| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| The last days of Londonistan |
| 2005-07-27 |
| The London bombings have spurred the British government into proposing a series of new laws designed to put an end to the reputation of the capital as "Londonistan", a centre for militant Islam. It wants to create offences such as "indirect incitement to terrorism", "acts preparatory to terrorism" and using the internet for terrorist recruitment and training. It also wants to make it easier to deport foreign nationals who openly preach jihad and violence. However, one attempted deportation shows how human rights legislation and its interpretation by the judiciary can prevent the executive in a Western democracy from simply exercising its will. At a time when al-Qaeda and its associates are showing a resilience and ability to strike at widespread targets in London and Egypt - let alone Iraq - the government feels such legal protections must be looked at again. The case in point is that of Muhammad al-Massari, an exile from Saudi Arabia, who runs a website that shows videos of suicide bomb attacks in Iraq, including one in which three British soldiers were killed. An extended interview with Mr al-Massari was shown in a BBC television documentary about how the internet is an integral part of the far-flung al-Qaeda network, of which the Iraqi insurgents led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are part. In the 1990s, Mr al-Massari ran a group in London called the Committee for the Defence of Legal Rights. At that time, he specialised in sending faxes into Saudi Arabia to promote his cause. According to a British official who has tracked the case, the Saudi government told the British authorities at the time that he was more Islamic militant than human rights activist. "He opposed the Saudi royal family from an Islamist point of view. He thought, and probably still does, that it was not Islamic enough, that it was corrupt and decadent," the official said. "The royal family was not greatly amused." During the Conservative government of John Major, a high-level assurance was given to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah that Britain would send Mr al-Massari back. That is when the legal problems began. The case was handed to an unusually senior British official, a sign of how important it was deemed. For the next 18 months, this official spoke to almost every lawyer in the government but was blocked at every turn. The issue was that of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, which says in Article 32: "The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order." Government lawyers said that British national security was not sufficiently engaged, even though the then-Home Secretary Michael Howard argued that British interests in the Gulf were at risk from Mr al-Massari's activities. Eventually, another route was explored. "We looked at whether another country might take him," said the British official. "We narrowed it down to about 10. They all said that they would like to help but always added that their relations with Saudi Arabia might be jeopardised. Finally it came down to one - Dominica." Dominica, a former British colony, is a volcanic dot in the Caribbean, one of the lushest of the West Indian islands and about as far away from the Middle East as you can get. It had been run for 15 years by a tough prime minister named Eugenia Charles, an admirer of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Dominica agreed to take the Saudi exile. "Massari appealed and the court upheld his appeal," said the official. " It held that although Dominica had signed the 1951 Convention, this was not incorporated into its domestic law, so there was a chance he would be sent on somewhere else. We could not get rid of him." The promise to the Crown Prince could not be fulfilled. The Saudis were not pleased. Mr al-Massari was eventually allowed to stay in Britain and is now protected even more because of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into British law by the Human Rights Act of 1998. It prevents anyone from being deported if there is a risk of them being tortured, which is against Article 3 of the Convention. "The Saudis have offered assurances that he would not be tortured," said the British official, "but the lawyers said this was not enough." Whether the government tries to deport Muhammad al-Massari again, especially after the considerable satisfaction he appeared to show in displaying his video of the deaths of the three British soldiers, remains to be seen. The government's frustration showed when Prime Minister Tony Blair said at a news conference on Tuesday that judges had been "blocking" deportations. "Other countries have managed perfectly well, consistent with human rights, to expel people who are inciting in other countries. "We have tried to get rid of them and been blocked. I think there has been too great a caution in saying: 'Sorry this is unacceptable.'" Some favour more radical solutions than hoping for a more compliant judiciary. Sir Andrew Green, a former senior British diplomat who now runs campaign group Migration Watch UK, says there needs to be "fundamental review of the whole system". "We should withdraw from the 1951 Convention and have a national convention for asylum which would cut out the abuse. We should also withdraw from Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention and re-enter with a new provision," he said. But a warning against such an approach has come from none other than Mr Blair's wife, Cherie Booth, a lawyer. She told a conference in Malaysia that Britain should not take measures that would "cheapen our right to call ourselves a civilised country". Other European countries are facing the same dilemma. France's Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy has said recently that he will deport more Muslim clerics preaching violence. In October last year, after a case which went right up to the highest administrative body, the Council of State, France sent an imam back to Algeria. Germany has sometimes also been accused of harbouring militant Islamist preachers and in January this year it, too, acquired new powers of deportation. The Social Democratic Interior Minister Otto Schily called the new law a "historic breakthrough" and a "blessing for Germany". |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #19 No way .com! - *I* want to go to L-5 before some stinkin' Jihadi. SPoD's got the right idea. I have 'The High Frontier' by Gerard K O'Neill not 3 feet from my head - I thought the future might be like that, but we're not there just yet... |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2005-07-27 22:31 |
| #18 Any of the Lagrange points, L1-L5, would suit. No jurisdictional problems there, I'm sure. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-27 20:32 |
| #17 We don't need to OWN the moon to deport them TO the moon, rjschwarz! But it would be cheaper to just drop them off somewhere between London and Bermuda. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-27 20:21 |
| #16 Yes, we Brits will defend ourselves. We'll swat the jihadis away with our rolled-up copies of the Radio Times. |
| Posted by: The Shining Skull 2005-07-27 20:14 |
| #15 rjschwarz No problem. If we did we can just withdraw from it when we need to. Nobody else is really close to getting there. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-07-27 16:32 |
| #14 Screw it, just hire some "out of work" Bulgarians who used to deport people from the quick to the dead and be done with it. I don't believe that in the UK the government faces the "restraints" we do here, they just act as if they do. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-07-27 16:16 |
| #13 I could be wrong but I think the US signed a treaty stating that nobody could claim the moon or other space objects. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-07-27 16:14 |
| #12 We left our flag all over the moon. IT'S US TERRITORY. No treaty problem of any sort for the US (not UK) to send folks there. Don't see any requirement for an internal prison to have oxygen either. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-07-27 15:58 |
| #11 "Ms. Danielle - Mars would be better..." Not true, Mars might conceivably support life.... |
| Posted by: Slinens Angising3508 2005-07-27 14:41 |
| #10 Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security Check! or public order." Check!. Whats the hold-up? Don't let the infidel door hit you in the ass as you go. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-07-27 14:40 |
| #9 The issue was that of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, which says in Article 32: "The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order." Mr al-Massari was eventually allowed to stay in Britain and is now protected even more because of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into British law by the Human Rights Act of 1998. No entangling treaties! (hat tip to Thomas Jefferson) Hey MS, tell me again why the UN, ICC and Kyoto are good for America? Physcho Hillbilly Slayer of Routing Loops |
| Posted by: Psycho Hillbilly 2005-07-27 14:25 |
| #8 The President wants to return to the moon, which would make a great desolate internment camp Ms. Danielle - Mars would be better... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-07-27 13:53 |
| #7 Deporting terrorists to Dominica only exports terror cells and gives them new staging ground and smuggling routes. Dominica is not an unihabited island in the middle of no where; it is uncomfortably close in the Caribbean. The President wants to return to the moon, which would make a great desolate internment camp, IMHO. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2005-07-27 13:20 |
| #6 What Hyper said. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-27 12:24 |
| #5 Keep it up, judiciary & lawyers on both sides of the pond. When a government won't protect it's law abiding citizens, they will protect themselves. |
| Posted by: Hyper 2005-07-27 12:08 |
| #4 "Backlash City"? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-27 11:00 |
| #3 Londonstan is a stupid term because 'stan is used for nations not cities. I suggest Londobad and the United Caliphate of Great Britianistan and North Ireland. |
| Posted by: Muhammad al-Massari 2005-07-27 10:58 |
| #2 Surely there is some uninhabited island somewhere that can be used as a holding pen during contested deportations. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-27 10:31 |
| #1 Deportation is great against the furriners, but what are you going to do with the home-grown jihadi pigs? |
| Posted by: BH 2005-07-27 10:29 |