Members of the Scottish Parliament will later today be debating the handling of the al-Megrahi affair by the Executive’s justice minister, Kenny MacAskill.
Opposition Members preparing for the debate could do worse than read this article in today’s Independent by the distinguished human rights lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson, which sets out amply and with devastating cogency why al-Megrahi should never have been released and the extent to which MacAskill mishandled the process. Here is a flavour:
The decision has been supported by a few clerics, entranced by the idea that it reflects forgiveness. But Bishop Joseph Butler, whose sermons have shaped that particular Christian virtue, firmly warned against hasty and uncritical compassion, which he regarded as irresponsible because it compromised important Christian values such as self-respect and respect for the moral order. MacAskill’s “compassion” is irresponsible precisely for that reason: he has bestowed it on an unrepentant perpetrator of what Kant termed “radical evil,” at a time and in a way that enables him to be honoured as a national hero.
MacAskill repeatedly claims that Megrahi will soon be judged by “a higher power”. If he thinks that God re-tries cases in some cloud courtroom and sentences the guilty to hell fire, why bother with human justice at all? The only “higher power”, to which Megrahi answers is Gaddafi, guilty for over thirty of his forty years in power of multiple crimes against humanity.
It is anticipated that the opposition parties will successfully combine today to defeat the SNP, but that this will fall short of a vote of no confidence in Alex Salmond’s administration.
Whether or not that is the case, it is to be hoped that in such circumstances Kenny MacAskill will do the decent thing and resign.
What an excellent article, sums up the issue very well.
I agree. Mr. Jones is an excellent political reporter although I don’t agree with him completely on this particular issue. To me this is one more reason against devolution. Gordon has tried to use this to deny responsibility. However, there is no doubt that the rest of the world sees us as all one nation, and as such Gordon, and Britain stand condemmed. As Gibbons wrote of the Decline of an Empire, someone in the future will no doubt write of the freefall of a once great country
to oblivion.
Question: If forgivness is a required Christian virtue for us, shouldn’t MacKaskill expect God to display the same qualities when this murderer meets his maker, or do different rules apply up there?
Having read the Independant’s article, my viewpoint has shifted somewhat. Compassion should always be a consideration. However, what seems to have gone wrong here is the process, which MacAskill seems to have taken upon himself to short circuit.
This murderer could have received compassion, from the Scotish court system (not MacAskill) without being allowed home to a hero’s welcome.
Something does indeed smell here.
I am a Scottish lawyer and would perhaps treat mr Robertson’s views on Scots law with more respect if he actually demonstrated any understanding of the substantive law and procedure in Scotland – which his articles in The Independent and The Guardian have failed to do.
If you want a Scottish QC’s take on it – and a Scottish QC who is well aware of the procedural aspects impacting on kenny macAskill’s decision can I suggest you read the blog of Jonathan Mitchell QC. His posts at http://www.jonathanmitchell.info/2009/09/02/compassionate-release-in-scotland-the-actual-policy-and-the-law/ and http://www.jonathanmitchell.info/2009/08/24/megrahis-release-kenny-macaskill-was-right/
But then of course asking the London media to expect senior Scottish silks to comment on Scots law possibly takes too much effort.
One of the criteron for compassionate release must always be the “likelyhood of committing a further ( similar) offence”.
Apparently this man has not expressed remorse. In view of the mentality of Muslim suicide killers, is there not a likelyhood that this man, after being returned to his own country, could incite others to extreme action? Is not such incitement a “likelyhood” and also an offence under our law? These people have no regard for their own life, let alone the lives of others. I can imagine no further extreme of evil than a disregard for one’s own life in order to kill; In Libya surely this possibility exists?
The issue must be, should he have been released to Libya?
Why should the minister resign over a courageous and honourable decision that few if any of his opportunist detractors would have had the backbone or principle to shoulder??
This quasi-judicial decision was never going to be anything other than controversial, but was supposed to be above petty party points-scoring, popularity polls, or those who would hijack it as a cheap political football.
Alas, it was too easy a prize for the baying mob to resist, as has been seen by the volume of self-righteous indignation, conspiracy theory and baseless insinuation relied upon by reactionary detractors of the Scottish Government from the outset.
Parliamentary arithmetic means such opportunists have the means to out-vote the Holyrood government at any time, regardless of the quality of debate or strength of argument, by closing ranks along partisan lines – an easy opportunity that was bluntly seized upon last Wednesday, but which, by its very nature was virtually meaningless.
Far from being a vote of no confidence, or even a credible ‘blow’ against the Scottish government, the outcome – which could not have been delivered without the Labour group opposing the stance of its UK leadership, or the Lib-Dem group betraying the views of a substantial section of their membership – has served only to diminish the stature of the institution, exposing the gutlessness and self-serving motives of the opposition, along with those who would seek to target a political scalp by the shoddiest and most churlish of means.