Controversy surrounds moves by the British government to round up and deport so-called "preachers of hate", reports Ahmed Reda from London In a country best known for its liberal and democratic traditions, moves to deport certain foreign nationals from Britain have kicked up quite a fuss. Immigration officers supported by police rounded up 10 men, including Muslim cleric Abu Qatada, labelled "Al-Qaeda's ambassador in Europe"; the move in response to pressure on the government following the 7 July attacks in London which killed 52 people. Most of the men are Algerian former detainees of Belmarsh prison, where they were held without trial for as long as three years before the House of Lords ruled it illegal. Some face being sent back to Algeria. British government officials indicated that they have a tough legal battle on their hands. Reputedly, the government struck a deal with Jordan that would allow Abu Qatada to be deported to Amman without prospect of facing capital punishment after arrival. London is trying to appease human rights activists who staunchly oppose the deportations. Party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Britain is prohibited from extraditing individuals to countries where they may face the death penalty, torture or cruel or inhuman treatment. Government sources signalled that the deal with Jordan and upcoming deals with other countries would help their case and convince the courts. Nonetheless, the chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service, Keith Best, admitted that there could be years of wrangling in court over the deportations. It is expected the men will appeal against detention and deportation, actions that would forestall any immediate departure. The legal battle would involve not only the House of Lords but also the ECHR in Strasbourg. A succession of potential deportees has managed to stay in Britain citing Article 3 of the ECHR. Gareth Peirce, lawyer for seven of the 10 men, described the government's actions as "insane and dangerous", confirming that legal challenges were "inevitable". Peirce also criticised a plan by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, to dictate how judges should interpret the 1998 Human Rights Act. Lord Falconer's plans, Peirce told BBC Radio 4's Today programme, were "a constitutional challenge of the highest order". Political parties and a large section of the British media welcomed news of the intended deportations, though some feared that the process would take too long to complete. Liberal Democrat spokesman Mark Oaten said his party supported the deportation of the 10, but said the "memorandum of understanding" with foreign countries would only work if subject to thorough independent assessment. Hazel Blears, counter- terrorism minister, said the memorandum was "a framework in which we can obtain specific assurances for specific individuals". The Times, in one editorial, said: "Proceedings could, in theory, be stretched out for years. That would be completely unacceptable. It would also be the result, in large part, of the over- interpretation of the law by judges at each stage. Human rights activists claim attempting to browbeat the judiciary into supporting hasty decisions on civil liberties could have lasting and damaging consequences. But the converse is also true. Judges empowered by the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law should be extremely wary of judicial activism that is clearly contrary to the national interest... Security will be enhanced, especially for Muslims, if the enemies of tolerance are removed from our shores." The Independent described the matter saying, "the detention of 10 foreign nationals... as a prelude, the home secretary said, to their deportation, is a highly retrograde step. It takes civil and judicial rights in this country back to where they were before the law lords delivered their swinging condemnation of the government's anti- terrorist legislation last year -- and then some. And it clearly has less to do with the law as such than with the new political climate that has come about in the wake of the recent attacks on London. Almost everything about these detentions smacks of the sort of repressive society that Britain has traditionally not been and must never become ... In a law-governed state which prides itself on its tolerance of free speech and its respect for rights, anyone suspected of involvement in terrorism should be charged, tried and judged under the law as it stands. Anything else is a betrayal of what we stand for." Meanwhile, an Islamic scholar said that radical preachers such as Omar Bakri Mohamed "should have been deported from England many years ago" for encouraging suicide attacks which were never part of Islam-sanctioned warfare. Salafi scholar Abu Khadija, speaking on the sidelines of a two-day conference entitled "Orthodox Islam's War on Terror" at the As-Salafi Mosque in Birmingham, said it was vital to educate Muslim youths that suicide bombing was not a glorious death but a theological perversion. Extremists, he said, are "shrouding" the killing of innocents with Quranic verses, and had been free to preach hate "for at least 15 years" prior to 7 July. After announcing the "new rules of the game", a poll conducted by Market and Opinion Research International indicated that 44 per cent of the public said they were satisfied with Tony Blair, up from 39 per cent in June and 33 per cent in the beginning of the year. Forty-seven per cent of all those polled in July said they were dissatisfied with Blair, down from 52 per cent in June and 58 per cent in January. In recent days, Blair has caught flak from both flanks, as liberals slam tough measures they feel will jeopardise civil liberties while conservatives attack the government for not moving swiftly enough against extremists who have long found sanctuary in the country.
