This week the European Court of Appeal denied Britain’s judicial right to deport Abu Qatada, the radical cleric described, as Bin Laden’s right hand man in Europe. Britain wanted to extradite him to Jordan, where he has been convicted of involvement in terrorist attacks. But he appealed a couple of years ago and now the ECA’s ruling will make it almost impossible to hand him over to Jordan.

Although his precise relationship with Bin Laden is a little unclear, only a few people believe Abu Qatada should remain in the UK. And yet, the Court of Appeal feels that Britain has an obligation and a duty of care to safeguard his wellbeing.

We are told by human rights groups like Liberty, that if he is handed to Jordan he may be subjected to torture. Note: Jordan doesn’t pander to European courts and certainly doesn’t allow human rights legislation to come in the way of common sense and reason. And such an approach to justice might benefit our senior European judges who have clearly turned a blind eye to the actual reality of the climate and public opinion in our own country. Instead the European Court believes that Qatada’s life might be in danger if he is extradited.

That may or may not be true, but really, how much of a threat is this man?

Although one judge has hyperbolically described him as a “truly dangerous individual at the centre of al-Qaida’s activities in the UK”, it could be argued that the actual danger he poses is more academic than physical. For instance, I understand he has spoken against the USA and western democracies but he himself has not perpetrated direct violence. As such it could be argued that he is merely a symbol of extremism – an innocuous nutter who likes spouting off anti-western sentiments. Despite this, however, I don’t share the Court of Appeal’s view about his deportation. It seems a little absurd that, whether he is kept in prison or not, the taxpayer will have to provide for his upkeep; upkeep for a man who has spoken vociferously against what Britain and British governments stand for. He has praised suicide bombers of 9/11, recruited young men and has called for a jihad against “the sons of Satan” and “infidels”. Even the government in his own country considers him a terrorist who stands against order and reason. And yet, we are told, he has rights.

Surely people’s rights – the rights of the British citizens, the majority – should take precedence over the rights of an individual offender?