Showing posts with label Human Rights Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Rights Act. Show all posts
Tuesday, 5 March 2013

After the Conservatives promised to repeal the Human Rights Act, the human rights agitators quickly showed their sheer contempt for democracy. Here the Guardian tells us that it doesn't matter what laws elected representatives pass in Parliament, even if their specific agenda was endorsed by the electorate. The judicial apparat can do what it wants anyway, even ignore parliament or strike down laws.
At any rate, if the Human Rights Act were repealed, it is not obvious that it would make much difference to how the British courts act now. The judges here have developed a set of human rights principles which are indigenous to the common law and which would almost certainly grow to fill the gap left by the act's removal: judges deal in facts and real human stories, not rhetoric, and so might be squeamish about sending people to places to be killed or tortured or allowing the same here on the say-so of someone like Theresa May (or, by then, Nigel Farage). In fact, some judges might even be emboldened to strike down acts of parliament for breach of human rights, something that the current legislation specifically prohibits and so would be easier with the Human Rights Act off the scene. What would the Tories do then? Withdraw from the legal system?
Source: Guardian

Human rights and democracy are often mentioned in the same breath as if they were corollaries of one another. The truth is they are polar opposites.


Wednesday, 12 October 2011

In Britain, complaints about judicial madness tend to focus on the EU or the Human Rights Act. But the example of Switzerland shows that the problem is broader than that. Switzerland is not a member of the EU and there is no Human Rights Act there. But Europe's baneful bureaucracy is still able to challenge and warp Swiss democracy.
The today 31-year-old Turk came to Switzerland with his parents in 1986, where the family settled in the Neuenburg canton.

From 1994 on he was regularly in conflict with the law. By 2002 several convictions followed for wounding, robbery, fraud and road traffic offences.

For this he was sentenced to a total of 13 and a half months in prison. After his conditional release in April 2003 the Neuenburg immigration authority ordered his permanent expulsion from the country, which was confirmed by the Federal Court in 2004.

In 2008 the ECHR came to a conclusion on the man's first complaint: Switzerland had infringed his right to consideration of his private and family life. Switzerland was sentenced to pay him 3000 euros in amends and 4650 euros in expenses.

The Federal Court then reconsidered its first judgement and changed the permanent expulsion to exclusion from the country for 10 years, valid from 2003. The ECHR has now again found in favour of the Turk who is now living in Germany.

For this second infringement of the right to consideration for private and family life Switzerland must now pay another 5000 euros in amends. According to the judges in Strasbourg, in the specific case exclusion from the country for 10 years appears disproportionate.

In this it must be taken into account that the delinquency of the person concerned related to youthful misdeeds and he now shows understanding. Since then he had proved to be a responsible person and who is working regularly and has started his own family.
Source: Tagesanzeiger

Political opponents are also invoking the EU to claim the Swiss People's Party's (SVP) plan to deport criminal immigrants would be unworkable. The SVP already won a referendum it called on this question then the government simply refused to implement it! It has now called a second referendum that will be even more explicit.
A legal study commissioned by Switzerland's liberal FDP has found that the country risks a destabilizing confrontation with the EU if it approves a Swiss People’s Party (SVP) proposal to deport foreign criminals.

Conducted by the University of Freiburg, the research leaves no room for doubt: the SVP’s initiative would land Switzerland in hot water with the EU. Any breach of the principle of freedom of movement for EU citizens would cause Brussels to enact a ‘guillotine clause’, effectively cancelling Switzerland's bilateral agreements with the union.

"Those bilateral agreements have brought us prosperity and a lot of jobs while allowing us to keep our independence,” said Free Democratic Party (FDP) president Fulvio Pelli on Monday during the presentation of the study in Bern. The FDP strongly opposes the initiative, which calls for the automatic deportation of foreign nationals found guilty of a crime in Switzerland.

If passed, the new law would infringe some of the EU’s basic principles, such as discrimination based on nationality, argued Julia Hänni, the law professor who led the study.

According to the FDP, any such law would be viewed as a hostile move by the EU, which could take advantage of the situation by pushing Switzerland on other sensitive issues, such as bank confidentiality or the automatic adoption of European law.
Source: The Local
Tuesday, 4 October 2011









...but omits to mention that this will not actually happen.


The Left are now pouring scorn on her statement about the cat, claiming it wasn't true. They're nit-picking about micro-details. On the substance, she was correct, as these quotes from the Guardian make clear.
The immigration judge said: "The evidence concerning the joint acquisition of Maya (the cat) by the appellant and his partner reinforces my conclusion on the strength and quality of the family life that appellant and his partner enjoy."

The judge added: "Canadian courts have moved away from the legal view that animals are merely chattels, to a recognition that they play an important role in the lives of their owners and that the loss of a pet has a significant emotional impact on its owner."
Source

UPDATE: changed video to BBC discussion of her remark about the cat because the original video is no longer working for some reason.
Sunday, 2 October 2011

The Sunday Times has discovered that the government is failing to use legislation that could lead to the deportation of Albanians who commit crimes in Britain and who gained citizenship on the basis of false information.

The 1981 Nationality Act allows for the revocation of an individual’s citizenship if it is proven that the person obtained it by deception. In the 1990s, many Albanians secured entry to the UK by claiming to be from Kosovo, then ravaged by war.

The Home Office has admitted that the law has never been used to deprive anyone of citizenship.

There was controversy last week when it emerged that Siraj Yassin Abdullah Ali, sentenced to nine years in prison for helping the 21/7 London bomb plotters, had escaped deportation because he might otherwise have faced “inhumane treatment or punishment” in his native Eritrea that would have breached his human rights.

An investigation by this newspaper has uncovered the scale of the use of human rights legislation by Albanians convicted of crimes at home to postpone or avoid extradition.

Since 2005, 36 criminals wanted for extradition by Albania have been arrested. Only 18 have been returned home. In recognition of the need to review extradition, Theresa May, the home secretary, asked Lord Justice Scott Baker last October to examine the system. He is due to submit his report within weeks.

Wednesday, 27 July 2011
A couple have lodged a legal challenge to a new immigration rule that the husband cannot join his spouse of 37 years in England unless he can speak English.

In a test judicial review in the High Court the couple say that the rule contravenes their right to a family life and their right to marry and constitutes discrimination.
Rashida Chapti, 54, a British citizen, and her husband Vali Chapti, 57, who have six children, are applying for him to join her in Britain.

Mr Chapti is an Indian citizen and does not speak, read or write English. Mrs Chapti is reported to have been travelling between India and Leicester for about 15 years and has now applied for her husband to be able to live in England with her.

But under new immigration rules announced by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, in June last year, he cannot do so because of a new English language requirement for migrants applying to come or stay in England as a spouse.

The rule, which took effect last November, is part of the Government’s strategy to cut immigration abuse and foster integration. But the Chaptis, along with two other couples, have launched proceedings to contest it.
Sunday, 5 June 2011
I posted earlier today about the tension between bureaucracy and democracy, which I would say is the defining dynamic of our times. The Telegraph reports today on perhaps the most pernicious example of it, the Human Rights Act and the "right to family life" it enshrines, which is what is allowed most of the backlogged "asylum seekers" to stay in Britain, even if their claim for asylum is recognised as fraudulent and they have committed serious crimes while in Britain.

Out of 161,000 foreigners allowed to remain in Britain as part of the Government's "back door amnesty", a significant number were ruled to have a case under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the "right to family life".

It was this factor that was decisive in winning the right to stay in Britain, rather than any evidence they were genuinely fleeing persecution.

In many cases, initial Home Office delays in processing the claims will have been the factor that allowed asylum seekers who entered Britain as young single people the opportunity to start families.

The development exposes the impact of asylum failures under Labour, which triggered a long-running project to clear more than 400,000 asylum cases, dubbed "legacy cases", which had been allowed to fester since the late 1990s. The exercise was heavily criticised last week in a report by MPs on the all-party Home Affairs Committee.

The Home Office has also admitted that some of the people granted leave to remain under the legacy exercise were foreign criminals whose Article 8 rights were deemed to "trump" the public interest in deporting them.


Any female asylum seeker able to get pregnant or male asylum seeker able to get someone else pregnant apparently has a "Get-to-stay-in-Britain-free" card:

A senior UK Border Agency (UKBA) official confirmed that officials generally decided not to refuse applications where the asylum seeker had a case under Article 8, regardless of how weak the other aspects of their claim might be.

"The difficulty is that asylum seekers end up being here so long it becomes unlawful to remove them, because they have children and cannot be deported because of the right to family life," the source said.

"If the asylum seeker has been here a few years and has children, we won't seek to remove, because we know that if we go to court we will lose, and if we tried to appeal we would just spend a lot of money to no purpose.

"Each case was examined. Those without families were removed by us."


In one case they wouldn't send a killer back to Iraq because it would be too dangerous for the Iraqis!

The Sunday Telegraph has exposed a series of cases where criminals have avoided deportation by claiming that human rights would be infringed, including a Sri Lankan robber who did not want to be split from his girlfriend, and an Iraqi killer who was not sent home because it would put people there at risk.


Hahaha! You couldn't make it up. And you don't even need children apparently.

In January this newspaper reported how Rocky Gurung, from Nepal, killed a man by throwing him into the River Thames but then persuaded judges that it would breach his "right to family life" if he was sent back to his homeland - even though he was a single adult with no children, and lived with his parents.

Source
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Paedophile Pakistani illegal immigrant case leaves £100k legal bill

A paedophile illegal immigrant who was allowed to stay in Britain claiming deportation would breach his human rights has finally deported from the UK after a legal battle that has cost taxpayers up to £100,000.

Zulfar Hussain, a convicted child-molester, had initially won a court fight to dodge being deported out of Britain last year because he has a wife and two children living here.
It is believed an immigration judge was presented with an application for a ''right to family life'' under Article Eight of the Human Rights Act - and agreed to let him return to his home in Blackburn, Lancs.

But the Home Office appealed against the decision and kept Hussain, 48, in an immigration detention centre after his release from prison.

On Monday it emerged Hussain had been sent back to his native Pakistan at the weekend after he lost his case following a series of court hearings.

The convicted sex offender had been jailed for five years and eight months in August 2007 after he was convicted of child abduction, sexual activity with a child and supplying youngsters with ecstasy after he lured two girls into a sex trap.

Source
There was an error in this gadget

Iostream

Share It

Search

Loading...

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews