The BBC website has the story:
British courts should refuse to act on an EU arrest warrant requesting the extradition of an alleged Holocaust denier, a senior Lib Dem has said. Australian citizen Dr Gerald Toben was remanded in custody after his arrest by British Police at Heathrow Airport. German authorities allege Dr Toben published material online “of an anti-semitic and/or revisionist nature”.
But home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said holocaust denial is not a crime in the UK and he should not be extradited. … The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), acting for the German authorities, argues that agreements signed in 2003 between the UK and other European countries mean that Britain is duty-bound to assist the German authorities.
But Mr Huhne, a former MEP, told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme that countries could “pick and choose” cases in which they would apply warrants issued by fellow EU member states. The Lib Dem home affairs spokesman said there were good legal grounds for refusing to participate. He cited the case of Belgium, which is refusing to send suspects to Poland on murder charges which related to abortion.
Mr Huhne said: “There is a clear precedent for doing this and I think we should in this case.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
David Raw
Henry
18 Comments
Good for Huhne!
I think this is a brave stand…I can feel one of those ‘party pride’ moments coming on….
I feared no one was going to pick this travesty up. Well done Chris !
He’s absolutely right.
The question is whether we should have a EAW and what form it should be in.
Don’t go plane-spotting in Norway or the Greeks will have you arrested.
Matt
Very strong comments by Huhne which are up to his usual standards.
Have been drinking this afternoon, so scuse me for not elaborating 🙂
Excellent.
Good stuff.
Superb.
I agree with the stand that Chris Huhne has taken.
I think there is an obvious point which I am sure everyone agrees with; That we vociferously oppose the opinions of this person and that it is every bit as important that we put that case as well as defend his freedom of speech.
Isn’t this sub judice?
Good stuff, Mr Huhne.
Chris Huhne is absolutely right. We should refuse to extradite people for doing things that are not crimes in this country.
We should also refuse to extradite people unless a prima facie case is presented to the court, even if the country seeking extradition is the United States of America.
Chris Huhne has taken a very courageous stance. The issue here is not just extradition, of course, but free speech. While we abhor Dr Toben’s opinions, we uphold his right to express them; and long may that be so.
Now, what if Germany makes Holocaust denial in Britain a crime punishable in Germany? Can Germany then seek the extradition of people who have never set foot in Germany?
The reason I ask is because The UK government is about to extradite Gary McKinnon to the United States for a crime alledegly committed in the United Kingdom.
So, come on, Chris. Here’s a job for you on Monday morning. Speak up for Gary McKinnon.
“Now, what if Germany makes Holocaust denial in Britain a crime punishable in Germany? Can Germany then seek the extradition of people who have never set foot in Germany?”
If I understand correctly, that’s pretty much the case here. The material in question was published on a website hosted in Australia.
I’m still surprised that Huhne is commenting on a particular case when it’s sub judice, though.
Julian H wrote:
“I’m still surprised that Huhne is commenting on a particular case when it’s sub judice, though.”
There is no jury, so no-one is capable of being prejudiced by Chris’s comments.
Sorry, Julian H. I have confused you with Clegg’s candid friend. My apologies.
Well done Chris.
It is completely wrong for one country to to be able to extradite a citizen of another country for something that is not a crime in the country where the alleged crime took place.
If it were to be allowed it would mena that any one of us would be liable to be extradited for something that is against the law of another country.
“Liberal Neil Says:
5th October 2008 at 2:20 pm
Well done Chris.
It is completely wrong for one country to to be able to extradite a citizen of another country for something that is not a crime in the country where the alleged crime took place.
If it were to be allowed it would mena that any one of us would be liable to be extradited for something that is against the law of another country.”
Welcome to the 21st century. That is exactly what the EU arrest warrant permits, and is exactly what occurs under the USk-UK extradition treaty – witness the case of the Nat West 3, charged with use of interstate communications for dishonest purposes, which is not per se a crime here.
Sesenco:
“There is no jury, so no-one is capable of being prejudiced by Chris’s comments.”
Well, I think there’s a bit more than that behind the principle that politicians shouldn’t comment on particular cases that are before the courts. But still …