Already a subscriber? Log in
The right to extradite
From Rt Hon. Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Sir: Your leading article ‘Suspend the treaty now’ (8 July) only serves to increase the confusion which surrounds this subject. You complain that Congress has not found time to ratify the extradition treaty signed in 2003. Yet you call for its suspension. Since the treaty does not come into force until it is ratified by both sides (David Blunkett was quite right) there is nothing to suspend.
The NatWest Three were extradited not under the 2003 treaty but under its predecessor, signed and ratified in 1972, long before the urgent need to extradite terrorists. It is common ground that under the 1972 treaty the burden of proof on each side is roughly equivalent. The same is true of all previous treaties with the United States going back to the Extradition Act 1870. It is the 2003 treaty that has introduced the imbalance. But since the 2003 treaty is not in force, it has not affected the NatWest Three. It follows that if Baroness Scotland is successful in persuading Congress to ratify the 2003 treaty, it will not remove any imbalance; it will only serve to perpetuate it.
The current imbalance, such as it is, does not arise under any treaty but under the Extradition Act 2003. It is true that under the Extradition Act the United States is included in a long list of countries which do not have to produce evidence to justify a request for extradition, but only information. But since the list includes all our European partners, and 25 or so other countries around the world — including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Russia — does it really make sense to exclude the Unites States? It is true that the United States cannot provide exact reciprocity because of the Fourth Amendment of its Constitution. But the same applies to other countries on the list which cannot, unlike us, extradite their nationals.
Fifty years ago we signed the European Convention on Extradition. The aim since then has been to simplify the process of extradition of those accused of extradition offences, whether to or from the United States or elsewhere. I cannot agree that this involves, as you say, ‘a travesty of natural justice’.
Lloyd of Berwick
Polegate, East Sussex
Sir Edward in the saddle
From Jeremy Lewis
Sir: I enjoyed Paul Johnson’s homage to the humble bicycle (And another thing, 15 July), but his list of eminent cyclists made no reference to Sir Edward Elgar, though reference was made to his great friend and fellow enthusiast Bernard Shaw.
Sir Edward’s cycle was named by him as Mr Phoebus, an imposing but rather uncomfortable-looking contraption, and he was proudly pictured with it in an article appearing in The Sketch in 1903. Elgar loved the countryside and it is easy to visualise him pedalling keenly on the way to give a music lesson to an eager student in some remote Worcestershire village. His friend Rosa Burley wrote, ‘There cannot have been a lane within 20 miles of Malvern that we did not ultimately find. We cycled to Upton, to Tewkesbury, to Hereford, to the Vale of Evesham, to Birtsmorton …to the lovely villages on the west side of the Hills — everywhere.’ Next year is the celebration of the 150th anniversary of Elgar’s birth.
Jeremy Lewis
Witney, Oxfordshire
Gascon apparition
From Gérard Venet
Sir: Dot Wordsworth is right: the feminine singular definite article in Gascon is era. (Mind your language, 17 June).
When the Virgin Mary appeared before Bernadette Soubirous, a peasant girl from Lourdes who spoke Gascon, she said, answering her question, ‘Que soi era Immaculada Concepcion.’ Que used as an enunciative conjunction is characteristic of Gascon. In standard Occitan it would have been simply, ‘Soi l’Immaculada Conception.’
Gérard Venet
London SW7
Fun day for all faiths
From: Shazia Arshad
Sir: Regarding Rod Liddle’s article about Britain’s Muslims at Alton Towers (8 July), the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACUK) has not in any way endorsed this fun day and would like to emphasise that it has been organised by Muslim Leisure and is for both Muslims and non-Muslims, while trying to make the day Muslim-friendly.
Shazia Arshad
Muslim Public Affairs Committee
Also in Society
Also by The Spectator
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in