26 February 2007

To deport or not to deport that is the question

The UK has been brokering deals with several countries that have significant issues with the adherence to human rights standards in order that the British government may deport failed asylum seekers after getting assurances from these governments that the returned individuals will not be tortured or otherwise mistreated. Great idea right? Except perhaps if the selfsame governments had their fingers crossed when they made their promises. These two Algerians agreed to drop their appeal against their deportation from the UK after receiving assurances from the Algerian government that they would not be tried upon their return. They were deported from the UK to Algeria and guess what. They are going to be tried.

Meanwhile across the great water a Canadian court has ruled that the process by which Mohamed Harkat, an Ottawa resident, was found to be a member of al Qaeda was "fundamentally unjust". This finding will undoubtedly put on hold his scheduled deportation to Algeria, a country from which he fled as a political refugee in 1990. He blames an informer-for-profit or possibly the Algerian government for the evidence given to the Canadian security authorities.

What impact, if any, will the situation of the UK deportees to Algeria have on the news this morning that the UK can deport radical Islamic cleric Abu Qatada to Jordan under a regime whereby Jordan vows that he will not be mistreated. I have no doubts that Qatada is a bad, and possibly evil, human being. However the quality of his humanity does not diminish it and he, like all of the rest of us, should have the right not to be tortured. To disregard his rights, as much as some of us may wish to, lessens us all.

No comments: