Simon Jenkins is right to demand restoration of freedom from detention without trial in Britain (Deport Abu Qatada: or if not, give him the law's full protection, 8 February 2012). But he seriously damages that cause by calling on the British government to disregard the Othman [Qatada] ruling of the European court of human rights. The Strasbourg court is a crucial defender of civil liberties in Britain. Its international membership and perspective help it stand free from the hothouse atmosphere of an individual country, where opportunist politicians connive with populist newspapers to sell rights down the river.
If May deports Othman in defiance of the Strasbourg court, she sends a message to repressive forces across Europe: "Do what you want: human rights courts cannot stop you!". Russia can deport human rights defenders to Uzbekistan to face torture and death. Italy need not worry about the safety of migrants crossing the Mediterranean. Were the British government to defy the European court of human rights, it would forfeit the right to criticise other governments which do the same.
And if a British government passed a Detention without Trial Act, the courts may be powerless to intervene. Our Human Rights Act could not be used to stop such a law. Would Jenkins want the Strasbourg court to condemn such a law? What would he do when the British government adopts his argument that Strasbourg rulings are merely "advisory"?
Simon Cox
Cambridge
• As a British-Jordanian who has worked for the Home Office, I have great sympathy for Theresa May. Her frustration at the Strasbourg court's judgment is totally justifiable. Anyone who appears to be condoning killing innocent civilians and/or engages in acts that appear to extol terrorism or exults extremism is morally and legally reprehensible – whether they are members of the EDL or Muslim extremists.
Strasbourg has argued that Abu Qatada might not receive a fair trial in Jordan and/or be subjected to torture in Amman. There are however stringent monitoring and verification mechanisms that can be activated. Additionally, this does not take into account the substantial reforms that Jordan has undergone in the past year, particularly in relation to the general conduct of its security services – King Abdullah II of Jordan has courageously sacked the former head of the Jordanian security services.
Nor does it take into account that Jordan has publicly tried many such extremists with full legal representation. For Jordan has sadly had its share of suicide attacks that have wiped out Jordanian families on their wedding days. Yet the perpetrators received fair trials.
Dr Lu'ayy Minwer Al-Rimawi
Peterborough, Cambridgeshire
• The one fact that has gone missing in the Qatada case is the basic tenet of innocent until proven guilty. For all the name calling, the British state has not been able to put together the evidence to bring this man before a properly constituted court of law. The idea of convicting someone on the basis of unseen intelligence in the court of public opinion is something we all must reject, otherwise today it may be a Muslim cleric, but on another occasion it could be just about anyone else the state takes a dislike to.
Paul Donovan
London