repeatedly said and written about him has ever been produced. The fact that he condemned both 9/11 and the London 7/7 bombings has been conveniently forgotten.
Since Othman's bail was revoked in December after a November hearing with secret evidence, he has been in Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire. The day he returned, access to gym and education facilities were withdrawn without explanation from those in the special security wing for Muslim prisoners. Othman's family visits were made in a special secure room where his conversations with his wife and children were taped.
The three men were referred to as "aliens" in the judgment, underlining the attitude that led to the law lords deciding that the issue of torture in the countries where these people are being deported is not the business of the court, and that diplomatic assurances that they will not be tortured are satisfactory. Human rights organisations have repeatedly named both Algeria and Jordan as countries where torture is routine.
The casual racism that allows our society to treat these men's human rights as different from our own is an old cancer in Britain that we prefer to forget. We cannot afford to.
No comments:
Post a Comment