Standing In The Way Of Control

I expect the blogosphere (i.e. the bits of it that other people actually read) is awash with outrage that Islamist Abu Qatada cannot be deported form the UK to Jordan.

Certainly that is my gut reaction.  I despise what Qatada supposedly stands for - superstitious beliefs, enforced compliance with those beliefs on others, suppression of women, wearing silly clothes.  I'd prefer that he wasn't in my country.

However, Qatada is clearly being demonised to satisfy a national craving for hatred of 'the other'.  Reading the BBC's summary*, a slightly more balanced appraisal than you may find in most print media, Qatada:

"emerged as a key voice in the Islamist movement in London..." which, unless we want to restrict freedom of expression, is fine;

"... which advocated strict Islamic government in Muslim countries..." I have a problem with this, but again, freedom of speech;

"... and armed struggle against despots and foreign invaders."  Sounds like a terrorist, right?  But how would you describe the German or French resistance during World War II?

"He was tried and found guilty in his absence of terrorism offences in Jordan in 1999."  It would be nice to hear some details around this, but I think it is safe to assume that the Jordanian courts are capable of passing political judgements as opposed to ones based entirely on jurisprudence.

So lets have a think about this.  Qatada, as far as we can tell (and the British Government has not acted against him), has committed no crimes in the UK.  He undoubtedly has some unpleasant beliefs and (I assume) would like to impose his backward, medieval superstitions on the rest of us.  However, the only intelligent criminal objection we can raise against him is that the Jordanians want him.  And we'd trust their legal system as far as we can throw it (how would YOU feel about facing  a murder charge in Amman?)

Is outrage really the most appropriate response?  Haven't the European Court and, most recently, SIAC actually made the right decision in ruling that Qatada may not get a fair trial in Jordan and, by extension, should not be deported?

Isn't it possible to despise what Qatada stands for and still be proud that British (and European) justice has prevailed in this case?

Or shall we just be angry that the black man is still in our country?

* some may say that the BBC is a leftist propoganda machine that 'is racist against white people'.  Those people are morons.  I actually read that the other day - 'racist against white people'.  The writer appeared oblivious to the fact that the BBC is run by middle-aged, middle-class white men.  Those who accuse it of left-wing bias have apparently never read The Times, The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express or The Sun.  Or watched Dragon's Den, or the multitude of other programmes on the Beeb that implicitly or explictly support the capitalist status quo.  I assume that, as sentient moral beings, John Humphreys and Jeremy Paxman have socially-liberal and economically-conservative leanings in their private lives, but to accuse them and their colleagues of left-wing bias in their professional lives is stupid and contrary to the mass of daily evidence.