It’s not a case of being “far too keen to comply” – the intention behind the EWA is that one jurisdiction does not (in general) question the outcome of another.

Huhne should know this because he voted for the legislation when he was an MEP. Perhaps he and his colleagues should have been more careful and explicitly prohibited speech crimes.

The alleged Armenian genocide is of particular interest because it is a real-life (as opposed to hypothetical) example of something where in one country it is illegal to refer to the event as a genocide and in another it is illegal to deny it was a genocide – indeed it seems one is better off not talking about it at all, on websites at least.

I hear abortions are illegal in Poland. If offering abortions is punishable by three years imprisonment, woe betide anyone who advertises abortion services on the web.

When Turkey gets into full EU swing, there’s the possibility that people in the west could get dragged off to Turkey for crimes such as offending Islam from their armchair? I hope that I’m OUT of europe by the time this becomes possible. Did anyone consider that possibility, that the pope himself could be dragged off for punishment? LOL

“The arrest warrant is extradition for the Ryanair age. If criminals can re-emerge hundreds of miles away in a different jurisdiction within hours of a crime, the state must be able to pursue offenders without the interminable bureaucracy that is such a feature of traditional extradition.”

Has this ever actually been a significant problem before? Criminals fleeing to other European countries and managing to get away with it? Extradition is an inconvenience, but bringing people to justice is MEANT to be rather inconvenient!

Aaagh, the reporting on this case has been ignorant bollocks.

If you want to affirm the Armenian genocide, or offer abortion to Poles, this is fine: it’s only areas covered by the opt-ins listed here that count. And in practice, it’s not even that close: people have been successfully prosecuted in the UK for dispersing the kind of antisemitic propaganda that Toben is accused of spreading in Germany.

It’s not a good law, because the opt-ins are too vague, but case law (not to mention the ECHR) is going to ensure they’re interpreted in the most favourable way to the defendant.

If you want to affirm the Armenian genocide, or offer abortion to Poles, this is fine: it’s only areas covered by the opt-ins listed here that count.

If I understand correctly the German court issued the warrant for Toben on the grounds that he committed an offence related to ‘racism or xenophobia’. Why would denial or affirmation of the Amernian genocide not be ruled by a court to be covered byt he same category?

It’s not a good law, because the opt-ins are too vague

Well, that’s really the point, isn’t it? It’s conceivable (perhaps unlikely, but conceivable) that abortion would be considered to fall under the category of “murder, grievous bodily injury”, isn’t it? And denying or affirming an alleged genocide could be (indeed has been) found to be covered by racism and xenophobia, no?

Given the English/Scottish legal tradition, no, not really. If Toben is extradited, it will be for an offence that is a crime in the UK. If any court in the UK ends up extraditing someone on a EAW for something that isn’t a crime in the UK, I’ll a) be amazed b) donate GBP100 to a charity of your choice c) run a front-page blog post pointing out how naive I was about the Evil EU Empire’s ability to subvert our legal system…

John, there is no need to verify double or dual criminality if the offence in that list is punishable by at least three years imprisonment in the requesting state.

Evil EU Empire’s

I didn’t attack the EU.

I know that’s what the official line is; I’m saying it won’t happen because it goes against legal precedent and the ECHR – and that the Toben case won’t set a precedent even if he is extradited because that is an offence in the UK.

Well, we will find out if you are correct on 29 October.

No we won’t, because, once again, Toben’s offence is also a crime in the UK.

So you can’t lose £100 on this case, John, since you expect him to be extradited. What crime has he committed that is on our statute books, by the way?

That’s why I phrased it as a generality – “if any court in any case”. Y’know, the apocalyptic head-of-Marie-Stopes-sent-to-Poland, historians-of-Armenian-genocide-sent-to-Turkey predictions that people have been making upthread. I’m intending to be around for at least a few years, so feel free to pursue me for the GBP100 as and when it’s due…

And incitement to racial hatred; there’ve been several spreaders of antisemitic propaganda who’ve been convicted and sentenced in the UK for doing so.

Try to keep an open mind and stop being so disparaging, eh John? You aren’t always right – for example when you didn’t know the EWA framework decision had abolished dual criminality, or when you believed the Tories had never voted against any civil liberty infringing legislation in the last eleven years.

It’s not just me or other ignorant morons who express concern about abortion being included – the European Commission (although for a somewhat different reason) made a fuss about Belgium explicitly legislating that no-one would be extradited for abortion. The Commission said that what matters is the issuing state’s view of whether abortion falls into the category of murder, not Belgium’s. But Belgium has nevertheless said – your points about vague opt-ins and tradition and apocalypses notwithstanding – that it isn’t going to cooperate in those cases.

The point is that even if it’s unlikely that someone would be extradited from the UK for these reasons they could be – and the intention of the legislaiton is that they could be, that it is up to the issuing state what falls into those 32 categories of crime.

Let’s see what the court says on 29 October, when the decision about Toben is to be handed down. It’s only seven days. Then you can reasonably return to calling us ignorant morons and clowns if you’re right. OK?