Expectation management
'It's not that we can't give you what you want, it's that we don't want to give you it'
There are arguments against deporting Shabir Ahmed, one of the ringleaders of the Rochdale rape gangs, now that he has been released from prison. It’s just that, since no one is making them, I’ve not heard them.
So let us guess what they might be.
The first is that deporting him would be illegal under the current law. Which is true, but that’s more of an argument about the necessity of changing the law rather than a defence of Ahmed himself. It’s not saying “He shouldn’t be deported”; it’s saying “He can’t be deported”, which we already knew.
Others might argue that his age should prevent his removal. A 73-year-old might not be expected to live that long in his home country of Pakistan. Again, this isn’t much of an argument against deportation. In fact, it makes me want to deport him even more.
Then there is the more sensible (but not by much) argument that, having lived here for more than 53 years, removing Old Ahmed would be a cruel and unusual punishment. Yes, it probably would, but so what? Did I forget to mention that old git raped 30 young girls? And those are just the ones the court could prove. So, cruel and unusual? Arguably. Justified? Definitely.
What about the impact on poor Ahmed’s loving family as they wave a tearful goodbye at Gatwick as he boards his one-way flight? Well, those who told everything they knew and suspected about Ahmed’s extracurricular activities – his involvement in gang rape and torture – to the police have my deepest sympathies and respect. Not my admiration, as such, because telling the police about anyone’s criminal activities, especially when they involve crimes as evil as those committed by Ahmed and his pals, is the very minimum you would expect from anyone living in our country. But they would have my (and the victims’) gratitude at least. That doesn’t entitle them to Ahmed’s company here in Britain for the rest of his pitiful life, in the few years of oxygen theft he still has ahead of him. He can use the oxygen in Pakistan if he must.
And there are those that say it would be unfair to impose a punishment today that wasn’t available at the time of his conviction. Again, this is bullshit. “Fairness” doesn’t come into it; justice does. And anyway, the man who led the prosecution of Ahmed in court, Nazir Afzal, said recently that he had expected him to be deported after he was convicted, so there was obviously a genuine prospect of this happening at the time.
Of course, even if we could get round the legal barriers, there’s the little problem of Pakistan not wishing to welcome Ahmed home – and who can blame them?
To return to the main obstacle, a Number 10 spokesman poured water on the prospect of Ahmed’s deportation because it would conflict with the Immigration Act 1971. But this is to regard the law in the same way that Americans regard the US Constitution – as a set of rules carved in stone, impossible to get around and difficult to amend. UK law is not like that at all. It only remains unchanged if our political leaders choose not to change it, and that requires only a simple majority in each house of parliament. The Immigration Act could be repealed or amended and it could literally be done in a single day (with the co-operation of the Lords). If that doesn’t happen, it’s because our government doesn’t want it to happen.
But maybe the next one will. This is what our Prime Minister Presumptive Tweeted on Tuesday:
Now, it may just be Andy wanting to be part of an ongoing story and desperate to be popular. But I’m optimistic that it’s more than that. If he hadn’t meant that “nothing is off the table” he didn’t have to say it. He can hardly come back and say, “Well, I tried but it’s just not possible,” so long as there remain a few things still on that table, like an emergency sitting of parliament and the revocation of existing laws preventing Ahmed’s removal. As for the likely refusal of Pakistan to accept him back (and who could blame them?), there are a few things “on the table” that could persuade them to change their minds. Refusing to issue any more visas to Pakistani citizens hoping to come to the UK, for instance, or the cancellation of all international aid that currently goes from London to Islamabad. We could inflict a great deal of hurt on Pakistan, and all of it could be avoided if they just accept one man. Plus any other child rapists who are from Pakistan. It’s not much to ask.
So let’s see what will happen. It is obviously unconscionable to have Ahmed strutting around his former turf where many of his victims still live. The decision as to whether he is deported must be based on those women’s entitlement to justice and safety, not remotely on Ahmed’s “rights” to live here.
And that’s what it comes down to – who is more important to the government – the victims or the perpetrator? Any minute now, heading towards this conversation with unjustified confidence, is someone about to quote Sir Thomas More in A Man For All Seasons:
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
Two points to be made here: (1) this is real life, not a West End play (and I doubt More, the murderous old bastard that he was, ever talked like that, or sounded as clever as Paul Schofield did in the role), and (2) things change. And when things change, the law must change to accommodate the new reality that the old law doesn’t.
Had those who drew up the Immigration Act 1971 been able to see into the future and to see the obscene evil that Ahmed and his compatriots from Pakistan were going to wreak on his community, they would have written a caveat into the legislation to ensure that the rights of Commonwealth citizens were at the very least qualified.
Removing Ahmed to Pakistan would be cruel and heartless. It’s the least he deserves.
Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out, Shabir.