1
Human rights gone awry
09 October 2011
A lot of news stories I read while in England used the term "human rights" to describe some failure of the powers to be to come to terms with the demands of the disputants - or their perceived "rights." But most of the stories weren't about human rights at all, but rather about personal choices, lifestyles and fashion. That anyone took them seriously shows that democracy in the EU has gone seriously awry.
'It's my boy's human right to have a three-inch ponytail," whined a father of an eleven-year-old who was sent home because his hair style did not meet the school's dress code. That story from the Daily Mail on Sept. 21 caught my eye because the use of the term "human rights" by the father was so flagrantly off-base that it seemed comical, a skit in British comedy. Since when was a fashion choice a "human right"? But read on.
It went further off the deep end in a story from The Telegraph, Sept. 27, in which prisoners in a Welsh jail threatened to sue the government over breaches to their "human rights" because they only got one free sports TV channel piped into their cells. They demanded their "sports rights" to get two more. The criminals were upset that they missed watching Brighton play Liverpool in the Carling Cup and seeing Manchester City play Everton later that week. They obviously felt taxpayers had the responsibility to pay for their "right" to have even more TV sports TV than the average Briton could afford. Since when was the TV channel selection a "human right"?
In Essex, a group of squatters have been illegally occupying greenbelt land called Dale Farm for a decade or more. They don't pay taxes, they've been using water and hydro services for free, and some have been getting welfare payments from the local government. Yet they claimed the local council's fight to have them removed - itself a many-year battle - was a violation of their "human rights."
One Mail columnist wryly commented, "don’t be surprised if a United Nations peacekeeping force parachutes in to darkest Essex over the weekend to prevent the forced eviction of so-called ‘travellers’ from an illegal camp near Basildon."
Several of the squatter families - calling themselves "travellers" although the only place they seem to travel is back to Ireland for holidays - have been linked to property ownership in Ireland (one home worth £400,000 according to one report), and shady business throughout Europe. They live not in refugee camps but in rather nice "caravans" (mobile homes). They're middle class, white and overall generally well off. But there was UN advisor Prof. Yves Cabannes publicly equating the Dale Farm evictions with human rights violations in Zimbabwe and China.
The Daily Mail ran a story about Al Qaeda "fanatic" Siraj Yassin Abdullah Ali, a convicted terrorist who was released after serving a mere half of his nine-year jail sentence, but could not be sent back to his native Eritrea because it would violate his "human rights." Ali was convicted of helping a gang of five Al Qaeda suicide bombers who attempted to repeat the bloody attacks in England of July 7, 2005.
As the story notes, "The case is the latest to highlight how human rights laws have left the authorities powerless to remove some terrorists and convicted criminals. Imposed human rights laws have left the authorities powerless to remove some terrorists and convicted criminals. Imposed by unaccountable European judges, they place the rights of the most dangerous wrongdoers above the risks faced by ordinary people." That sums it up pretty well.
Human rights came into play recently when a Bolivian caught shoplifting was allowed to stay in Britain under the Human Rights Act because he owned a cat. No kidding! As the story notes, "It was at this stage that he brought the now-infamous appeal against the Home Office's decision to deport him, arguing under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights that he had a right to "family life" in Britain." A cat.
The paper uncovered that and other similar stories, "as part of our detailed investigation into the corrosive effect human rights laws are having on Britain's ability to protect its borders." They also learned about:
Trinidadian Asim Parris, a violent drug dealer, was allowed to stay in Britain because his daughter lives there. The child's mother said Parris only began to take an interest in the child when the court case started.The drug dealer paid no support or maintenance for the daughter he claimed he had to be with, but that didn't seem to matter to his "human rights."
A Sri Lankan robber argued successfully to stay in Britain because he could not be separated from his girlfriend.
Osama Bin Laden’s son used British Freedom of Information rules to see government files rejecting his visa application, even though he lived in the Middle East at the time. The minister of immigration was ordered to release the entire file to Bin Laden's son so he could use it against British authorities.
A convicted rapist due to be deported was able to get British legal aid in India to fight for custody of his estranged son.
There was a challenge against deporting someone to Greece because the Greek asylum system might breach the person’s human rights.
Other documented abuses of the system include a violent Jamaican who knifed a boy and set a pit bull on others was allowed to stay because his parents were there. A convicted Italian murderer was allowed to stay because he was entitled to a family life. Nine Afghan plane hijackers were allowed to stay because returning them violated their "human rights." A convicted Somali terrorist was freed from jail after only three years but allowed to stay in England because sending him home violated his "human rights."
"Official figures show 162 foreign criminals won appeals against their deportation during the last three months of 2010. Of these, 99 — or 60 per cent — won their case by using the right to family life." Madness!
Phil Woolas, former Minister of Immigration wrote in his diary,
While in England, we were treated to almost daily news reports about violations of common sense. Islamic bigamists using loopholes to get unrecognized wives onto welfare roles (that is hardly a new story, but the massive abuse was revisited last month by the Daily Mail in a shocking expose). Pregnant visitors who stayed to have their babies in England so they could get free medical care, then apply for the dole (and get it - including free housing). Search online and you'll come up with several interesting sites (such as this one) that rail against the abuses of the British welfare system, most with good cause.
This madness over "human rights" abuses - or rather the use of the term "human rights" to justify all sorts of legal and social abuses - has caused quite a stir in Britain of late. Home Secretary Theresa May recently vowed to end the farce and close the loopholes that allow criminals to stay in the UK. She promised to rewrite the laws, and said judges could overrule "controversial human rights laws." Since most of those laws seem to have been written outside England - in the EU - that seems a wise move. Maybe leaving the EU until it gains some common sense would be a better move.
'It's my boy's human right to have a three-inch ponytail," whined a father of an eleven-year-old who was sent home because his hair style did not meet the school's dress code. That story from the Daily Mail on Sept. 21 caught my eye because the use of the term "human rights" by the father was so flagrantly off-base that it seemed comical, a skit in British comedy. Since when was a fashion choice a "human right"? But read on.
It went further off the deep end in a story from The Telegraph, Sept. 27, in which prisoners in a Welsh jail threatened to sue the government over breaches to their "human rights" because they only got one free sports TV channel piped into their cells. They demanded their "sports rights" to get two more. The criminals were upset that they missed watching Brighton play Liverpool in the Carling Cup and seeing Manchester City play Everton later that week. They obviously felt taxpayers had the responsibility to pay for their "right" to have even more TV sports TV than the average Briton could afford. Since when was the TV channel selection a "human right"?
In Essex, a group of squatters have been illegally occupying greenbelt land called Dale Farm for a decade or more. They don't pay taxes, they've been using water and hydro services for free, and some have been getting welfare payments from the local government. Yet they claimed the local council's fight to have them removed - itself a many-year battle - was a violation of their "human rights."
One Mail columnist wryly commented, "don’t be surprised if a United Nations peacekeeping force parachutes in to darkest Essex over the weekend to prevent the forced eviction of so-called ‘travellers’ from an illegal camp near Basildon."
Several of the squatter families - calling themselves "travellers" although the only place they seem to travel is back to Ireland for holidays - have been linked to property ownership in Ireland (one home worth £400,000 according to one report), and shady business throughout Europe. They live not in refugee camps but in rather nice "caravans" (mobile homes). They're middle class, white and overall generally well off. But there was UN advisor Prof. Yves Cabannes publicly equating the Dale Farm evictions with human rights violations in Zimbabwe and China.
The Daily Mail ran a story about Al Qaeda "fanatic" Siraj Yassin Abdullah Ali, a convicted terrorist who was released after serving a mere half of his nine-year jail sentence, but could not be sent back to his native Eritrea because it would violate his "human rights." Ali was convicted of helping a gang of five Al Qaeda suicide bombers who attempted to repeat the bloody attacks in England of July 7, 2005.
As the story notes, "The case is the latest to highlight how human rights laws have left the authorities powerless to remove some terrorists and convicted criminals. Imposed human rights laws have left the authorities powerless to remove some terrorists and convicted criminals. Imposed by unaccountable European judges, they place the rights of the most dangerous wrongdoers above the risks faced by ordinary people." That sums it up pretty well.
Human rights came into play recently when a Bolivian caught shoplifting was allowed to stay in Britain under the Human Rights Act because he owned a cat. No kidding! As the story notes, "It was at this stage that he brought the now-infamous appeal against the Home Office's decision to deport him, arguing under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights that he had a right to "family life" in Britain." A cat.
The paper uncovered that and other similar stories, "as part of our detailed investigation into the corrosive effect human rights laws are having on Britain's ability to protect its borders." They also learned about:
Trinidadian Asim Parris, a violent drug dealer, was allowed to stay in Britain because his daughter lives there. The child's mother said Parris only began to take an interest in the child when the court case started.The drug dealer paid no support or maintenance for the daughter he claimed he had to be with, but that didn't seem to matter to his "human rights."
A Sri Lankan robber argued successfully to stay in Britain because he could not be separated from his girlfriend.
Osama Bin Laden’s son used British Freedom of Information rules to see government files rejecting his visa application, even though he lived in the Middle East at the time. The minister of immigration was ordered to release the entire file to Bin Laden's son so he could use it against British authorities.
A convicted rapist due to be deported was able to get British legal aid in India to fight for custody of his estranged son.
There was a challenge against deporting someone to Greece because the Greek asylum system might breach the person’s human rights.
Other documented abuses of the system include a violent Jamaican who knifed a boy and set a pit bull on others was allowed to stay because his parents were there. A convicted Italian murderer was allowed to stay because he was entitled to a family life. Nine Afghan plane hijackers were allowed to stay because returning them violated their "human rights." A convicted Somali terrorist was freed from jail after only three years but allowed to stay in England because sending him home violated his "human rights."
"Official figures show 162 foreign criminals won appeals against their deportation during the last three months of 2010. Of these, 99 — or 60 per cent — won their case by using the right to family life." Madness!
Phil Woolas, former Minister of Immigration wrote in his diary,
Quote
"It gets surreal! I have been advised that we have ‘administratively implemented’ the Metock judgment (saying that if an EU citizen has married a non-EU citizen, that person is automatically entitled to live in the UK or anywhere in the EU even if they are an illegal immigrant!).
This ruling has nothing to do with me, the Home Office, the UK Government, the British Parliament or even the European Parliament – just the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Not only that, but I was advised (well, told actually) that I now had to formally show we were accepting the ruling by laying the rules before
Parliament.
When I asked ‘why?’, I was told that we would be fined by the EU if we didn’t. The bombshell came when I asked what would happen if Parliament voted to overturn the Metock judgment. The look on their faces would have been hilarious if it wasn’t so serious. The thought had not occurred to them."
This ruling has nothing to do with me, the Home Office, the UK Government, the British Parliament or even the European Parliament – just the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Not only that, but I was advised (well, told actually) that I now had to formally show we were accepting the ruling by laying the rules before
Parliament.
When I asked ‘why?’, I was told that we would be fined by the EU if we didn’t. The bombshell came when I asked what would happen if Parliament voted to overturn the Metock judgment. The look on their faces would have been hilarious if it wasn’t so serious. The thought had not occurred to them."
While in England, we were treated to almost daily news reports about violations of common sense. Islamic bigamists using loopholes to get unrecognized wives onto welfare roles (that is hardly a new story, but the massive abuse was revisited last month by the Daily Mail in a shocking expose). Pregnant visitors who stayed to have their babies in England so they could get free medical care, then apply for the dole (and get it - including free housing). Search online and you'll come up with several interesting sites (such as this one) that rail against the abuses of the British welfare system, most with good cause.
This madness over "human rights" abuses - or rather the use of the term "human rights" to justify all sorts of legal and social abuses - has caused quite a stir in Britain of late. Home Secretary Theresa May recently vowed to end the farce and close the loopholes that allow criminals to stay in the UK. She promised to rewrite the laws, and said judges could overrule "controversial human rights laws." Since most of those laws seem to have been written outside England - in the EU - that seems a wise move. Maybe leaving the EU until it gains some common sense would be a better move.
