Bakiri BANNED from the UK!

[bhaexpress]

He may have used a false passport, but this is fairly common practice for those fleeing from oppressive countries with a tendency to murder first and question later. I don't think we generally prosecute these people for false documentation. Doesn't make him innocent though!

I don't think that there can be much doubt that he's abused the hospitality of this country. Had he not been an alleged high profile muslim cleric but some leery Frenchman he probably would have been kicked out long ago. Why he decided to hop off to the Lebanan is anybody's guess.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

I wonder how long I would be tolerated in a Moslem country if I lived there and openly preached against Moslem values and beliefs etc. Not very long I suspect and I doubt whether my human rights would count for very much either. We are well rid of Bakiri I believe.

Precisely - and as I think LI knows full well, he is not entitled to due process of English law simply because he has claimed, and been given, asylum for 20 years! His children, born in this country, are entitled to the protection that English law affords, but he is here under the protection of the asylum laws - which are subject to review as required, and the repatriation of those granted asylum may be made dependant on changes in the situation of the asylum seeker. I think his situation has changed, and his asylum status can therefore be reviewed and/or revoked.

 

[Zebedee]

I don't think that there can be much doubt that he's abused the hospitality of this country. Had he not been an alleged high profile muslim cleric but some leery Frenchman he probably would have been kicked out long ago. Why he decided to hop off to the Lebanan is anybody's guess.

Let's just be grateful he's gone.

 

[Gerbil]

Surely nobody can be glad he's gone can they.

Doesn't that make you a racist or a Nazi on here?

 

[Zebedee]

Surely nobody can be glad he's gone can they.

Doesn't that make you a racist or a Nazi on here?

Not in my book.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Bakri now seems to have been released by the Lebanese, but remains excluded from the UK as a person not conducive to the public good. His family remain unaffected by the decision, as his children are English, and his wife is not known to be linked to his activities. They will receive benefits, his will stop.

We will also be getting rid of Qatada as well, who can look forward to life imprisonment in Jordan. So that should be a short sentence then!

 

[DJ Leon]

I would prefer it if the government could publish its evidence that there might be some connection between this man's rantings and the bombings.

If there is NO evidence, I would do nothing with him.

Deporting or excluding individuals might just be a diversionary tactic to give the impression that something is being done.

Finding the connection between Bakri and the bombings isn't necessarily the point - his is a wider crime of inciting terrorism, which is what the government want to crack down on.

The effects of these new laws will probably never be tangible, but the big question; do they need to be?

I'm a liberal, and I am concerned about the effect all of this will have on civil liberties, but surely in some cases the ends (preventing people dying, protecting our safety) justifies the means (ditching due process)?

 

[m20gull]

I'm a liberal, and I am concerned about the effect all of this will have on civil liberties, but surely in some cases the ends (preventing people dying, protecting our safety) justifies the means (ditching due process)?

No it doesn't. Our civil lliberties have been fought for and won over centuries of struggle against many foes. They should not be given up because your current enemy is harder to spot.

I have no idea whether Bakri deserves to stay because I don't know what he has been saying - and if you rely on press reports to form your opinions neither do you. It does seem that he doesn't consider himself to be in danger in Lebanon anymore so "goodbye".

That sounds like due process being observed to me, but that process should also be subect to test in the courts - not "should he stay?" but "was process followed?". A bit like the potential judical review if the Falmer enquiry isn't followed.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

m20gull is absolutely right about the importance of "due process". The high profile exclusions will inevitably be subject to a lot of scrutiny... through a wide range of public media.

It's what might happen below the level of the high profile cases that we need to be worried about. Once faceless bureaucrats get the authority to exclude individuals on the basis of unchallengable suspicions that are justified solely on the grounds of "the public good" (whatever that is), then everyone's civil liberties are seriously threatened.

A friend of mine was once detained at a German airport, apparently on the grounds that he looked a bit like one of the Baader-Meinhof gang. He says that it was a frightening Kafka-esque experience.

I've also known situations where people have discovered that they have been under quite ridiculous surveillance from Special Branch.

Up to now, the individual - every individual, 'citizen' or not - has had the right to challenge such abuses. What is worrying is that the public mood seems to be close to accepting that such a right might be worth setting aside because of the special circumstances of the moment.

I say NO.

 

[DJ Leon]

No it doesn't. Our civil lliberties have been fought for and won over centuries of struggle against many foes. They should not be given up because your current enemy is harder to spot.

I have no idea whether Bakri deserves to stay because I don't know what he has been saying - and if you rely on press reports to form your opinions neither do you. It does seem that he doesn't consider himself to be in danger in Lebanon anymore so "goodbye".

That sounds like due process being observed to me, but that process should also be subect to test in the courts - not "should he stay?" but "was process followed?". A bit like the potential judical review if the Falmer enquiry isn't followed.

We have indeed fought for our freedom for centuries and in doing so have regularly abandoned our notions of civil liberties where we thought it was necessary to win.

Which is more important - someone's freedom of speech or someone's right to to live in a protected safe environment? Becasue Bakri and his ilk are a challenge to our saftey and freedom.

The situation is the same for fascists. Freedom of speech is all well and good but what about when it challenges our more basic human rights? Our right to live in a democracy? Where do you draw the line. it's a moral maze.

 

[NMH]

I know some people off council estates who will probably commit a crime.

Shouldn't we just lock them up now, thus preventing them from doing it?

If they are probably going to encourage terrorism, mass murder or mayhem designed to bring our country to its' knees - then my answer is a resounding YES.

Why do YOU think we should waste time on persecuting these terrorists (and that is an umbrella term for ANY and EVERYone who will not act against terror threats) within our own home country (when they are foreign nationals), just to exact British Justice upon them in a businesslike manner? If it's KNOWN that they are malcontents and have already approved of violence and general endangerment of public safety and security - I personally see no reason to dwell upon them, give them a cell, medical attention, and feed them within our country that gave THEM a safe home!

 

[NMH]

m20gull is absolutely right about the importance of "due process". The high profile exclusions will inevitably be subject to a lot of scrutiny... through a wide range of public media.

It's what might happen below the level of the high profile cases that we need to be worried about. Once faceless bureaucrats get the authority to exclude individuals on the basis of unchallengable suspicions that are justified solely on the grounds of "the public good" (whatever that is), then everyone's civil liberties are seriously threatened.

A friend of mine was once detained at a German airport, apparently on the grounds that he looked a bit like one of the Baader-Meinhof gang. He says that it was a frightening Kafka-esque experience.

I've also known situations where people have discovered that they have been under quite ridiculous surveillance from Special Branch.

Up to now, the individual - every individual, 'citizen' or not - has had the right to challenge such abuses. What is worrying is that the public mood seems to be close to accepting that such a right might be worth setting aside because of the special circumstances of the moment.

I say NO.

I too was subjected to some search procedures during Bader Meinhof time, as I was a traveller with a rucksack in N Germany. It was understandable that the machine-gun toting cops were doing their jobs, and 'tough luck' for anyone who found it fearsome or disturbed their 'nice day'.

Should we really be about the only country in the whole World that is civil enough to leave potential terror-merchants and enemies alone while we are at WAR?!

Personally I don't believe we should even be at war in Iraq, but since we are, then the measures to protect home security are necessary. I only want the enforcers to get it right (and not kill innocent Brazillians).

Shutting out this person who speaks out in favour of terrorists is getting it right. The reason we are even involved in a war in Iraq is because of terrorists, and the prime blame for this war is theirs.