You are posting a comment about...
De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, From Bracton To Blake
From The Daily Mail:
February 13, 2012
THIS HUMAN RIGHTS FIASCO NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO AN END
Mr Justice Blake has been criticised for his interpretation of the Human Rights Act
THE European human rights regime, so adored by Left-wing lawyers and judges, represents a conspiracy against the mainstream British public. Thanks to these alien regulations, justice has been perverted, the immigration system reduced to a shambles and dangerous criminals allowed to walk free on our streets.
That process of judicial destruction reached its nadir last week in the appalling case of Abu Qatada, an illegal immigrant and Muslim extremist wanted in Jordan on serious terrorism charges. Despite his record, British and European judges decided on human rights grounds that Qatada could neither be detained nor deported. This perverse ruling understandably created a huge outcry, with many people asking why the Government does not just ignore the decision and put him on a plane to Jordan.
In response, our ruling elite has parroted the line that “the law is the law”. We might not like it, say Tory politicians, but the human rights legislation has to be obeyed. Yet this is just enfeebled excuse-making.
It is nothing more than political cowardice to pretend that judge-made rulings in human rights cases are sacrosanct. They are nothing of the sort. In truth, they are often capricious interpretations of an alien continental law, reflecting the judge’s ideology rather than a concern for genuine justice.
Far from upholding our traditional laws and liberties, judicial activism in the name of human rights increasingly undermines them. even some senior legal figures are finally waking up to this danger.
OVER the weekend, the Court of Appeal over- turned a ruling made by Britain’s most senior immigration judge, Nicholas Blake QC, that a Nepalese killer could not be deported because of his human rights.
Mr Justice Blake, president of the Upper Tribunal and Asylum Chamber, decided that rocky Gurung, convicted of killing a man in 2008 by beating him and then throwing him in the Thames, could not be sent back to his native Nepal on his release from prison after serving just three years for manslaughter because he had the “right to a family life” under human right Act Article 8. Blake’s decision could hardly have been more bizarre, given that Gurung was single, lived with his parents and had neither wife nor children.
In quashing this ludicrous ruling, the Court of Appeal said the decision was made in “error” and had looked like “a search for reasons for not deporting him”.
Mr Justice Blake, who used to make his living as a human rights lawyer and, along with Cherie Blair, was one of the founders of the controversial Matrix Chambers, set up soon after the passage of the 1998 human rights Act. Blake is also co-author of the book Immigration, Asylum and human rights.
Last week he was the subject of controversy again when he thwarted the deportation of an Indian nurse Milind Sanade, who had been imprisoned for indecently assaulting a preg- nant 21-year-old patient.
Blake ruled that not only was Sanade entitled to a family life under Article 8 but also that his future conduct would be “more regulated in the UK than he would be in India”, despite the fact that he has been struck off the nursing register. This kind of madness is destroying the integrity of our nation. It is estimated that there are around 400 foreign criminals using Article 8 every year to block deportation from Britain, with the help of seemingly posturing judges.
Characteristic of this pattern was the case of Abdi Sufi, a Somalian who came to Britain illegally in 2003, was refused asylum and went on to amass no fewer than 17 criminal con- victions for offences including burglary, fraud and indecent exposure.
Yet the Strasbourg human rights court decided in July last year that he could not be sent back to his native land. Sickening cases like Sufi’s expose the nonsense of the slogan “the law is the law”. If our rulers really believe that, why don’t they enforce the law and throw out illegal immigrants before they have committed any offences?
IN The same way, instead of blathering about the rights of foreign criminals, why don’t they deal rigorously with drug abuse, burglary or fraud?
The double standards are shocking. The St Paul’s mob can desecrate one of the most hallowed places in the land but woe betide a householder who puts the rubbish out on the wrong day. Similarly, the state brims with self-righteous sensitivity about the human rights of travellers, yet is reluctant to enforce the law against illegal traveller sites, as highlighted by the long-running fiasco over Dale Farm in Essex.
There was another disgraceful example last week from the village of South Harting in West Sussex, where police actually escorted a huge caravan on to an illegal site for which there is no planning permission.
Just to compound the offence to law-abiding citizens, the police also put notices on residents’ cars, warning them not to obstruct the movement of this caravan. “vehicles will be towed away at the owners’ expense,” proclaimed the signs, the sort of tough edict that is rarely applied to travellers’ own illegally parked mobile homes.
In the twisted world of the human rights culture, there is one law for the decent British people, another for the rest.
The judicial elite sees the human rights law as an instrument to refashion Britain, rip- ping up traditions and destroying national identity. The Government should stop hiding behind legalism and start standing up for our country.