Showing posts with label ECHR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ECHR. Show all posts

Friday, June 14, 2013

High Treason in the UK and the ECHR

It occurs to me that when the two Islamists attacked and murdered Drummer Lee Rigby, they actually committed treason.  They, by their own words, killed him because he was a serving soldier from the British Army.  And they committed this murder within the realm of HM Queen Elizabeth.  Surely that qualifies this as the crime of treason?

I thought, until just recently, that treason was one of the few crimes left, to which capital punishment could be applied.  However, it seems that a combination of acts passed by the last Labour government, including signing-up to the 13th protocol of the much-despised European Convention on Human Rights in 2004, means that the death penalty cannot be used as either a deterrent or as a fitting reward for these jihadists.  Yet another 'green light' for terrorists from Labour.

Much has been already written about how the ECHR and its application by British judges flies in the face of common sense and decency.  Much also has been said and many hands have been wrung by Conservative politicians about the need for reform of the ECHR.  It seems to me that it is a fundamental obligation, maybe even the fundamental obligation, of government to protect its people.  How do we square that with a government that seems powerless (or is maybe unwilling) to repeal legislation that puts the British people at daily risk?  How many innocent British people need to die before appropriate action is taken?

We have had Tony Blair 'apologizing', in 2006, for the UK's role in slavery and have seen other 'political apologies' made by various politicians but not one of them has ever apologized for signing-up the UK, to the alien ECHR or for keeping us as signatories.  

To say that the ruling elite is out of touch doesn't even come close. 

On the ECHR, the elite do not understand that the feeling of national impotence is not acceptable.  Westminster can no longer make laws with any expectation that they will have any force - every legal-aid financed lawyer (and that is almost all of them) salivates at the prospect of challenging laws passed by their own democratically elected representatives.  (Is that maybe a bit treasonous, on their part?)

On the EU, Labour at least recognizes the potency of feeling among the people and their demand for a referendum but Labour leader Ed Miliband has advised his followers (do we call them milipedes?) to abstain from the vote on the EU Referendum Private Members bill that is going through parliament.   The Conservatives are at least pushing this bill but, to David Cameron's shame, this isn't being put through as a Conservative government's measure - mustn't upset his Lib Dem 'allies' (though they seem to have no such sensitivity).

On immigration, all three main parties tread warily.  The liberal media and the so called equality industry (tax payer funded) jump on anyone that suggests perhaps we have got immigration wrong.  I am not against immigration but I do believe that pandering to immigrants and not requiring them to integrate into the existing indigenous population has been clearly wrong and I think that significant numbers of people believe the same.  Without I hope, sounding hypocritical though, Britain has reached a point where we cannot sustain increased immigration given our current economic model.  Rather than 'allowing' cheap labour in from other countries, shouldn't we be getting the workshy in our midst, off of welfare and into these jobs?  I say 'allowing' because in some cases, we are not authorized to stop people from the EU coming here.

On Welfare, Labour is so out of touch, it is not even funny.  The only people that they can count on are the direct beneficiaries of their 'Labour is the Welfare Party' policy.  The Conservatives spout on about austerity and the need for fiscal prudence but the minor cuts that they have made have been ineffective in reducing the overall debt burden of the country or its rate of increase.  I really can't fathom why the Conservatives don't go ahead and commit to deep cuts in public spending that the biased BBC, the Guardian and other 'lefties' accuse them of.  I think that the 'people' get it.  They understand that under Labour the UK overspent on a massive scale.  Those of them that are in work (in the private sector) understand that budgets have to be balanced and met and that when either the company's that they work for or they themselves overspend, a period of belt-tightening must follow.

On the environment, most people recognize that the punitive green taxes that are being imposed upon people, driving many old people into 'fuel poverty', are simply unnecessary gesture politics.  These policies will come home to roost when the lights start to go out in the coming years.  The despoiling of the physical environment, with useless wind turbines continues, and power stations are being closed at an unhealthy rate and not being replaced - 'brown-outs' loom.  Instead of addressing this with the urgency that people need, the elite are struggling to come to terms with the reality that the so called science behind all of this green scam has been repeatedly found to be false and falsified.  By the way, have you noticed how now that global warming' isn't actually occurring and people, even blinkered scientists can see this, these green fascists now call it 'climate change'.  We used to call that 'the weather' and just accept that it was changeable!  


Saturday, February 18, 2012

Abu Qatada - Deport the family

The UK government is getting tied in knots by the ruling, from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), that the UK cannot deport a man who has been labelled as 'extremely dangerous' because, Jordan, the country to which we want to deport him, may have used torture to procure evidence leading to convictions. and might 'probably' (their words) do so in his case.

I will come back to that in a moment but surely we can just go ahead and deport his family?  There seems to be limited information available on their 'origin' but if they are not born in Britain, why can't we deport them?

I have voiced concern about the ECHR ruling before, on this blog. How can judges dictate issues affecting the national security of the UK and against the express wishes of the UK's legally elected government? 

Just as importantly, how can we let them do so?  The first duty of a government must be to protect its people!  That isn't a party political issue, that is first principles.

I am afraid that as regards torture being used on extremists, I may be in a minority.  My view is that with Al Qaeda terrorists (as earlier with those from the IRA and UDA) then the 'normal' rules need to be suspended.  These people do not play by the same rules as us.  Imagine playing football and the opposing team were playing rugby!  While we are nicely following the FA rule book, our opponents are picking up the ball and battering us down on the way to scoring their idea of a goal!  What is almost as galling is we then have apologists who use legal manoeuvres to try to get us to accept this mis-application of the rules.  Usually at the tax-payers expense!!

I do appreciate that it is a slippery road down which to travel but frankly, we grant these people the freedoms of a civilized world  that they would remove as soon as they possibly could, at the same time as they seek to extinguish the lives of ordinary people around the world.    

Jordan is the country to which the UK is seeking to deport Abu Qatada (though he seems to have been born in Palestine!).  Jordan isn't part of Europe and doesn't have to kow-tow to political judges who think they should not only rule on law but actually make it.  So Jordan, rightly says that we don't need lectures on law and what is right from Europeans!

The ECHR ruling is patently wrong.  It sets out 'acceptable' standards of future behavior which no government can predict or control and then ties the hands of the UK government because of those very lack of control!

However, last time I looked, the UK was still a sovereign nation and the UK government was elected by its people, not judges in Strasbourg.  So the UK government must do the right thing and protect its people by deporting Abu Qatada.  And start by deporting his family.

Incidentally, who funds Abu Qatada's family?  Who funds his legal challenges?  MY expectation of an answer is that in both cases, it is the UK taxpayer.

Enough!!