Sunday, July 07, 2013

Hakuna Qatada - no worries for the rest of our days


7/7 2005 - Islamist al-Qaeda terrorists detonate four bombs on Tube trains and a double-decker bus in London. 52 innocent people were killed, and over 700 were injured.

7/7 2013 - Abu Qatada - the 'spiritual leader' of al-Qaeda in Europe; Osama Bin Laden’s 'right-hand man'; 'spiritual guide' to the 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta - is finally deported.

There is a certain symmetry in this chronological coincidence: 7/7 is ever so slightly redeemed by the news that we have finally banished this odious Islamist hate-preacher from our shores.

Labour wasted an entire decade and spent £millions on welfare and wrangling with the ECtHR over an interminable cycle of arrests, deportation orders, appeals and climb-downs. David Blunkett failed; Charles Clarke failed; John Reid failed; Jacqui Smith failed; Alan Johnson failed; Jack Straw failed; Charlie Falconer failed. Their chronic weakness is perpetuated in Ed Miliband and his ineffectual crew.

It took a strong Tory woman - Theresa May - and a no-nonsense non-lawyer - Chris Grayling - to secure a final result. Abu Qatada is now sunbathing on the banks of the Jordan (or awaiting trial in a Jordanian prison on charges of terrorism). Either way, he is no longer our problem.

His Grace would go further.

It seems a pity to deprive Mr Qatada of his right to a family life, so we ought to deport his entire brood as well. Why should his wife, two sons and two daughters continue to receive welfare courtesy of the British taxpayer? Surely they will want to visit their much-loved father and adored husband in Amman, if only to ensure that the hard labour to which he will hopefully be sentenced is not a breach of his human rights? Apparently there is a petition for the family to be reunited at the earliest possible opportunity.

And while we're at it, we ought to invite a few others to leave - any foreign-born nationals who despise our democracy and rail against our traditions of liberty. Why in the name of Allah are we sending our brave men and women to die in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya while Islamists can creep in through the back door and threaten to destroy us here at home?

It was kind and compassionate (indeed, Christian) of the Home Secretary to ensure that Jordan will not seek to prosecute Abu Qatada with evidence which might have been extracted under torture. It is just and merciful (indeed, Christian) that HM Government has secured a treaty with Jordan which guarantees a torture-free trial for Mr Qatada.

But why should those Muslims who wish to see Sharia law implemented in the UK be protected from its punitive excesses when they are obliged to go and live in a more Sharia-compliant country?

And what business is it really of HM Government if a sovereign Islamic state wishes to administer justice in accordance with the precepts of Mohammed?

98 Comments:

Blogger Nick said...

It's good to finally see a satisfactory end to this protracted legal farce. As you say YG, this is the result of years of feeble mismanagement under Labour, with the added ball and chain of the ECHR.

The Russians use the expression "bears help" to describe this kind of interference from the EU on deportation issues. The deportation of this "man" should prove the point once and for all, that the ECHR does not act in Britain's interests. We should, in Mr Farage's words, seek an "amical divorce" from the EU asap.

Yes, lets re-unite the Qatada family too

7 July 2013 at 10:08  
Blogger Muggins said...

"And while we're at it, we ought to invite a few others to leave - any foreign-born nationals who despise our democracy and rail against our traditions of liberty"

Yep. If they hate our culture, what are they doing here, benefiting from it? We should stop messing around.

But of course there's this army of people who can think nothing else except "Racism!!!" when you suggest this, or tighter limits to immigration.

Mad world.

7 July 2013 at 10:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I don't know enough about his family but if they are foreign nationals with passports and they haven't been granted asylum themselves then why on earth would be keep them here?

7 July 2013 at 10:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article: "And while we're at it, we ought to invite a few others to leave - any foreign-born nationals who despise our democracy and rail against our traditions of liberty."

The problem comes that there are also British citizens who have the same sort of views, from the same source, and we can't 'invite' them to leave because that would be creating a thought crime.

7 July 2013 at 10:53  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 July 2013 at 11:44  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

invite a few others to leave—any foreign-born nationals who despise our democracy and rail against our traditions of liberty

Quite right. Who needs foreign-born despisers and railers when, thanks to the immigration policies of strong Tory women and men (and their Labour comrades-in-arms), we are blessed with a bottomless well of homegrown malcontents?

This page brings together numerous opinion polls conducted among Muslims in Britain and worldwide. To highlight but a few findings:

● 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified
● 1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops
● 37% believe Jews in Britain are a ‘legitimate target’
● One third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam
● Two thirds of young British Muslims agree that ‘honour’ violence is acceptable

7 July 2013 at 11:44  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Islam should be treated as a public health problem.

7 July 2013 at 11:45  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I believe its is long past the time that Parliament re-visited the 1351 Treason Act and as in the past, amend its provisions to fit the current threats to the Sovereign and people of this Country.

Anyone, individuals or group interested in undermining the very fabric of the 'British way of life' [for want of a better expression]should be uncompromisingly dealt with swiftly and harshly.

If UKIP took this task on board the next general election would be theirs for walk over.

War on behalf of Islam has been declared on the West and we should respond accordingly.

7 July 2013 at 11:50  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The Jordanian legal system is derived from the Napoleonic code (inherited from the Ottoman and Egyptian legal systems) and the Family Law in force is the Personal Status Law of 1976. Sharia Courts have jurisdiction over personal status matters relating to Muslims

7 July 2013 at 12:08  
Blogger Nick said...

"It took a strong Tory woman - Theresa May - and a no-nonsense non-lawyer - Chris Grayling - to secure a final result"

Your Grace, I would challenge your apparent assertion that the Government has suddenly discovered a moral backbone. It is more likely the Conservatives are waking up to the real political threat from UKIP and responding by wearing their get-tough hat.

7 July 2013 at 12:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Now, this is a subject very close to the Inspector’s heart. To wit, our evil judiciary.

Can’t remember the actual date we signed up to the terrorists charter, also known as this pan European human rights disgrace, but remembers all too well his impression of it at the time. “The only people who will be claiming ‘human rights’ are the very people who should be denied them.”

Why is it that the courts now act as if Satan was sitting with them on the bench ?

There is only room for one legislative outfit in the UK – Parliament. When the courts go against parliament, they go against democracy. Parliament is frustrated. The Government is frustrated, but the Government KNOWS what it has to do to achieve a lasting solution. It’s going to have to do it sooner or later, why not NOW !!!

7 July 2013 at 12:34  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Nick
It took a treaty with Jordan.

7 July 2013 at 12:36  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

OIG

A former head of the ECHR once succinctly summarised the strategy for defence lawyers.

If you are innocent-plead the facts

If you have some culpability - plead the law.

If you have no redeeming merit - plead "Human Rights"

7 July 2013 at 12:44  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

OIG

A former head of the ECHR once succinctly summarised the strategy for defence lawyers.

If you are innocent-plead the facts

If you have some culpability - plead the law.

If you have no redeeming merit - plead "Human Rights"

7 July 2013 at 12:45  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Inspector
"When the courts go against parliament, they go against democracy"
The House of Lords is democratic?

7 July 2013 at 13:02  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Unidentified threat to Kate's baby:

"The new royal baby is coming into a world with greater threat of kidnapping than ever before, according to Ken Wharfe, a former bodyguard for Princess Diana.

"Kate's baby could be in danger. Given the political state of the world and the vulnerability of the royals, they need a lot of protection. In this terror-ridden world of ours, there's a real risk of kidnap for this child," Wharfe told Look Magazine.

"The world is a much more dangerous place than it was 20 years ago, when we would take William and Harry out."

I wonder who could be posing such a threat to a newborn infant?
The article doesn't say.

Probably militant Methodists.

7 July 2013 at 13:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ivo. What particularly galls is the way the culmination of centuries of Judeo-Christian thought and tradition that was invested in man’s interpretation of the law has been swept aside for this secularists dream of artificiality. No one wants it, apart from smartarse unprincipled lawyers, who unfortunately, will be the next generation of smartarse unprincipled judges needed in keeping this sham on the road.

One would be interested in the opinion and, if he can come up with one, defence of this secularist new order from secularists such as DanJ0. A fellow who has made it perfectly clear there is no room for such apparent religious failings in his new world. This perfectionist has a stark choice, the situation before or the situation as it is now. There is no compromise available, the nature of this ‘Human Rights’ rot has seen to that...


7 July 2013 at 13:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Manfarang. The House of Lords is part of the Democratic Process. Your point being ?

7 July 2013 at 13:23  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Inspector
A democratic process usually involves elections.

7 July 2013 at 13:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Manfarang. The UK version does...

7 July 2013 at 13:36  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Inspector
To the House of Lords.
Which Lord did you last vote for, Lord Archer?

7 July 2013 at 13:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "One would be interested in the opinion and, if he can come up with one, defence of this secularist new order from secularists such as DanJ0."

No idea what you're asking for from me.

"A fellow who has made it perfectly clear there is no room for such apparent religious failings in his new world."

Actually, I made the opposite perfectly clear. Article 9 of the ECHR, you see. That is, I've specifically argued for room for the religious to do what they wish within reason. Fail away. I don't know why some of you struggle retaining this in your heads. Your former sidekick clearly hasn't grasped one of the fundamental things about liberal thought four threads down: We deliberately make space even for opinions and beliefs we don't like ourselves.

7 July 2013 at 13:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Manfarang, you don’t actually vote in members of the upper chamber. You see, they don’t initiate legislation, merely adding a checks and balancing function. We don’t vote in our judges either – do you ?

7 July 2013 at 13:41  
Blogger Nick said...

OIG

I think the secularists dream will, like most artificially-created dystopias (Soviet Union, Third Reich, etc...) will eventually dissolve into reality.

When the smartarse human rights lawyer finds a group of militant Islamists at their front door, baying for blood and demanding his head just because he is not a Muslim, at least he can die content in the knowledge he helped give them the right to do it.

7 July 2013 at 13:45  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Inspector
Adding cheques to their bank balances (expenses)

7 July 2013 at 13:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, No idea what you're asking for from me.

Surely not evasive action from you. But why ? Simple enough question. Do you want to be under ECHR ‘law’ or not. It’s one or the other. The answer is yes or no. Aye or Nay.
Remember, you can’t have half and half. It’s the whole package or nothing.

7 July 2013 at 13:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "There is only room for one legislative outfit in the UK – Parliament. When the courts go against parliament, they go against democracy."

It's curious that you say this but argue in favour of the

"culmination of centuries of Judeo-Christian thought and tradition that was invested in man’s interpretation of the law"

The point about common law is that it developed from the decisions of judges i.e. the judiciary, as opposed to statutory law which comes out of Parliament i.e. the legislature. Have I misunderstood something because you see to be arguing against yourself there?

7 July 2013 at 13:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

It’s time for this man’s constitutional, which may or may not include a visit to the Mouse and Wheel

Be seeing you...

7 July 2013 at 13:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "You see, [The House of Lords] don’t initiate legislation, merely adding a checks and balancing function."

Actually, they can initiate legislation themselves as far as I know.

7 July 2013 at 13:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

...but before he goes, DanJ0, be curious no longer. Common law has always been subservient to statute law. Thought you knew that...

7 July 2013 at 13:52  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Nick
I do remember a human rights lawyer who had a group baying at his door but they were not Muslims.
Two public investigations concluded that elements of the British security forces colluded in Finucane's murder and there have been high-profile calls for a public inquiry.

7 July 2013 at 13:57  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0 said ...
"I've specifically argued for room for the religious to do what they wish within reason."

So is it "within reason" to continue to permit Christians to "pollute" the minds of our children? And where will be the "room for the religious" to object to the acceptance of homosexual 'marriage'?

"Your former sidekick clearly hasn't grasped one of the fundamental things about liberal thought four threads down: We deliberately make space even for opinions and beliefs we don't like ourselves."

I understand liberal thought - just think that when its combined with 'human rights' and secular atheism, it amounts to oppression.

The earlier thread you mentioned. So you agree with the creation and distribution of pornographic material than demonstrably abuses and exploits those taking part and truly "pollutes" the minds of those watching it? And why? Because it will do more harm than good stamping it out!

7 July 2013 at 15:08  
Blogger LEN said...

Perhaps it is time to follow Australia`s lead and stop 'caving in 'to every group putting monstrous demands upon the better nature of the British people.
'fair play' is one thing but men like Qatada have manipulated the Justice system and made total fools of our Government.

As Australia said,,,'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'


7 July 2013 at 15:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, you're both clueless and inclined to totalitarianism. Not a great combination.

7 July 2013 at 15:55  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Cranmer:

Not sure I agree with you with regards to his family. If they are not being indicted for any particular crime, where is the justification for deporting them? If it is simply that they are related to an odious man, that doesn't seem particularly fair or just. If it is that they are foreign and claiming benefits - surely this is an issue that needs legislating for generically rather than by attainder?

DanJ0 made a good point above regarding the way in which liberals fight for space for views they disagree with - Christians are called to go much further: we must love those we call enemy.

The Qatada family are strangers in our land; we ought to love them as we love ourselves. It is basic to Judeo-Christian justice (Leviticus 19:34).

Equally though - by that token - if we find the level of support they receive to be excessive, there is nothing to say it is necessarily unjust to revisit the manner in which the apparently destitute are provided for.

7 July 2013 at 16:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Actually, they [the HoLs] can initiate legislation themselves as far as I know.

Maybe they can. Let’s say, for arguments sake, they could. But they don’t, so we can effectively say they can’t. Same with Her Majesty. She could on a whim, dismiss parliament tomorrow at 11am. But she won’t. However, in her case it is somewhat reassuring she can in case Cameron ever gets it into his head to abolish marriage altogether - Because it discriminates against gays who wish to remain single, or some other clever-dick bollocks he’s good at coming out with...


7 July 2013 at 16:07  
Blogger John Wrake said...

Common Law is NOT subservient to Statute Law, since Common Law was practised in King Alfred's reign and Parliament (and therefore Statute Law) did not exist until the first Parliament was created by Simon De Montfort, some hundreds of years later.

Arguments about democracy are pointless, since we no longer have democratic government. The checks on undemocratic government provided by the Crown and the House of Lords have been dismantled by traitors, so, instead of an absolute monarchy (which we got rid of in 1649) we now have an absolute Prime Minister initiating his orders from Brussels.
Parliament is the equivalent of a Sixth Form Debate and its influence bears a remarkable similarity to the latter.

John Wrake

7 July 2013 at 16:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Maybe they can. Let’s say, for arguments sake, they could. But they don’t, so we can effectively say they can’t."

I think you'll find they do.

7 July 2013 at 16:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Belfast. The family unit is still the basis for society. not the individual the secularists, and now you, would have it. Send them home, and let it be a warning to the next muslim out to destroy us - your ugly wife and ugly children go too when we boot you out...


7 July 2013 at 16:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, then it shouldn’t be too difficult to find a law the Lords initiated. Note the italics...

7 July 2013 at 16:20  
Blogger Peter D said...

"DanJ0" said...

"Dodo, you're both clueless and inclined to totalitarianism. Not a great combination."

Perhaps you might address the actual points I made @ 15.08, as opposed to standard argumentum ad hominem.

7 July 2013 at 16:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "DanJ0, then it shouldn’t be too difficult to find a law the Lords initiated. Note the italics..."

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/public.html

7 July 2013 at 16:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Perhaps you might address the actual points I made @ 15.08, as opposed to standard argumentum ad hominem."

Dodo, it's like being in Alice Through The Looking Glass talking with you. I mean, just look at the first paragraph. It bears so little relation to th original argument that it's not worth stripping down ... and if I did then you'd argue black is white or up is down like you usually do. As you tried to do with the alcohol thing.

7 July 2013 at 16:26  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Inspector:

The House of Lords has been far more consistently concerned with many of the things you are ardently concerned by than the House of Commons, since the late 1970s. That's why I'm never impressed by predictions that the HoL will "block" legislation invoking equality - they've been more consistently supportive of it as a chamber than the HoC.

I tend to be supportive of an elected HoL these days (with apologies to Lord Lavendon).

7 July 2013 at 16:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


John Wrake, Magna Carta is and was the common law. It was not a decree by the king so is not statute law. But statute law has revised much of Magna Carta in the centuries. Ergo, common law is subservient to statute law.


7 July 2013 at 16:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The Human Right Act 1998 is statute law too, isn't it?

7 July 2013 at 16:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Couldn’t agree more Belfast. If the HoLs is to work properly, it must be supported by integrity in the parliamentary procedure. That seems to be asking a bit too much these days. How can deliberately designed faulty legislation like the SSM bill have been tackled any better. It was bounced through by the commons with a nasty spin on it...



7 July 2013 at 16:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

How are you doing with the HoLs bill thing, Inspector? Do you need more help?

7 July 2013 at 16:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

You can repeal statute law, and it’s so much easier when the product stinks...

7 July 2013 at 16:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One has to disengage now, DanJ0. Will view your link later...

7 July 2013 at 16:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Surely not evasive action from you."

7 July 2013 at 16:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

You're developing a sense of humour - who'd have believed that !

7 July 2013 at 16:47  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0 said ...
"Dodo, it's like being in Alice Through The Looking Glass talking with you."

Argumentum ad hominem.

"I mean, just look at the first paragraph. It bears so little relation to th original argument that it's not worth stripping down and if I did then you'd argue black is white or up is down like you usually do. As you tried to do with the alcohol thing."

Argumentum ad hominem and non sequitur.

Here's my comment following yours:
DanJ0 said ...
"I've specifically argued for room for the religious to do what they wish within reason."

"So is it "within reason" to continue to permit Christians to "pollute" the minds of our children? And where will be the "room for the religious" to object to the acceptance of homosexual 'marriage'?"

"Your former sidekick clearly hasn't grasped one of the fundamental things about liberal thought four threads down: We deliberately make space even for opinions and beliefs we don't like ourselves."

I understand liberal thought - just think that when its combined with 'human rights' and secular atheism, it amounts to oppression.

The earlier thread you mentioned. So you agree with the creation and distribution of pornographic material than demonstrably abuses and exploits those taking part and truly "pollutes" the minds of those watching it? And why? Because it will do more harm than good stamping it out."

Address the points .... or not .... entirely your choice; but do stop side-stepping them with this attempt to present as intellectually superior.

7 July 2013 at 16:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'll just do the first paragraph as an example and leave you to flap and squawk on your own afterwards.

"So is it "within reason" to continue to permit Christians to "pollute" the minds of our children?"

The context was Article 9 of the ECHR. Article 9 is split into two parts, an absolute right, and a qualified right. My "within reason" is there to allow for the qualified right. The rest of your stuff there is an unreleated leap to what you really want to talk about, and that was an unrelated leap from what I actually said in the other thread which was not about child development at all. You see, this is what you do and you expect me to dance to your out of tune music. No thanks.

"And where will be the "room for the religious" to object to the acceptance of homosexual 'marriage'?"

That'll be Article 10 which is also split into two parts like Article 9. Feel free to object. Of course, having an objection doesn't give people the right to behave as they please off the back of it.

7 July 2013 at 17:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

And all that ties in with this bit of nonsense here from below where you misuse the word "illiberal" despite my much repeated Article 9 thing.

"One assumes you realise the illiberal nature of your anti-Christian comment and your silence reflects this."

and

"I'm challenging that description as illiberal and anti-Christian."

7 July 2013 at 17:17  
Blogger Roy said...

Dreadnaught said...

I believe its is long past the time that Parliament re-visited the 1351 Treason Act and as in the past, amend its provisions to fit the current threats to the Sovereign and people of this Country.

I wholeheartedly agree. A lot of our terrorists are British citizens and we hear about British citizens going to Pakistan, Somalia and similar places for training.

Despite that, I do not recall a single case in recent years of a British citizen being put on trial for terrorism. Why is that? Do the authorities think that any British citizen who is non-white is not really British? In that case either the authorities are guilty of racism or they are guilty of allowing British passports to be used as a flag of convenience. Perhaps they are guilty of both.

If these terrorists and their supporters are "British" they should be tried for treason. If they are not really British then they should be stripped of British citizenship. They cannot have it both ways.

7 July 2013 at 17:23  
Blogger Peter D said...

"Arise Sir Andrew Murray!"

7 July 2013 at 17:24  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0

So pleased you have spared the time to share your pearls of wisdom with this "clueless" communicant who is "inclined to totalitarianism". Very descent of you.

"I'll just do the first paragraph as an example and leave you to flap and squawk on your own afterwards."

Nice polite beginning ...

"The context was Article 9 of the ECHR. Article 9 is split into two parts, an absolute right, and a qualified right. My "within reason" is there to allow for the qualified right."

Yes but what values and dominant world view lie behind the qualification of the right to express one's religion?

People who hold your view that Christianity "pollutes" the minds of children are hardly likely to protect such freedom of expression and look at the abuse of public order legislation recently by the police.

What chance employees of the State - teachers, doctors, social workers, registrars etc - having their religious freedom upheld by the ECHR? And private companies offering a 'public service'?

And what if parents object to their children being taught the new orthodoxy that homosexual sex and *marriage* is *natural* and *healthy*?

You really believe

"The rest of your stuff there is an unreleated leap to what you really want to talk about, and that was an unrelated leap from what I actually said in the other thread which was not about child development at all."

Whatever it was, it revealed a hostile, anti-Christian stance common among the liberal, secular left. Maybe you could enlighten me.

"You see, this is what you do and you expect me to dance to your out of tune music. No thanks."

Not really. You worship Articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR. I'm saying they afford limited protection to Christians.

And pornography ... involving children, animals and perverted sexual acts ... is that a protected right, qualified, right too?

7 July 2013 at 18:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 July 2013 at 18:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You see? We're on to child and animal pornography now as though somehow I'd be defending that despite all the stuff I've written in the past about harm and its bog-standard liberal limits. It's Alice Through The Looking Glass. There's no end to it. It's like anything goes no matter how outlandish, irrelevant, or unrelated as long as an argument, any argument, can be had. And yet my refusal to do it is somehow indicative of an inability to trash it all rather than just contempt. Jeez.

7 July 2013 at 18:13  
Blogger Peter D said...

^*

7 July 2013 at 18:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Evidence of the trouble maker, trying for his weekend trouble. Yet again.

7 July 2013 at 18:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Your HoL link followed and researched. Live and learn, what !

The Inspector is obliged to you...

Better become more acquainted with them if one’s own privately sponsored bill, the Abolition of Same Sex Marriage 2015 is to go through :->


7 July 2013 at 19:31  
Blogger Peter D said...

"It seems a pity to deprive Mr Qatada of his right to a family life, so we ought to deport his entire brood as well."

Brood? Now, now ... I tend to agree but I'm sure some lawyer will be able to find a reason to dispute this under the ECHR.

"And while we're at it, we ought to invite a few others to leave - any foreign-born nationals who despise our democracy and rail against our traditions of liberty. Why in the name of Allah are we sending our brave men and women to die in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya while Islamists can creep in through the back door and threaten to destroy us here at home?2

Couldn't agree more but think of the millions the lawyers will earn contesting this under several of the Articles!

The European Convention on Human Rights is an unprecedented attack on the integrity of the nation State and, indirectly, on Christianity.

All European member States are party to the Convention and all new members are expected to ratify it. The European Court which interprets the Convention, has supremacy over our national courts and legislation. Judgements are binding on States and they are obliged to execute them.

Judges are elected for a nine year term. The Convention requires that judges are of "high moral character" (so if you hold orthodox Christian views, beware. Nowadays, they are 'immoral'). These judges are elected by majority vote in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from three candidates nominated by each contracting state. So if atheistic secularism is in the majority, the odds are against individual Christian countries.

And some see this Court and the Convention as a protection of individual freedom.

7 July 2013 at 19:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Peter D. Remember several threads down, when we had a few law types on whining about the constriction of legal aid, and bleating that Briton’s would no longer be available to access the law. Well, it’s already happening, and it’s not happening to Briton’s but to illegals trying to sneak in under the carpet. Have to give the law types credit, mind. They knew it was going to affect their rice bowl right from day one.

Despicable immoral lot...

7 July 2013 at 20:07  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

I agree we should stop all legal aid in respect of foreign nationals making applications under the Convention. Waste of time and money and a direct infringement of this nation's independence.

Not so sure about restricting legal aid internally in, let's say family matters, where the State is increasingly intruding. If its for drink driving or some such matter, let people represent themselves.

7 July 2013 at 20:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

For anyone who doesn’t appreciate the result of the governments initiative on legal aid no longer being available to illegals, here it is in a nutshell.

Johnny Hard Luck Story Illegal Foreigner is picked up by the border Agency. He’s then granted legal aid and this allows him to become a client to a British law firm. He has, in his chancer way, accessed the finest that the land can provide. And it doesn’t cost him a penny, but it costs us millions.

Anyway, that is how it was. Here it is now. His legal representation is the duty solicitor the BA lays on. A representative who due to the work load, wouldn’t remember him from Adam a few days later. Johnny’s illegal hide is removed to back where it belongs, and one hell of a lot faster than before.

God is great, as Johnny would say if he was still here !

7 July 2013 at 20:33  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

The European Convention on Human Rights is an unprecedented attack on the integrity of the nation State and, indirectly, on Christianity

Not if it is viewed in context of rebuilding post WW2 Europe and off-setting the onset and expansion of the Stalinist version of Communism and subsequent Cold War.

It made perfect sense as it should, being largely scripted by British contributors like David Maxwell-Fyffe. Where it fails now is in the unexpected liberal re-interpretation of the original aims and objectives.

That Peter D blindly jumps on the band-wagon and condemns the whole thing is so typically populist and shows little regard for our major role we played in its conception and subsequent years of prevarication by successive governments.

'It also formed part of wider efforts to achieve greater European unity, and at this stage the Conservatives, now in opposition and led by figures such as Sir Winston Churchill and Harold Macmillan, took the lead in championing this cause, as well the need for a human rights charter. However, their Labour counterparts were less enthusiastic and Clement Attlee’s Government pursued a more isolationist approach. While the British still enjoyed a great deal of prestige on the Continent for their wartime efforts, relations with their European partners would shortly turn sour a few years later as they refused to embrace moves towards “ever closer union”.

Following Churchill’s call for “a kind of United States of Europe”, he presided over a Congress of Europe in May 1948, which brought together more than 700 parliamentarians from across the continent. The European Movement emerged from this meeting, with a commitment to achieving greater European unity and the adoption of a human rights charter. The British wing of this organisation took the lead in conducting preparatory work on a draft Convention in early 1949, which involved Fyfe and numerous international law jurists, including Professor Arthur Goodhart and Professor Herscht Lauterpacht. J Harcourt Barrington'.

7 July 2013 at 21:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well, quite. The ECHR is essentially of British origin. Moreover, the Human Rights Act brings its rights under Parliamentary sovereignty. It's the interpretation that's gone a bit squiffy, in particular regarding Article 8.

7 July 2013 at 21:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, The ECHR is essentially of British origin

No it’s not. The last, and only attempt at encapsulating human rights in England was 1215 !

7 July 2013 at 21:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The ECHR is the result of...

The sons, daughters and grandchildren of NAZI officials in association with...
The sons, daughters and grandchildren of NAZI victims.

That is why a gypsy can buy a plot of land in the countryside and, to the disregard of planning laws, can set up a gypsy community, and it takes 2 to 3 years to turf him out and send him on his way.

You see, years ago, the powers that be in Europe would have shot him on sight or sent him out to be gassed.

It’s called hereditary guilt...

So you can see, it has NOTHING to do with the UK.

7 July 2013 at 21:41  
Blogger Peter D said...

Dreadnaught

Yes but we are in a different context and Stalinism is within our midst and, as you say, "where it fails now is in the unexpected liberal re-interpretation of the original aims and objectives." I suspect David Maxwell-Fyffe has Nazism more in mind too.

Different times; different solutions. This Convention is imposing all sorts of requirements on what should be sovereign states, for example the obligation to recognise homosexual *marriage* is just around the corner.

DanJ0
"Moreover, the Human Rights Act brings its rights under Parliamentary sovereignty."

You want to try and explain that in the context of the powers of the ECtHR? Not much Parliamentary sovereignty being obliged to comply with the rulings from a supra-national body.

"It's the interpretation that's gone a bit squiffy, in particular regarding Article 8."

Sqifffy! Essentially, we've passed our sovereignty into the hands of judges in Europe.

7 July 2013 at 21:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

*shrug*

It's nothing to me if you don't agree. The relationship is not the same as it is in the USA with the Bill of Rights. A court has no power to overturn an Act of Parliament if it finds it incompatible with the ECHR.

7 July 2013 at 22:20  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr DanJO @ 16.35 asks, 'The Human Right Act 1998 is statute law too, isn't it?'

This Act also abolished the death sentence that had remained in the 1351 Treason Act. An understandable amendment in view of the Blair Government's subsequent Neathergate policy of flooding the country with Muslim aliens in order to change it's electoral orientation.

Following the Inspector's general points, it would seem to be a basic courtesy to re-unite the Al-Qatada family in Jordan as a gift from the British people. There is no suggestion of collective punishment in this action. What's not to like about Jordan if you are Jordanian?

7 July 2013 at 22:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

33°C in Amman today. Nice weather for a relocation.

7 July 2013 at 22:48  
Blogger bluedog said...

Peter D @ 21.48 the rules of diplomacy pertaining today descend from the conventions developed by Italian city-states in the medieval period for governing their relations. Important among these is the convention that a treaty with another state is binding on the domestic legislation of both states. You will understand that if this were not the case there is no credibility in the relevant foreign treaty. Clearly a legislature has the right to over-ride an unsatisfactory foreign treaty, but in the first instance the presumption is that the foreign treaty takes precedence.

7 July 2013 at 22:51  
Blogger Peter D said...

bluedog said ...
"Clearly a legislature has the right to over-ride an unsatisfactory foreign treaty, but in the first instance the presumption is that the foreign treaty takes precedence."

Hello bluedog.

So do we have to reject the ECHR in total - or can we be selective about the Articles and the interpretation we accept?

As I understand it, we our bound by our membership of the EU to accept the ECHR and the judgements of the ECtHR. So do we have to leave the EU?

An example: Let's say Parliament passes a law tomorrow making sodomy an offence between men under the age of 30 years. Where would Parliament stand in relation to Article 8 which has determined that "private and family life" has a broad interpretation and that the prohibition of private consensual homosexual acts violates this article? Or, once we are obliged to accept homosexual *marriage* in other EU State, can Poland, where they recently rejected homosexual marriage, simply ignore this obligation?

7 July 2013 at 23:23  
Blogger Naomi King said...

On Sharia law and the Islamification of the West commentators may like to know that Obama in his HealthCare Act has allowed for Dhimmitude.

The word "Dhimmitude" is found in the new Obama health care bill; so what does it mean?

Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad (Holy War). Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.

Now isn't this interesting? It is also included in his health care law.

Obama Care allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be ,"gambling", "risk-taking", and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.

How convenient. So a Christian, can have crippling IRS liens placed against all their assets, including land, cattle, and even accounts receivable, and prison because they refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax because they refuse to support abortion and free HIV care and contraceptives for all. Meanwhile, all muslims will have no such penalty and will have 100% of their health insurance needs paid for by the de facto government insurance.

Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. This is Dhimmitude. But then we always knew that Obama was a sunni muslim didn't we ?

8 July 2013 at 06:41  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Naomi King,

Hello and good morning.

I am familiar with the Muslim legal concept of Dhimmitude. However I find it incredible that Obama gives an exemption to a religious group only recently introduced into the US, whilst going up against the beliefs of a well established, sizeable proportion of the historic faith of the country, namely those Christians, including many Catholics, who refuse to pay for abortion on the grounds of conscience.
Is the Muslim exemption aspect of this well known in the US, I ask ?

8 July 2013 at 08:16  
Blogger Drastic Plastic said...

More to the point ... when did we lose the right to kick out any foreigner at our pleasure?

Would this be something to do with the EU, perchance?

8 July 2013 at 09:06  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Drastic Plastic,

"the right to kick out any foreigner at our pleasure?"

Yes, you are right, it's all down to the nature of the EU as a political grouping, plus the effect of its laws Court.
Firstly by effectively pulling up the borders between the member states within the grouping, all the nationals of other countries within the EU, are effectively no longer "foreigners".
Secondly along comes the Human Rights legislation, all dreadfully vague in nature, capable of being interpreted by our liberal, pro-EU judges in ways that effectively frustrate the public good and the elected politicos. It does this by putting such weight on the needs of the accused, their human rights, that they are privileged above the previous, Common Law based ideas of justice for victims and the twin aim of protecting ourselves from foreigners.
Thereby, the EU court is in control, not us. All must bow the knee to "foreign princes".
Vote Ukip, the other parties are all for the abolition of Britain.

8 July 2013 at 10:45  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

For goodness sake - you'd think that British judges were immune from making incredibly ludicrous decisions especially when considering the so called 'hate speech' legislation as handed down by equally ludicrous legislators.

We British, took our eyes of the ball in a fit of pique when DeGaulle persisted in blocking UK entry into the Common Market; that stance undermined what we set in motion in 1948. It makes no sense now to simply blame Johnny Foreigner for screwing us over. We allowed it to happen.

The argument against the European Court cannot simply be that Parliament is sovereign, absolute and always right and that it should never be challenged. We have developed a doctrine of international intervention with regard to the notion that sovereignty does not confer immunity - that the rights of a country’s individual citizens can trump the sovereignty of a Parliament.

We require fundamental reform of the European Court. We must radically reduce the number of cases it deals with and clarify its legal and philosophical basis to determine on which cases it should and should not rule. We can only achieve this by renegotiating from within the EU.

The often insane racist/homophobic/Christo-fascist rantings from some on this site, thankfully will have no influence whatsoever in the resolve of the matter; their 'contributions' here more often than not, are nothing more than expressions of frustration with their own muddled lives.

8 July 2013 at 12:06  
Blogger bluedog said...

'The often insane racist/homophobic/Christo-fascist rantings from some on this site,'

I like the sound of that, sums me up to a tee.

Are you autistic with regard to your own rants, Mr Dreadnaught? Such as that at 12.06?

8 July 2013 at 12:38  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Sorry if you saw yourself in what was written, but if you choose to that's up to you - I obviously gave you more intellectual credit than you afford yourself Mr Bluedog.

8 July 2013 at 13:05  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Dreadnaught,

Renegotiating anything of substance from within the EU is doomed to failure, I believe.

I see no reason why the British people can not choose for their democratically elected Parliament to be the sovereign law making and legal court that it was for centuries, until it was recently undermined by perfidy.

Democracy, universal suffrage, which was fought and struggled for over centuries, only has meaning and coherence within individual nation states.

These are simple, straightforward, well proven ideas and systems worthy of support and respect by all except the wooly headed and hopelessly optimistic liberals and idealists.

8 July 2013 at 13:24  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Renegotiating anything of substance from within the EU is doomed to failure, I believe.

Why do you believe this?

8 July 2013 at 13:43  
Blogger David Hussell said...

It is basic to the nature of the EU. It exists to undermine nation states, including their courts. It seeks to impose an atheist legal framework on all, regardless, and for all to bow to their left leaning, anti-Christian legal system, which is concerned as much with "harmonising" the laws across the block, as it is with individual justice. The court is an arm of the EU superstate. That superstate now has a diplomatic corps, a currency and seeks an army as well. It is gathering all the trappings of an empire, and the court is a limb of all that.
Therefore it is highly unlikely to sacrifice those responsibilities that it has acquired. Our left leaning judges foster this process, although they argue, with some justification, that they are merely putting into effect the Treaties and Laws that our elected political leaders choose to sign. Those political leaders are wanting their cake and to eat it. They rail at the judges when it suits their political purposes, but the political solution can only be to withdraw from the court. But to do that we must, I suspect leave the EU. Certainly states now wishing to join the EU have to accept the court as a package.
Can you point to any major, high significance areas, of the Courts jurisdiction that have been relinquished already by negotiation ?

8 July 2013 at 14:43  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 July 2013 at 15:09  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

My deletion type error

The court is an arm of the EU superstate

I thought as much; you clearly don't understand the difference between the EU and the ECHR.

8 July 2013 at 15:21  
Blogger David Hussell said...

They may be technically different institutions , but as they are both driven forward by the same Humanist , Human Rights set of ideas exactly what is the point that you are making ? And how exactly does that affect the issue here, namely how a formerly independent state deports those that it wishes to be rid off, without the enormous brake and frustration of the human rights legislation that has facilitated the almost endless delays?

8 July 2013 at 15:56  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

They may be technically different institutions

You are an idiot sir.

You apparently are also a Christian (I think) yet don't believe in human rights which runs contrary to your creed. Furthermore as I have already conveyed to you the fact is that you can't differentiate between something that we instigated (the ECHR) long before the EU was even the CM6.

Don't bother to reply.



8 July 2013 at 16:10  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

The House of Lords used to be democratic, in the same way as a gentleman's club was... but since the life peer cronies have shown up, the House is nothing more than a place for old party placemen as the chamber becomes a creature of cronyism.

Now, my solution would be to jack the life peers and allow the hereditary peers to form an electoral college and elect about 100 to 200 Peers to serve for about 6 years, plus the Anglican Bishops, the Chief Rabbi and leaders of the other faiths.... would work much better that way.

8 July 2013 at 18:46  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Dreadnaught,

You appear to enjoy using circular arguments, in a high handed manner, which proves nothing, except indicating your preferred approach to those who disagree with you.

I rest my case.

Good evening.

8 July 2013 at 18:52  
Blogger Naomi King said...


David Hussell @ 8.16

Apparently the handbook for the US health care system runs to about 1000 pages, so I guess most of the US population are not aware of this tax exemption for muslims.

8 July 2013 at 20:31  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Naomi King,

Interesting. Thank you.

There's an opening for the political opposition to make something of, I would say. I am surprised that it has not been used vigorously to attack Obama. Perhaps it will, one wonders.

8 July 2013 at 21:49  
Blogger Peter D said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 July 2013 at 22:24  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

In all its real and pretended superficial glory of spiritual and social subterfuge; the Papist is still the premiere spiritual lawlessness--that we need to be concerned with. Not to mention the exultation of Judaism, its nation-State,and its people. Or an ecumenical interfaith one-world support of a Palestinian cause that is substituted in place of an actual and viable anti-Judaism. You see how badly the secular-humanism has impeded our Protestant cause? Your Free Masonic vision shattered oh Voltaire, and your Bastard France, and proud son the U.S. dare to pretend Christ's liberty well after former Protestant societies wonder away, in the name if your Marxist G-d's condemnation.

10 July 2013 at 02:52  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

No evidence that might have been obtained under torture, eh? Did they say anything about evidence known to be obtained under torture?

10 July 2013 at 18:23  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older