Human Rights

[lucy]

December 10th, 1948: Universal Declaration of Human Rights at Palais de Chaillot, Paris.

Have they changed the world?

Is the world a better place now than it was before December 10th, 1948?

Do they go too far?
(for example article 25: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.)

Should they be reworked?

And finally: What should be done to ensure that human rights are respected?
(assuming that we can all agree that most of the human rights should be respected.

[denuseri]

This declaration is only as good as the actions that are taken to uphold it.

My personal opinion is that such loft goals as these are wonderful to strive for, yet very difficult to achieve.

I see no point in revoking them any more than the charter for the United Nations.

What should be done? Good question.

My best answer : As much as can be done considering not everyone in the world agrees, short of using war to achieve these goals save when only the most henious of crimes are being committed by a state against its poulace or a portion there of.

All other means should be exhasted first if possible.

[MMI]

Not that I'm very knowledgeable about the Declaration of Human Rights, or any of the treaties, accords or laws made under it, but I don't think they can possibly go too far. After all, virtually every country in the world has subscribed to them in one form or another.

The Declaration was made after the world discovered the atrocities Hitler's Germany had subjected the Jews, communists, gypsies, homosexuals and other unter-menschen to during its tyranny of Europe. There was a common view that no-one deserved to be degraded, incacerated, tortured or murdered in such a way, and nothing like it should ever happen again.

Unfortunately, those lofty aspirations have been let down time and time again, by too many countires to mention, but despite these failures, most nations still attempt to provide the basic elements of life to all citizens, and most abhor the denial of those rights where this occurs.

It would be wrong to weaken the Declaration by reworking it because that would signal to the countries that do still abuse human rights that it's OK now and to the others that human rights don't really matter much after all, so there's no point in trying to maintain them or improve them.

Most countries recognise and support basic human rights and must be encouraged to maintain them, both within thier own borders, and abroad where abuse is occurring. I am thinking of Zimbabwe as one place where intervention is long overdue.

[gagged_Louise]

The point of the UN Declaration is it makes governments, presidents and armies (and other bodies, perhaps even business corporations) accountable, outside of their own country too. Not in a regular court all the time, but before public opinion and in the realm of which other countries elect to cooperate with a flawed government, a state engaged in war crimes and so on. It's a sharp stab at the idea "Right or wrong, don't mess - it's my country!" This transnational scope is a vital thing about the Declaration, and that's why it mattered so much to the wave of colonial liberation in the 50s and 60s, and to the radical opinion back then.

I'm the first to admit that most of the regimes in those countries don't live up to the Declaration at all, and that there's a lot of hypocrisy going on, but that shows democracy takes time to get established and strike roots. One can't compare with the USA: the thirteen didn't begin in state of wasted, scorched country and once they had driven out the English (with vital help from the French!) they were not ringed with hungry enemies armed to the teeth - then the revolutionary wars in Europe meant no one had time to bother with America for a while. Countries such as Pakistan, Eritrea, Zimbabwe or South Africa have never been in that fortunate situation.

"You can't take a country to court now over its violations of basic human rights, so the UN Declaration is worthless". Well, in many countries the Head of State can't be prosecuted or even questioned by police either, and even when he is not immune, it's often de facto impossible or unthinkable to make charges against a prime minister or a commander-in-chief. Richard Nixon was pardoned by Gerald Ford, so he couldn't be taken to court over Watergate; President Chirac of France (1995-2007) has had pending trials and big scandals hanging over him, but he was in legal immunity while president and the major things will likely never be cleaned out in court now. Politics sometimes overrides justice, but that's not unique to the UN.

[IAN 2411]

One soft Judges version of human rights, read and weep. Hopefully when the UK have a new Government next year, they will do as they promised and get out of the human rights that is stifeling my country.

24 December 2009
An asylum seeker who fatally struck a girl with his car then fled the scene has won the right to stay in the UK.
Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, 31, of Blackburn, hit Amy Houston, 12, in 2003. He was later jailed for four months.
He faced deportation but successfully invoked human rights legislation granting him the right to a "family life" in the UK.
Justice Secretary and Blackburn MP Jack Straw said he will be seeking to appeal against the decision.
'Extremely disappointed'
The UK Border Agency is also considering an appeal.
Amy Houston was found trapped under the wheels of Ibrahim's Rover in Newfield Road, Blackburn, in November 2003. She died later in hospital.
Ibrahim was jailed for four months by Blackburn magistrates for driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident.
The father-of-two was due to be deported after he was taken into the custody of the UK Border Agency.
But the Iraqi Kurd claimed it was too dangerous to return to his homeland and won the right to stay in Britain after a lengthy series of appeals at the Manchester Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.


Jo Liddy, regional director of the UK Border Agency in the North West, said: "We are extremely disappointed at the court's decision to allow Mr Ibrahim's appeal against removal from the UK.
"We have made it clear that we will prioritise the removal of those foreign nationals who present the most risk of harm to the public."
An agency spokesman added it was likely it would consider an appeal against the decision.
Blackburn MP Mr Straw said he found the judge's decision "very disappointing".
He said: "I will be speaking to the home secretary to see if there's any way we can appeal against this decision, and I will also be talking to the family.
"They have been through an awful time."

The man is a killer and should have been dealt as such, a life for a life and life meaning life. Send him back to Iraq. What about that poor girls human rights to live, and what about the human rights of her family. A poll was asked this afternoon and 99% said send him back, the human rights only makes a government look to be human, and we all know that they are not, and the human rights is not what the vast majority want.

[Thorne]

the human rights is not what the vast majority want.

At least, not until they are on the receiving end of the stick.

But I agree in principle with you. The man should be either deported, which is more than he deserves, or put into prison for life. In my opinion he basically sacrificed most of his rights when he ran away from the accident. This shows a complete disregard for the rights, or lives, of others. Toss him in jail and throw away the key.

[DuncanONeil]

The joke used to be "What is three lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?" Perhaps it should now read What is three judges at the bottom of the ocean?"

One soft Judges version of human rights, read and weep. Hopefully when the UK have a new Government next year, they will do as they promised and get out of the human rights that is stifeling my country.

24 December 2009
An asylum seeker who fatally struck a girl with his car then fled the scene has won the right to stay in the UK.
Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, 31, of Blackburn, hit Amy Houston, 12, in 2003. He was later jailed for four months.
He faced deportation but successfully invoked human rights legislation granting him the right to a "family life" in the UK.
Justice Secretary and Blackburn MP Jack Straw said he will be seeking to appeal against the decision.
'Extremely disappointed'
The UK Border Agency is also considering an appeal.
Amy Houston was found trapped under the wheels of Ibrahim's Rover in Newfield Road, Blackburn, in November 2003. She died later in hospital.
Ibrahim was jailed for four months by Blackburn magistrates for driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident.
The father-of-two was due to be deported after he was taken into the custody of the UK Border Agency.
But the Iraqi Kurd claimed it was too dangerous to return to his homeland and won the right to stay in Britain after a lengthy series of appeals at the Manchester Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.


Jo Liddy, regional director of the UK Border Agency in the North West, said: "We are extremely disappointed at the court's decision to allow Mr Ibrahim's appeal against removal from the UK.
"We have made it clear that we will prioritise the removal of those foreign nationals who present the most risk of harm to the public."
An agency spokesman added it was likely it would consider an appeal against the decision.
Blackburn MP Mr Straw said he found the judge's decision "very disappointing".
He said: "I will be speaking to the home secretary to see if there's any way we can appeal against this decision, and I will also be talking to the family.
"They have been through an awful time."

The man is a killer and should have been dealt as such, a life for a life and life meaning life. Send him back to Iraq. What about that poor girls human rights to live, and what about the human rights of her family. A poll was asked this afternoon and 99% said send him back, the human rights only makes a government look to be human, and we all know that they are not, and the human rights is not what the vast majority want.

[thir]

The man is a killer and should have been dealt as such, a life for a life and life meaning life. Send him back to Iraq. What about that poor girls human rights to live, and what about the human rights of her family. A poll was asked this afternoon and 99% said send him back, the human rights only makes a government look to be human, and we all know that they are not, and the human rights is not what the vast majority want.

I think two issues are mixed up here: 1) a man kills a girl in a traffic accident and runs away. 2) deportation.

I do not understand why he got such a light sentence for manslaugther, but presumably there is a reason. That is one discussion.

What has this got to do with deportation or not? Apparently the man lives here, has his family here. Where does deportation come into it? Should we likewise deport others to Australia or somewhere when they screw up??

[Bren122]

The Declaration of Human Rights includes a provision against abortion- forced or voluntary- for which many, if not most, countries in the west stand in violation. Does that go too far?

The document is long on intent and ideals but short of definitions and enforcement. Signatories to the treaty can not be reported for violations- they have to admit to their own crimes. Citizens of signatories can not make representations under the treaty- only national governments can do so. A bad report can not be acted upon unless a follow up report by the nation involved shows no sign of improvement. Investigations of the bad reports have to be approved by the signatory. All investigative reports arising from this second report are confidential and only those matters addressed in the initial complaint can be investigated.

The HRC is made up of members on a regional basis- the same as in the security council. There are no minimum qualifications; there are no grounds for disbarring any member. The HRC has had individuals judging these matters who are actually offenders under the terms of the treaty. The HRC meets for two weeks five times a year; all reports are held by the HRC secretariat and can not be discusses outside of the meetings because they have technical judicial force but can not compel testimony or call witnesses unless the country involved agrees. Signatories can not be compelled to accept recomendations made by the HRC. Of some 150+ signatories, approximately one third are in significant arrears for their annual reports; of the 100 or so reports received only 20% to 30% are actually looked at in depth- several of those received are proforma reports and are simply rubber stamped. Each regional bloc is dealth with in turn. Any commisioner can raise a question in regards to any report which often means that the rights of Tasmania's homosexual community or Quebec separatists receive more attention than evidence of actual genocide.

So not only does the country have to dob itself in, twice, but it also has to permit an investigation, assemble the witnesses against it and then, when all is said and done, the whole thing can remain quiet at their insistence.

If a nation invades another to prevent human rights abuses under the terms of the treaty, it can not bring evidence of these abuses before the HRC as it does not have de jour recognition as to ownership of the territory involved. Annexation must be recognised by the General Assembly of the UN before it can be accepted by the HRC. As such the treaty can not, technically, be used as the basis for a trial of war criminals unless approval is found in the HRC- which, as noted, can not apprise itself of the facts. Thus while the trials for events in Rwanda, Cambodia and Bosnia are being conducted under the aegis of violations of the HRT, they are being done so as an adjunct to international law and not as part of the HRC process. In other words these tribunals are an extension of Nuremberg and Tokyo rather than an application of the Treaty itself.

Non-state entities are not recognised by the HRC. If two countries are involved in a conflict, the HRC is not required to investigate non-signatories or non-state agencies. Even if two signatories are at war, the HRC can only investigate the actions of a signatory that complains about its own actions unless both signatories agree to an open investigation. Given the nature of the reporting of the HRC in relation to the Gaza conflict where the HRC specified that the investigators were to look for evidence of Israeli war crimes but only look into the veracity of allegations against Hamas it is unlikely that future agreements will be forthcoming. (Although not a nation, the Palestinian Authority is a recognised entity in the UN General Assembly and therefore a state for the purposes of membership of the various UN Committees including the HRC)

The actual Treaty Organisation meets once (maybe twice) a year and can only act on a majority vote from the HRC. All signatories have one vote regardless of their own status or record. HRC recomendations approved by the Treaty Organisation are then passed to the Security Council for implementation of the recomendations. Most recomendations are either directly voted down by the Security Council or else Vetoed by one of the permanent members.

[thir]

The Declaration of Human Rights includes a provision against abortion- forced or voluntary- for which many, if not most, countries in the west stand in violation. Does that go too far?

The Declaration of Human Rights does not in fact include a provision against abortion, nor does it say that abortion is a human right.

The discussion is ongoing whether a fetus is in fact a person, this is an open debate with no consensus.

[IAN 2411]

Once again I have to show you how the human rights act is stifling my country. How long have the people in the UK got to put up with the faceless immigration tribunals, dictating to us that they are do good people. They are putting the rights of a no good disgusting pariah in front of the people that were born in this Country, and others that were not born here but abide by our laws.

A SOMALI jailed for sheltering a policewoman's killer won the right to stay in Britain yesterday.
Outrage erupted after Hewan Gordon, 38, won an appeal against a Government bid to deport him.
Gordon had served 18 months' jail for giving refuge to evil Muzzaker Shah, one of the gang which shot dead PC Sharon Beshenivsky in Bradford in 2005.

The Home Office wanted to boot him out and send him back to his war-ravaged homeland.

But an immigration tribunal backed his plea to be allowed to remain in the UK.

The decision was condemned by police, politicians and Sharon's widower Paul, who said: "I am appalled. I don't understand how these do-gooders who sit on the board can sleep at night.
"They should have spoken to my kids about how they miss their mum and the effect on their lives. I'm absolutely sickened."

The decision by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is said to have been made on human rights grounds. Gordon is thought to have claimed he faced persecution back in Somalia.

But ex-Scotland Yard commander John O'Connor said: "What about the human rights of Sharon's family? This man committed a grievous offence - it is incomprehensible that he should now be allowed to stay."
Home Secretary Alan Johnson was "furious", with a Home Office source saying: "He wants this low-life out of the country as much as the people of Britain do. It beggars belief anyone can think he deserves to stay here."
The UK Border Agency, which had served Gordon with a deportation notice, said it was "disappointed" and was taking legal advice on overturning the ruling.

Gordon hid 25-year-old gangster Shah from cops at his flat in Newport, South Wales, knowing he was on the run over the murder of mum-of-three Sharon, 38.
She was killed and colleague PC Teresa Milburn wounded in a travel agency raid.
Shah, a British Asian, was initially helped by a school friend in London before being taken in by Gordon. He was arrested after a siege and given life for murder.
Four other men were convicted of either murder or manslaughter.
Gordon - given asylum after coming to Britain in the 1990s - admitted hiding a murderer with intent to impede his arrest.

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said the decision to let him stay was "extraordinary", adding: "We desperately need to replace the Human Rights Act."


Thank you Chris Grayling you have my vote in a few months time, and I have a suggestion what would replace the [Human Rights Act,] why don’t we call it the [Deportation Act] with no right of appeal. All that he would go back with was his flight ticket, and then once he is back in his war torn country, he can fight for it, just like he should have been doing in the first place. You are thinking I am harsh, well I wonder if the United States would go that extra mile to put this Trash in front of its citizens?

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

And a lot of what you speak of is already occurring in the States. Specifically in regards to immigration, if one speaks up in opposition to illegal immigration (or amnesty for the illegals already here), one is immediately labeled a racist.

It is all an attempt at Social Justice, rather than real justice. Another way to say "Social Justice" is "I know better than everybody else, so do it my way."

Once again I have to show you how the human rights act is stifling my country. How long have the people in the UK got to put up with the faceless immigration tribunals, dictating to us that they are do good people. They are putting the rights of a no good disgusting pariah in front of the people that were born in this Country, and others that were not born here but abide by our laws.

A SOMALI jailed for sheltering a policewoman's killer won the right to stay in Britain yesterday.
Outrage erupted after Hewan Gordon, 38, won an appeal against a Government bid to deport him.
Gordon had served 18 months' jail for giving refuge to evil Muzzaker Shah, one of the gang which shot dead PC Sharon Beshenivsky in Bradford in 2005.

The Home Office wanted to boot him out and send him back to his war-ravaged homeland.

But an immigration tribunal backed his plea to be allowed to remain in the UK.

The decision was condemned by police, politicians and Sharon's widower Paul, who said: "I am appalled. I don't understand how these do-gooders who sit on the board can sleep at night.
"They should have spoken to my kids about how they miss their mum and the effect on their lives. I'm absolutely sickened."

The decision by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is said to have been made on human rights grounds. Gordon is thought to have claimed he faced persecution back in Somalia.

But ex-Scotland Yard commander John O'Connor said: "What about the human rights of Sharon's family? This man committed a grievous offence - it is incomprehensible that he should now be allowed to stay."
Home Secretary Alan Johnson was "furious", with a Home Office source saying: "He wants this low-life out of the country as much as the people of Britain do. It beggars belief anyone can think he deserves to stay here."
The UK Border Agency, which had served Gordon with a deportation notice, said it was "disappointed" and was taking legal advice on overturning the ruling.

Gordon hid 25-year-old gangster Shah from cops at his flat in Newport, South Wales, knowing he was on the run over the murder of mum-of-three Sharon, 38.
She was killed and colleague PC Teresa Milburn wounded in a travel agency raid.
Shah, a British Asian, was initially helped by a school friend in London before being taken in by Gordon. He was arrested after a siege and given life for murder.
Four other men were convicted of either murder or manslaughter.
Gordon - given asylum after coming to Britain in the 1990s - admitted hiding a murderer with intent to impede his arrest.

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said the decision to let him stay was "extraordinary", adding: "We desperately need to replace the Human Rights Act."


Thank you Chris Grayling you have my vote in a few months time, and I have a suggestion what would replace the [Human Rights Act,] why don’t we call it the [Deportation Act] with no right of appeal. All that he would go back with was his flight ticket, and then once he is back in his war torn country, he can fight for it, just like he should have been doing in the first place. You are thinking I am harsh, well I wonder if the United States would go that extra mile to put this Trash in front of its citizens?

Regards ian 2411

[IAN 2411]

And a lot of what you speak of is already occurring in the States. Specifically in regards to immigration, if one speaks up in opposition to illegal immigration (or amnesty for the illegals already here), one is immediately labeled a racist.

It is all an attempt at Social Justice, rather than real justice. Another way to say "Social Justice" is "I know better than everybody else, so do it my way."

It is that problem of being called racist that is stopping justice being carried out. As I stated in my post the UK is a multi racial tolerant nation, and we have that very same problem of being careful not to be called racist. I do feel though that now the racist slogan is being abused, the British people have lost their civil rights of reply, because of the Human rights act. If a person found guilty and is placed in an English prison he loses his rights and only has basic rights, if he loses his rights by law then he should have been deported while still serving his time. He was not even a British citizen, I am not racist, and it is not racist to send a person back to his country of origin, he was uninvited and unwanted. It is the immigration softies that are giving the immigrant the leverage they have, and the biggest Bigots are the immigrants themselves.

[DuncanONeil]

It is that problem of being called racist that is stopping justice being carried out. As I stated in my post the UK is a multi racial tolerant nation, and we have that very same problem of being careful not to be called racist. I do feel though that now the racist slogan is being abused, the British people have lost their civil rights of reply, because of the Human rights act. If a person found guilty and is placed in an English prison he loses his rights and only has basic rights, if he loses his rights by law then he should have been deported while still serving his time. He was not even a British citizen, I am not racist, and it is not racist to send a person back to his country of origin, he was uninvited and unwanted. It is the immigration softies that are giving the immigrant the leverage they have, and the biggest Bigots are the immigrants themselves.

I agree!

People are way to scared of the PC Police! And is doing society no good!

[MMI]

It is that problem of being called racist that is stopping justice being carried out ... I am not racist, and it is not racist to send a person back to his country of origin ... and the biggest Bigots are the immigrants themselves.

Quite so ...

[IAN 2411]

MPs defied the European Court of Human Rights last night by backing a ban on prisoners voting.

PM David Cameron missed the vote and ordered all his ministers to abstain.
But the Commons decided by a huge majority of 234 to 22 to stick with the 140-year-old rule.
The ECHR had ordered Britain to give at least 28,000 lags the right to go to the ballot box.
Now the Government faces a legal battle with Europe and a constitutional crisis.
Loud cheers greeted the result in the Commons - which threw the Coalition Government's plans to kowtow to the Strasbourg judges into total disarray.

Former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis - who helped draw up the vote motion with ex-Labour Justice Secretary Jack Straw - said: "It is a brilliant result.

"A 99 per cent majority, which we believe also reflects the view in the country that prisoners should not be given the vote.

"The ball is now in the Government's court to go back to the ECHR and tell them they cannot supplant the role of Parliament.

Mr Straw, who warned the European court was "undermining its own legitimacy", added: "I am delighted with both the fact and the scale of the vote, which underlines the strength of feeling in the House."

Compensation

The stand - while not legally binding - was being seen as the first fight back against a torrent of laws passed by Europe judges.
The Sun yesterday urged MPs to defy the Euro court to let our democracy prevail. Last night politicians, legal experts and democracy campaigners all called on Prime Minister David Cameron to seize the opportunity to take on Strasbourg.

Blair Gibbs, from influential think-tank Policy Exchange, said: "The Government has the backing of Parliament and the public who clearly favour such issues being decided in the UK, not by foreign judges sitting in a remote court." Government lawyers must now plot a way out of the constitutional crisis.

Delighted ... Davis and Straw drew up motion that the MPs backed
Jailbirds could bring a wave of compensation claims against the Government.
Mr Cameron missed yesterday's vote and went on a visit to Wiltshire instead.
He ordered all his ministers to abstain. But backbenchers had a free vote and rebellious Tories joined forces with Labour MPs. A total of 394 abstained. With Tories and Lib Dems in disagreement, the Coalition is paralysed on the issue.
Mr Cameron had said: "In my view prisoners should not get the vote, and that's that."
He then spread confusion by adding: "But we are going to have to sort this out one way or the other."

ECHR judges ruled in 2005 that Britain's ban on votes for lags was illegal after a case brought by axe killer John Hirst.

Attorney General Dominic Grieve warned that Britain had "obligations" under the European Convention on Human Rights.
But he added that last night's vote would help ministers in what would be a "drawn out dialogue between ourselves and the Court".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About time as well...the UK people are sick of Europe giving us laws that are against our constitution. Faceless people that were not elected by the British that are hell bent on making us suffer for their perverse sense of humour. If they want that law good on them ...have it but don’t give it to us because we are sick to death with the Euro stupidity.

IE, straight cucumbers and straight bananas, no such thing as a large egg because it hurts the Hen, I have yet to see the farmers pushing the eggs back up the hens ass.

Well I hope this is just the start and we do pull out of the European Charter of Human Rights, because it has been a thorn in the UKs side ever since that idiot Blaire gave away our Country. Then maybe all those killers of children on our roads will be sent back to their own country to be shot as traitors, instead of wasting the UK tax payers money staying over here claiming assistance. Never mind their human rights, think about the ones they stole. To be quite honest, do we really need Europe, we would be some £45 billion plus better off every year? Why should I have to pay for a farmer in Italy, Greece or Spain to breed sheep, just because he cannot milk cows...give me a break?


Regards IAN 2411{lillirose}

[leo9]

December 10th, 1948: Universal Declaration of Human Rights at Palais de Chaillot, Paris.

I hope you realised what was going to come out of the woodwork

There are a set of subjects that bring the backwoodsmen out in arms, including welfare, equality laws, trade unions, and in England, the EU and the Human Rights Act. What these all have in common is that they deny that white middle class Englishmen are intrinsically superior and have a natural right to privilege and power. Anything that treats lower kinds of people - the poor, foreigners of any kind except rich ones, wogs, blue-collar workers, criminals, perverts, women - as if they were just as good as true-blue Daily Express readers.

There's no debating this, because it's a gut reaction, as our Prime Minister honestly admitted when he said that the idea of letting convicts vote made him physically sick. As that comment clearly shows, reason is irrelevant: you just have to leave them to rant and try to work round them.

Have they changed the world?

Is the world a better place now than it was before December 10th, 1948?

As far as human rights are concerned, very much better. Of course it's a work in progress, but when I look back to my childhood, and the casual racism, sexism, and prejudice and discrimination of all kinds which people simply accepted as the way things were, I can be really pleased at what our culture has achieved in one lifetime.

Of course it is a fight, and always will be, to retain what has been won and to keep moving on, but I dare to hope that the trend is unstoppable.

The UDHR was just one part of that wave of history, but an important part. Orwell's dictum that "if you don't have the word you can't think the thought" can be used for good as well as evil: by creating new words we make it possible to think new thoughts. And despite what Orwell feared, it's very hard to unthink them.

Do they go too far?
(for example article 25: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.)

There is always a balance between grand general statements of principle ("Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"), and shopping lists of exactly how those grand principles should be applied in practice. In this case, I think it was necessary to have the shopping list, because we have all seen how politicians can solemnly pledge themselves to the grand principles while completely failing to apply them. (In 1948 they had vivid memories of the moralistic promises of the fascist dictators.) The creators of the DHR knew that if they confined it to grand principles, it would sound splendid and change nothing.

Should they be reworked?

Nothing is ever perfect, but because that document has so many powerful and ingenious enemies, I'd look very hard and long at any proposal to change a comma.

And finally: What should be done to ensure that human rights are respected?
(assuming that we can all agree that most of the human rights should be respected.

I think you've answered that question yourself. The most important thing is to promote general agreement that human rights should be respected - human rights, not just the rights of "our" sort of people. Everyone is happy to agree that their rights, and the rights of their friends and families, should be sacred and inviolable. The great revolution of democracy was to accept that it applies to everyone's rights, including the rights of your political and religious enemies, the people you hate and despise, the people who hate and despise you and your rights. Because as soon as you start making exceptions you're no longer talking about human rights, but about privileges for a favoured few.

[IAN 2411]

Sex Offenders Win Appeal Over Register
Thousands of criminals will be allowed to appeal for their names and addresses to be removed from the database after a controversial court decision.

Last year the Supreme Court ruled that putting sex offenders on the register for life without a right of appeal was "disproportionate".
Currently anyone sentenced to 30 months or more in prison for a sex offence is automatically put on the register indefinitely.
Their names, addresses, date of birth and national insurance number are recorded, and they must inform police in person of any changes or if they wish to leave the country.A Home Office source told Sky News: "The details of the proposals will be announced in due course and we're looking into it now.

"It's very sensitive so it's important the proper safeguards are put into place."We're looking at the Scottish model, where people appeal first to the police and then to the courts."

The Scottish government has already brought forward plans to allow convicted adults to seek a review after 15 years on the sex offenders register.

Also those placed on the register when under 18 years old can seek a review after eight years.

The Home Office decision comes after a court ruled the lack of appeal was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.Now sex offenders will be able to argue they no longer pose a risk to the public.

The move will infuriate many Euro sceptic Conservative MPs, already angered by the European Court of Human Rights ruling against the UK's blanket ban on prisoner voting.

And victims' groups have described the decision as "appalling".

The case was brought by an 18-year-old man from Wigan who was found guilty of two counts of raping a six-year-old boy and detained for 30 months in October 2005 when he was 11.

The requirement to be monitored prevented him from taking a family holiday abroad and playing rugby league.
A second case involved a man from Newcastle upon Tyne who was jailed for five years in 1996 for indecently assaulting a woman.

He was released in 2005 and is in poor health after suffering a series of heart attacks.
The pair won their case at the Court of Appeal in 2009, but the Home Office appealed and lost in the Supreme Court last year.

At the time of the ruling Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, President of the Supreme Court, said: "It is obvious that there must be some circumstances in which an appropriate tribunal could reliably conclude that the risk of an individual carrying out a further sex offence can be discounted to the extent that continuance of notification requirements is unjustified."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can either disagree with the European Convention on Human Rights or agree, there is no picking and choosing. It is for the reason of the idiotic stupidity of some laws that are made by invisible people that answer to no one why I am against the convention. I realise that in some circumstanses there is a need for reform, but to blanket the whole issue is sheer folley. In a You-Gov pole 44% wanted the UK to get out of the Human rights charter, 52% wanted to pull out of Europe altogether. The UK give Europe £6.5 billion pound every year for what i have no idea because we have had damn all back since starting. Although they can still dictate to us how to manage our affairs. Before i hear you say but you just got a loan from the European Bank, i would like to point out that the loan has nothing to do with the European Comunity. I would also like to point out that certain European Countries in the comunity owe the UK billions, in fact enough to cover the loan.

Regards IAN 2411{lillirose}

[IAN 2411]

Of course it's a work in progress, but when I look back to my childhood, and the casual racism, sexism, and prejudice and discrimination of all kinds which people simply accepted as the way things were, I can be really pleased at what our culture has achieved in one lifetime.

Thankfully I can look back on those days, but they were not brought into the UK by the European Charter of Human Rights. It was called progress and before you shout me down it is a fact that Racism is rife in both Italy and Spain, now if I remember correct they do belong to Europe. To see it, go to a game of football in either country, and the crowds will make you sick.

Of course it is a fight, and always will be, to retain what has been won and to keep moving on, but I dare to hope that the trend is unstoppable.

Where is the fight in the UK? The human rights charter says kiss the ass of the illegal alien that has just run over your child and let him live as a free man in your country after his three years in prison. The reason being, that if he goes back to oki pooki land or where ever, he might get imprisoned or shot. So the UK government bend over backwards for him because it is his Human Right to be alive. Fuck the life of the 6 year old child that was born in the UK, that doesn’t count. Get real.

I'd look very hard and long at any proposal to change a comma.
Because as soon as you start making exceptions you're no longer talking about human rights, but about privileges for a favoured few.

No one is saying change it, but it is so precise that it is unworkable. Unless you change the whole world and I mean every countries way of thinking, then the ECHR has no chance in hell of working. Europe has different laws to that the Middle East, it has different laws from the United States of America, and there are different laws than the UK, and the Far East. Then of course you have the third world countries and South America. There might be a law for everyone in a thousand years time but never in our lifetime, because if there was an American Convention of Human Rights drawn up tomorrow, Europe would tell them politely I hope, to fuck off.

It has nothing to do with making exceptions or privileges for the favoured few, as it is about the fact that the same paint brush cannot be used to paint different colours with one movement of the hand.

Regards IAN 2411{lillirose}

[leo9]

Sex Offenders Win Appeal Over Register
Thousands of criminals will be allowed to appeal for their names and addresses to be removed from the database after a controversial court decision.

As soon as I heard of this, I knew you would be on it like a cat on a loose shoelace. Let me try to convey to you the rich deep irony of a British BDSMer springing to the defence of the SOR.

For those not swayed by moral arguments, the best reason to support universal human rights is the Niemoller principle. If you connive at unjust laws and unfair practices, because you believe the Powers That Be (and their tame media) when they tell you that these will only be used against bad people, never against respectable citizens like you... then you have nobody else to blame when you discover that they lied, and you are next. Because governments always take more power than they admit, and never more so than with laws like the SOR rushed into effect on the heels of a moral panic.

Some of this is accidental. Rushed laws are always botched, but with a knee-jerk law the botching is worse because Parliament daren't do its job of scrutinising and criticising, for fear of being accused of protecting the bad people (perverts, terrorists, whoever is the bogeyman du jour.) So the temptation is overwhelming to rush it into law in beta, and leave the courts to sort out the mess. (And then blame the judges if people don't like the result.) And part of it is intentional: when consulted, the police will always want laws left as wide open and imprecise as possible, because if the law is so vague that anyone might be a criminal, the police can get anyone they want. And the media who campaigned for the law will not warn you, because they want to trumpet a victory, not admit that the result of their campaigning is going to hurt their own readers.

For an example you won't object to, consider ASBOs. When this law was going through Parliament, people who bothered to look at the wording complained that it was far too loosely framed and could be used against almost anyone that someone objected to. And the Government told them not to worry their little heads, because it was only for use against bad people, and who could object to that? A few years down the line, just as predicted, ASBOs were being used against people with barking dogs, people who put their rubbish in the wrong bins, people who played music too loud, peace campaigners... OK, you wouldn't object to that last, but the point is that everyone could see it was too wide-ranging. So the new Government is rebranding it as Criminal Behaviour Orders, to indicate that this time, it really will only affect bad people. We shall see.

Back to the SOR, where you have swallowed whole the tabloid line that this is all about “perverts escaping justice.” And yet, if the Spanner men hadn't pursued their case to the European Court of Human Rights that you so deeply despise, you and I, as practicing BDSMers in England, would live in danger of being arrested on a charge that could put us on the SOR.

If that sounds too vague and speculative, try a hard fact: I came within a judge's whim of being on the SOR. It's a long story, but bear with me, the details matter. Old-timers here will recall that some years back I had a run-in with the authorities; it ended as a fight with Social Services to get my son back, but it began with an Inspector who was clearly bitterly frustrated that, thanks to the Spanner case and its political aftermath, the DPP wouldn't let him bang me up just for being a pervert. So as cops do, he scratched around to find something to charge me with. In their search for proof that I was part of a Satanic ritual abuse ring they had looked at every piece of paper in my filing cabinet (it took them all day, I know, because I had to wait it out in a cell,) and in one of those files were my family photographs.

Now, when my son was a baby, his mother used to play a game where she would push his feet and say “Look, this baby folds up for transport!” Which he thought was so funny that he went on playing it. And one day when he was about four he was playing “this baby folds up,” and his mother thought it looked so cute that she took several photos of him with nothing on and his knees up to his chest.

The law on indecent pictures of children is another rushed law that ranges far wider than the Government or media will ever admit to you. The textbooks list as one of the features of paedophiles that they see sexual significance in a child's innocent behaviour: but the law now requires police and judges to do exactly that, to look at an innocent picture of a child and find it sexually significant. Furthermore, as my solicitor grimly explained, the law explicitly requires the judge to ignore motive: even if he completely accepts that the picture was taken in all innocence and with no notion that it might be considered indecent, if the law doesn't like the look of it, you are guilty. They wanted to charge me with the more serious offence of taking the pictures, but could only prove possession. The judge explained to me that he had no doubt that my wife took the pictures with innocent intent, but after she died, I should have gone through our album and destroyed them: by failing to do which, I was now guilty of a sex offence. He gave me a conditional discharge and prepared to make an order putting me on the SOR.

At which point my solicitor, bless his briefcase, bobbed up and drew the judge's attention to a newly issued guideline from the Attorney General. Presumably even the Government was becoming embarrassed at the number and variety of people being swept in by the SOR, so the AG had asked that no order should be made if the plaintiff was discharged. The judge evidently wasn't up to speed with this – I'm sure if he had been, he would have fined me tuppence or something such in order to get me over the threshold – but it was too late to change the sentence, and as he sourly said, he couldn't argue with the AG.

But for that hair's-breadth escape, I would have been barred from a wide range of jobs, required to check in at the police station like a terrorist suspect, and at risk of having my windows broken any time some cop decided to drop a friendly warning that one of those evil perverts was in the neighbourhood. Can you honestly sit there with your hands on the keyboard and tell me you think it would be a perversion of justice if I were to be allowed to appeal against that branding?

[js207]

As soon as I heard of this, I knew you would be on it like a cat on a loose shoelace. Let me try to convey to you the rich deep irony of a British BDSMer springing to the defence of the SOR.

For those not swayed by moral arguments, the best reason to support universal human rights is the Niemoller principle. If you connive at unjust laws and unfair practices, because you believe the Powers That Be (and their tame media) when they tell you that these will only be used against bad people, never against respectable citizens like you... then you have nobody else to blame when you discover that they lied, and you are next. Because governments always take more power than they admit, and never more so than with laws like the SOR rushed into effect on the heels of a moral panic.

There is another side to that Niemoller Principle though ... when you speak up to protect child molesters and axe murderers from the consequences of their crimes, it doesn't help. Really, the root failing of both police states like Hitler's or Hussein's and botched legal approaches like the ECHR is the failure to distinguish between guilt and innocence. In recent years, we have seen politicians releasing convicted mass-murderers for political and financial gain, foreign killers allowed to walk free because sending them back to their own home would "infringe their rights" - and yes, we see those same authorities persecuting over non-crimes which harm nobody. Our current system fails in both directions.

[leo9]

There is another side to that Niemoller Principle though ... when you speak up to protect child molesters and axe murderers from the consequences of their crimes, it doesn't help.

And this is how they get you every time: by telling you it's all about child molesters and axe murderers, and who cares if they get a fair trial or decent treatment, given that they're guilty anyhow and should be [insert whatever revolting punishment happens to appeal to your imagination.] So you don't notice, until it hits you personally, that the unjust laws you were happy to see used on the bad people are just as unjust when they are used against you and me.

People attack proper legal treatment for axe murderers or child rapists by asking "what if your child was the victim?" Which is a fair question, so long as you also ask the question, "what if your child were falsely accused of the crime?" And suddenly a system in which people go free if their guilt can't be proved doesn't look so bad.

By the way, when you hear a police spokesman say that because of some reform of the system "X number of murderers have gone free," what he actually means is "X number of people we arrested and were sure were guilty went free." Do you see the small but significant difference?

Really, the root failing of both police states like Hitler's or Hussein's and botched legal approaches like the ECHR is the failure to distinguish between guilt and innocence.

I really have trouble believing that you said that with a straight face, but let's look at it as if it were a serious proposition.

Police states such as you describe have a very clear idea of the difference between guilt and innocence. Guilt is being accused by the police or other authorities: innocence is not being accused by them. It couldn't be simpler, since they don't need to worry about technicalities like evidence, and if witnesses are considered useful they can always be told what to say, or shot if they refuse. Confessions are the tidiest proof of guilt, and those can usually be arranged, as the Bush administration discovered anew.

The ECHR also makes a clear distinction. Guilt is having been found guilty by a fair trial: innocence is not having been. And they frequently cause problems for governments, including our own, who would much rather use the other definition I mentiones, which saves so much time and expense and allows them to present the voters with a nice neat story - crime, criminal found, criminal punished. (Or, in the case of things like the imaginary ricin plot, crime prevented and criminal punished, which looks even better and saves the trouble of waiting for people to actually do something bad before punishing them.)

What you are complaining about is not actually guilt and innocence. What you are complaining about is that even after someone has been found guilty, people like the ECHR continue to treat him like a human being, who should be punished for his crime but not otherwise treated worse than any other human being. And I can quite see that for those for whom the world is divided into good people, who deserve rights and protection, and bad people, who deserve nothing except the shit of the world, this is intollerable. If I believed the world were so simple, I'd feel the same.

In recent years, we have seen politicians releasing convicted mass-murderers for political and financial gain,

A blatantly unjust abuse of power, I couldn't agree more, but you weaken your protests against such scandals when you lump them in with a great many more defensible decisions. And it's worth also noting that the strongest reason they forced that through was that the chap was probably, on the evidence available, innocent, and had an appeal coming up where it might very well have been proved. Rushing him to Libya as a favour for oil, and publicly blaming it on those bleeding-heart human rights people, saved the government and the courts a huge heap of embarrassment, not to mention the possibility of a humungous compensation payment which would have angered equally those who believed him innocent and those who believed that the security services are never wrong.

foreign killers allowed to walk free because sending them back to their own home would "infringe their rights"

Look at it this way. Pick a regime you know to be vile and murderous - Mugabe's, Gadafi's, Khomeni's, whatever makes your personal flesh creep. And a victim of their persecutions comes here for safety with the marks of torture on him and the rest of his family already killed by the secret police. And since being an enemy of an evil tyrant doesn't automatically make him an honest man, he does something wrong - say, drives away from a fatal accident. (All the more likely if he's not just in fear of the law, but in fear of being sent home.) Of course, he should be tried and sentenced just like anyone else, and he is. But if you then deport him as well, you are sentencing him to death, probably a very nasty death. If parliament wanted hit-and-run drivers to die by torture, they would have legislated accordingly: since they didn't, it is reasonable to question whether it is just to add that to his sentence.

But that's different from the cases you are angry about, right? The difference is, the ones you reckon should be deported are not clearly good people. And you know they are bad people because the media tell you so.

It can be an amazing sight how the press can show us an evil, despicable villain that clearly needs to be sent home, or just dropped out of a plane a mile out to sea: and then the regime in his home country falls out with ours, and suddenly he's a poor helpless victim who we have a duty to shelter and protect. Or vice versa. You can avoid all that confusion if you simply focus on the fact that this is a person, like you or me, regardless of whether the media like him or loathe him.

- and yes, we see those same authorities persecuting over non-crimes which harm nobody.

I'd agree with you, except that I'm sure we have very different lists of non-crimes, and other people would have others instead. It's a complicated world.

[IAN 2411]

leo9, I do agree that that there are certain cases where people should not be on the SOR, I believe that I have said this once before about the young couple that live near me. Had sex with each other at 15 and had a baby, the boy was put on the SOR but the girl was not. They are both happily married and the child is 6 years old, now where is the justice in that? I agree that it has to be reformed because as you say there are too many cases brushed in the pile because the law has no idea how to react for the public’s safety.

However it was the ECHR that I was pissed off about because of the stupidity of the rights they try to uphold, and then unload on nations that they think do not corrispond to their way of thinking. How well you know me leo9...lol.

IAN 2411{lillirose}

[leo9]

leo9, I do agree that that there are certain cases where people should not be on the SOR, I believe that I have said this once before about the young couple that live near me. Had sex with each other at 15 and had a baby, the boy was put on the SOR but the girl was not. They are both happily married and the child is 6 years old, now where is the justice in that? I agree that it has to be reformed because as you say there are too many cases brushed in the pile because the law has no idea how to react for the public’s safety.

In other words, you agree exactly with what the ECHR actually said, which is that people should have the right to appeal - not be unconditionally pardoned, as you might think from the tabloids, but just appeal to a court, same as one can appeal against an unjust prison sentence.

But you just reacted to the tabloids headlines saying EURO COURT BACKS PERVES "RIGHTS". And did it occur to you to wonder why this issue was all over the papers right now, given that the original decision was some time back and it won't be actioned for years? Because Cameron is squaring up for a fight with the ECHR over prisoners' votes, but that might not rouse enough indignation among the voters. So they dug this judgement out of the files, blew the dust off it and splashed it as if it were a sensational new development, so they now have two "ECHR HATES UK" issues to shout about. The scary thing is that the public falls for these tricks every time.

However it was the ECHR that I was pissed off about because of the stupidity of the rights they try to uphold, and then unload on nations that they think do not corrispond to their way of thinking.

And with that example in front of you, doesn't it occur to you to wonder if some of those other rights only look "stupid" because you don't personally know people affected by them?

[js207]

leo9: The axe murderer reference was not hypothetical, it was directly related to the prisoner votes case, and I do believe that even accused axe murderers - particularly axe murderers, given the severity of the case and the punishment if convicted - should get a fair trial. That is not what the ECHR were arguing with, though: they somehow think that convicted killers should be entitled to vote, despite democratically passed legislation and public opinion to the contrary. With luck, this piece of judicial stupidity might just be the last straw which gets their authority revoked entirely.

It is a shame. I would like to have a court which sticks up for actual principles - the right to a fair trial, that any real "crime" requires harm to a victim - but instead, they just whine about real courts being nasty by not letting drug-taking axe-killers vote. Can you give me any actual reason to allow him to vote despite the law saying otherwise?

If the ECHR were sticking up for fair trials, I would applaud it - but they were seeking to reduce the punishment prescribed by law for the guilty, which is a very different situation.

I am disappointed you seem to confuse an ill-founded "conviction" by a kangaroo court in a police state with actual guilt, but you get close to my point again here:

"What you are complaining about is that even after someone has been found guilty, people like the ECHR continue to treat him like a human being, who should be punished for his crime but not otherwise treated worse than any other human being."

Almost: I complain that the ECHR objects to applying part of the legally-prescribed punishment (in this case, loss of the vote) to those whose guilt is not in dispute. Someone is guilty, the law says that means they can't vote - and the ECHR demands otherwise. Why is this acceptable?

"the strongest reason they forced that through was that the chap was probably, on the evidence available, innocent, and had an appeal coming up"

What evidence? The first trial examined the evidence and concluded he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as did the appeal. Yes, there was a request in the pipeline for a second appeal in the hope that might disagree with the first two hearings - but there's no shortage of people in prison wanting to keep plugging away in hopes of getting lucky eventually, particularly when they aren't footing the bill.

"But if you then deport him as well, you are sentencing him to death, probably a very nasty death. If parliament wanted hit-and-run drivers to die by torture, they would have legislated accordingly: since they didn't, it is reasonable to question whether it is just to add that to his sentence."

No - just refusing to protect him if he refuses to comply with our laws - and as I understand it, parliament DID legislate that criminals should be kicked out, but this was then interfered with in the name of 'human rights'.

"And you know they are bad people because the media tell you so."

Nothing to do with any media. Get convicted by the appropriate court beyond reasonable doubt, you forfeit our protection. If that means returning to a situation you don't like, you should have thought of that before committing the crime. Remember, there is no right to go and live in another country of your choice if that country doesn't want you; if a country is kind enough to let you in, it has the right to revoke that if you abuse the hospitality.

If I turned up on your doorstep wanting to shelter from the rain, then started stealing from you or punching you, should you be obliged to let me carry on because it's wet outside?

I know this is one area where British/American law differ from French law and Asimov's Laws of Robotics, in the legal treatment of inaction; the French hold that if I see something nasty is going to happen to you but fail to intervene, I am in the wrong, something I strongly disagree with. In my view, if some nasty fate might befall you, I am under no legal obligation to intervene unless there is something to make me responsible for you (being your parent or guardian, for example). It would be nice of me to help you, but there should be nothing forcing me to do so. On an international level, if you are in a country which will mistreat you, it would be nice of another country to help in some way, but there is no obligation to do so - and if you literally or figuratively attack or mistreat your would-be rescuer, you should not be surprised or entitled to redress if this changes their mind about coming to your aid!

[IAN 2411]

December 10th, 1948: Universal Declaration of Human Rights at Palais de Chaillot, Paris. Have they changed the world? Is the world a better place now than it was before December 10th, 1948?

Yes but it would have been with or without the help of Strasbourg.

Do they go too far?

Yes they are now. They are the last chance that a person has for his human rights. If the courts of the Human Rights in Strasbourg, say the ruling of a foreign country should or could be upheld, then that should be the end of the line. There should be no appeal or what the hell is the point of them giving judgement. If the court asks for a particular agreement or guarantee and it is given in writing then that should be the end of the issue. To allow a further appeal to their judgment is saying that the first Court of HR was a farce, so then why bother in the first place.

Should they be reworked?

Yes they are outdated and most don’t even apply to most countries with their own Human Rights laws in place.

And finally: What should be done to ensure that human rights are respected?

Matters of Homeland security should take priority over [It is my human right for my dog to crap on your lawn. I should not have to pay a £200 fine for excrement clean-up,] cases.

(assuming that we can all agree that most of the human rights should be respected.

The world as a whole will never agree on anything.

There is a backlog of 152.000 cases and an estimated 90.000 will get thrown out categorised as inadmissible. The court deal with only 2000 a year and at the moment there is 3000 new ones each year. There has to be a point where the courts of the plaintiff’s country say you do not meet the criteria to appeal to the Human Rights Courts in Strasbourg. The Human rights court was put there for a reason and it is now being abused. When the Courts in Strasbourg place the security of a Country or place the safety of the public in that country at risk by their ruling, then they are treading on the same human rights that they are there to protect.

Be well IAN 2411

[thir]

December 10th, 1948: Universal Declaration of Human Rights at Palais de Chaillot, Paris.

Have they changed the world?

Is the world a better place now than it was before December 10th, 1948?

Do they go too far?
(for example article 25: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.)

Should they be reworked?

And finally: What should be done to ensure that human rights are respected?
(assuming that we can all agree that most of the human rights should be respected.

The world has changed a lot since 1948. To uphold these human 'rights' without also having human obligations is insane - we are now too many people.

Human Overpopulation Threatens Our Survival
http://www.care2.com/causes/human-ov...-survival.html

The world cannot - and should - support that many people with all the above. So we can either cancell human rights, saying we are no more owed a life - much less a sheltered, well-fed life - than any other animal. And let people die - which we do anyway.

Or we acknowledge that in order for all to have these good things, we have to become fewer people as well as distributing things differently.

[lucy]

The world cannot - and should - support that many people with all the above. So we can either cancell human rights, saying we are no more owed a life - much less a sheltered, well-fed life - than any other animal. And let people die - which we do anyway.

The key word in article 25 is of course adequate. "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for ... "
The world could maybe support 9 billions Bangladeshi or Ethiopians. It certainly can't support 9 billion Americans, or Australians, or Swiss.

Or we acknowledge that in order for all to have these good things, we have to become fewer people as well as distributing things differently.

The crux is that the only real effective measure to bring down birthrates (apart from sheer violence like the Chinese did) is development. That and education, especially the education of women, how Bangladesh proves.

[IAN 2411]

Where does deportation come into it? Should we likewise deport others to Australia or somewhere when they screw up??

I fail to see how you arrived at deporting him to anywhere but his homeland. I might also point out that he was an asylum seeker and not a British citizen. Up until the point of being told he would be deported he had not bothered about his human rights, in fact he never bothered with the human rights of others either. That’s why he run off leaving a 12 year old girl trapped under his car. Just maybe, that if he had stayed and helped get her out she would still be alive now. If you want to live in a country then you must abide by the laws of that country. To be honest, I would have settled for sending him to Strasbourg to live with the Judges he was eventually going to appeal to.

24 December 2009
An asylum seeker who fatally struck a girl with his car then fled the scene has won the right to stay in the UK.
Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, 31, of Blackburn, hit Amy Houston, 12, in 2003. He was later jailed for four months.
He faced deportation but successfully invoked human rights legislation granting him the right to a "family life" in the UK.
Justice Secretary and Blackburn MP Jack Straw said he will be seeking to appeal against the decision.
'Extremely disappointed'
The UK Border Agency is also considering an appeal.
Amy Houston was found trapped under the wheels of Ibrahim's Rover in Newfield Road, Blackburn, in November 2003. She died later in hospital.
Ibrahim was jailed for four months by Blackburn magistrates for driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident.
The father-of-two was due to be deported after he was taken into the custody of the UK Border Agency.
But the Iraqi Kurd claimed it was too dangerous to return to his homeland and won the right to stay in Britain after a lengthy series of appeals at the Manchester Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.

The man is a killer and should have been dealt as such, a life for a life and life meaning life. Send him back to Iraq. What about that poor girls human rights to live, and what about the human rights of her family.

[IAN 2411]

Where does deportation come into it? Should we likewise deport others to Australia or somewhere when they screw up??

One other point I would like to make on that remark that we should never forget. The British have been deporting their own citizens to other countries to face trial for several years. I am happy to say that a vast majority of the population in the, UK, would say that an asylum seeker is the bottom of the pile but top of the list to be deported. We have been sending British born citizens to New Zealand, Canada, Australia, America and Europe ever since we signed up for the extradition treaty.

It is not an asylum seekers right to be allowed in another country to stay whatever the trouble is in, their own, country. He has to prove that he is a responsible person and will uphold the British laws of the land. The three highest crimes in the UK in my opinion are Treason, murder and manslaughter. How much higher does an asylum seeker have to go before he is considered not worthy of our protection?

Be well IAN 2411