My friend Andrew McCarthy has alerted me to the latest outrage perpetrated by the European Court of Human Rights. What is it about institutions with the phrase “Human Rights” in their title? Why are they reliably the enemy of freedom and human rights? (Take, for example, the case of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions.) While you ponder that, consider the career of Abu Hamza, the Egyptian-born “terrorist facilitator with a global reach” who made such a nuisance of himself in London’s Finsbury Mosque.
I have always fondly thought of Hamza as Cap’n Hook.
Exactly how he lost his hands and the use of one eye is a matter of dispute. Some say it was while clearing mines left by the Soviets in Afghanistan, others that it was in nitroglycerin accident in an al-Qaeda training camp. (There is even the contention that the Saudis amputated them as punishment for theft.) In any event, Hamza not the sort of chap you want running about. In Britain, he’s been convicted of various things, including 6 counts of soliciting to murder, and is currently serving 7 years in prison.
The United States has been trying to extradite him for years. Last week, the British government finally agreed to hand him over. But then the European Court of Human Rights got into the act. As the London Telegraph reports, the transnational body of unelected bureaucrats has just decided against allowing Britain to extradite Abu Hamza to the United States to face trial for aiding and abetting al-Qaeda and the Taliban and for his role in the kidnapping of 16 tourists in the Yemen in 1998, an incident in which two Americans and three Britons were killed. The European Court is worried, you see, that poor old Abu Hamza will be sent to prison at the Supermax ADX Florence, a super-secure facility in Colorado that hosts a number very bad folks, including Theodore Kaczynski (the “unabomber”) and Robert Hanssen, the FBI agent who spied for the Soviet Union, delivering up a host vital military secrets and complete lists of American double agents. Actually, Abu Hamza should feel right at home at the prison, because among its guests are a number of his friends and co-religionists, e.g., Zacarias Moussaoui, a conspirator in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Question: Why should Britain–still a sovereign nation, I believe–pay any heed to the European Court of Human Rights? What would happen if Mr. Brown’s government told the court to take a long walk off a short pier? What then? Fear and trembling in Strasbourg? Who cares?
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
The New Criterion
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art
Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse
Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity
Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age
Tenured Radicals, Revised: How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education
Counterpoints: 25 Years of The New Criterion on Culture and the Arts
The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America
Against the Idols of the Age
Lengthened Shadows: America and Its Institutions in the Twenty-First Century
The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age
Physics and Politics, by Walter Bagehot, edited with an
Introduction by Roger Kimball
7 Comments
Roy N:The European Court of Human Rights is not part of the EU.
It was set up after a long in dificult war in Europe. During this war the realisation grew that it would be a good idea to have some kind of legal framework to protect people from their national governments. This court has been around for 60 years and it seems to work well most of the time.
It does most of its work outsid the EU on cases from Turkey, Russia, Bugaria etc.
I expect that the UK governemt judges that undermining this court would be a worse outcome than shipping delaying Abu Hamza’s extradition. I expect that they are right.
Recent cases include a case against the Turkish Government to take domestic violence against women seriously, against the Russian Government regarding police brutality, and
Aug 5, 2008 - 10:51 am heather:I would like to find a study on why exactly the Euro elite is so supportive of Brussels. I am aware that they are completely ‘transnational’ types, etc., but I suspect there is more to the story than bad ideas, fear of Hitler’s Ghost and treasonous leadership.
What jobs become available at the heights of Euro Land anyway? Also, there is the question of accountability; or LACK of same in Brussels, which must be very calming to your average politician..
Aug 5, 2008 - 4:42 pm LSD:Hmmm, there is a croc that swallowed a clock, waiting in Colorado.
Aug 6, 2008 - 8:24 am Rick Morren:The European Court of Human Right5s, the International Court of Justice might have their flaws, but at least they are open to membership by any nation on earth. These two institutions certainly compare far better than the controversial, unlawful and undemocratic Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp. This United States detention center operated by Joint Task Force Guantanamo since 2002 in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, on the shore of Guantánamo Bay, Cuba was opened at the beginning of the current war in Afghanistan. So far 775 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo. Many of them without cause. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge, with only one prisoner, David Hicks, being convicted of a crime. As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain.More than a fifth are cleared for release but may have to wait months or years because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade countries to accept them, according to officials and defense lawyers. The majority of the EU citizens are supportive of the European Union because it protects them from undemocratic establishments like Guantánamo Bay and the overwhelming power of the US corporate elite.
Aug 7, 2008 - 1:13 pm SCPhelan:Rick: Oh, come now. If you’re going to complain about institutions being “controversial, unlawful and undemocratic” (dubiously, in the case of Guantanamo) then does it make sense to raise the EU as a counterexample? Is the EU’s constitution (a massive document which is rejected whenever put up to a democratic vote in its member countries) really not controversial? Is it really democratic? Is it lawful in the sense that it is accountable to something other than the whims of its unelected leaders? Such silliness is unworthy of a post on the New Criterion’s site. Not that there is no criticism to be made of US Government and military policy, but please be a little more serious and careful when doing so.
Aug 10, 2008 - 5:05 pm S.R.Intulom:“Britain–still a sovereign nation, I believe…”
Aug 11, 2008 - 1:00 am mojo:Well, up to a point:
UK to Hand Sovereignty to EU without Referendum
“One thousand years of British history have been extinguished without a shot being fired.”
By Hilary White
“Britain–still a sovereign nation, I believe…”
Well, up to a point:
UK to Hand Sovereignty to EU without Referendum
“One thousand years of British history have been extinguished without a shot being fired.”
By Hilary White
LONDON, March 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - “Britain’s MPs voted yesterday to deny the public a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union’s substitute for the Constitution that failed in 2005 after being defeated by Dutch and French plebiscites. The House of Commons vote, 311 to 248 - a majority of 63 - defeated a Conservative amendment that would have allowed the British public a say in whether the treaty would come into effect in the country. Commentators and activists fighting the issue have called the vote yesterday in the House of Commons the effective end of British sovereignty.”
And they were right. Voluntarily (heh) handed it to Brussels, which effectively means France and Germany. So much for 20th century European history and two nasty wars.
Unless Britain decides to take it back. Let me suggest some phrasing, m’lud:
“When in the course of human events…”
Aug 12, 2008 - 12:35 am