Bakiri BANNED from the UK!

[London Irish]

The problem about protecting civil liberties is that it's very easy to defend the civil liberties of people who are cuddly, friendly and nice. It takes backbone and principle to defend the civil liberties of the popularly despised and the scorned.

But does Bakiri technically share the same rights and civil liberties as a British Citizen? Especially when he has left the country of his own free will to go on holiday? It would be interesting to find out what the law is on this particular case. As a non British citizen does he have the same rights to come back into Britain as a British citizen?

I would say as he has been granted aslyum here for 20 years and all his family are British, he is entitled to due process in this country, yes.

 

[The British National Party]

One down 10 to go that have been arrested. Hope many more follow. When they're deported and land in shit holes like Jordan and are given mud huts to live in then they'll have plenty of time to dwell on the beautiful country they've abused and had the life of luxury.

Hope they all rot in hell.

 

[NMH]

Read it with your tongue wherever you want it to be.

I just think it's a pity that we're kicking someone out (with no trial I may add) for something he has SAID.

Oh, do we have to wait until we can kick him out for something he has DONE?
Perhaps just being linked with terrorist activities isn't enough, we civilised people of Britain have to be actively attacked before we can complain.

yeah, right!

 

[NMH]

ok, so I haven't been keeping up with this thread apparently!

Anyway, speaking up politically is a whole lot different from encouraging, inciting, providing, or in any way supporting terrorist activity against the country that is hosting you, providing for you, giving to you, keeping you alive and healthy.

Some people don't know what they have until it's gone, so let their own homeland take away their freedoms - and let them miss the luxuries they once enjoyed in the safe free haven they had with us.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

One down 10 to go that have been arrested. Hope many more follow. When they're deported and land in shit holes like Jordan and are given mud huts to live in then they'll have plenty of time to dwell on the beautiful country they've abused and had the life of luxury.

Hope they all rot in hell.

That's a point of view.

But what difference will it make to national security?

Obviously, NSC can only speculate about that. I'd simply like the government to tell us. The problem with deportations and exclusions is that they conveniently don't have to.

 

[Phil B]

I just think it's a pity that we're kicking someone out (with no trial I may add) for something he has SAID.

We haven't kicked him out.

We're just not letting him back in .....!

 

[JonC]

Oh, do we have to wait until we can kick him out for something he has DONE?

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?

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

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?

Which part of the point are we missing here? He has already committed a crime - that of inciting racial and religious hatred. It must be more than coincidence that he chose now to leg it abroad to visit his sick mum, just as the anti-terrorism laws were being ramped up, but he has been caught out. We are not deporting him, nor are we preventing him from re-entering the country under new legislation.

He has now been arrested for previous crimes (the ones that he ran here to avoid prosecution for), and therefore can be prevented from re-entering the country because he has breached the terms of his asylum. Simple.

 

[bhaexpress]

Which part of the point are we missing here? He has already committed a crime - that of inciting racial and religious hatred. It must be more than coincidence that he chose now to leg it abroad to visit his sick mum, just as the anti-terrorism laws were being ramped up, but he has been caught out. We are not deporting him, nor are we preventing him from re-entering the country under new legislation.

He has now been arrested for previous crimes (the ones that he ran here to avoid prosecution for), and therefore can be prevented from re-entering the country because he has breached the terms of his asylum. Simple.

Not that I'm against the refusal to let him re-enter the country but has he actually been charged with anything other than entering the country under false pretences ? (More than enough to prohibit his reentry as a matter of immigration law admittedly)

 

[Yorkie]

We haven't kicked him out.

We're just not letting him back in .....!

Good point well made.

 

[Zebedee]

Reading the article it looks like the Syrians may well do that for us.

If they did, I doubt many would shed any tears...and quite rightly so.

 

[JonC]

Which part of the point are we missing here? He has already committed a crime - that of inciting racial and religious hatred. It must be more than coincidence that he chose now to leg it abroad to visit his sick mum, just as the anti-terrorism laws were being ramped up, but he has been caught out. We are not deporting him, nor are we preventing him from re-entering the country under new legislation.

He has now been arrested for previous crimes (the ones that he ran here to avoid prosecution for), and therefore can be prevented from re-entering the country because he has breached the terms of his asylum. Simple.

Which part don't you get?

If he has committed these crimes, then why don't we let him back in and charge him in a criminal court?

 

[Yorkie]

Which part don't you get?

If he has committed these crimes, then why don't we let him back in and charge him in a criminal court?

Why should we waste tax payers money on letting a Syrian national into this country and trying him in a court.

Far easier to prevent him coming back.
He isn't entitled to come here in the first place.

There are many countries in the world where you cannot visit if you have been arrested in your own country.

Why should we be any different?

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Which part don't you get?

If he has committed these crimes, then why don't we let him back in and charge him in a criminal court?

Because, and I am typing this really slowly so you don't miss the point again, he has been arrested abroad and is not coming back! He will be passed to the Syrians for prosecution. He is not a British citizen that we would ask for extradition to be enforced, he is an asylum seeker who is now in breach of his conditions of asylum.

He SHOULD have been arrested and charged before this point, but he has a wealth of human rights lawyers falling over themselves to defend him - even if we got him back, it could take up to 7 years to process him because of the appeals procedures.

 

[Zebedee]

its not a free speach issue hes a threat to national security.


hes out now and he's staying out.

The security of this country is far, far more important that the human rights of any one individual, especially someone who is so clearly anti-UK in everything he says and does. It's about time we toughened up our approach and long may it continue.

 

[bhaexpress]

Which part don't you get?

If he has committed these crimes, then why don't we let him back in and charge him in a criminal court?

He entered this country illegally and that alone is more than enough to prohibit his reentry irrespective of anything else he is accused of (in the press). There's little doubt however that this obnoxious character was one of the celebrants after 9/11, dancing about outside the Mosque in Islington. I was working up there at the time and Arsenal had a home game two days later. Some of these guys were still celebrating as the Arsenal fans left Highbury and walked down the Holloway Road. Needless to say the celebrations were brought to an abrupt halt.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Not that I'm against the refusal to let him re-enter the country but has he actually been charged with anything other than entering the country under false pretences ? (More than enough to prohibit his reentry as a matter of immigration law admittedly)

He was not here under false pretences - he was in real fear for his life because of his previous activities. He has now gone to a country which has acted on the request of the Syrians to detain him.

He has not been charged with an offence under UK law, although he should have been, and now we don't need to charge him. Let's be honest, once the Syrians get him, then the "accident" is only a short time coming!

 

[bhaexpress]

He was not here under false pretences - he was in real fear for his life because of his previous activities. He has now gone to a country which has acted on the request of the Syrians to detain him.

He has not been charged with an offence under UK law, although he should have been, and now we don't need to charge him. Let's be honest, once the Syrians get him, then the "accident" is only a short time coming!

I stand corrected but my understanding was that he entered using a forged passport. But if that was the case why has he been allowed to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal aid fighting departation ?

 

[Zebedee]

I would say as he has been granted aslyum here for 20 years and all his family are British, he is entitled to due process in this country, yes.

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.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

I stand corrected but my understanding was that he entered using a forged passport.

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!