ChatterBank2 mins ago
Europe Has Spoken Once Again.
16 Answers
http://
This is a new 'get to stay in Britain card' if you like.
Apparently this monster cannot be deported back to Zimbabwe because he cannot find it in himself to demonstrate loyalty to Robert Mugabe's party.
I would have thought a savage like this would be perfectly at home cuddling up to Mugabe.
This is a new 'get to stay in Britain card' if you like.
Apparently this monster cannot be deported back to Zimbabwe because he cannot find it in himself to demonstrate loyalty to Robert Mugabe's party.
I would have thought a savage like this would be perfectly at home cuddling up to Mugabe.
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
(NJ stifles gaping yawn and prepares to cut and paste text that he has posted many, many times before)
Judgements such as this will continue to come light unless and until the UK revokes its 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraws as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. Since no political party with any chance of forming a government has the slightest intention of doing either, let alone both, we are stuck with it.
(Cue for the usual suspects to suggest that such a course of action would put the UK among the savages, and would defy the will of the people who, in the aftermath of WW2, designed the Convention to prevent rogue governments torturing and incarcerating without trial anybody they please. Because that happened all the time here prior to the Convention, didn't it? )
Judgements such as this will continue to come light unless and until the UK revokes its 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraws as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. Since no political party with any chance of forming a government has the slightest intention of doing either, let alone both, we are stuck with it.
(Cue for the usual suspects to suggest that such a course of action would put the UK among the savages, and would defy the will of the people who, in the aftermath of WW2, designed the Convention to prevent rogue governments torturing and incarcerating without trial anybody they please. Because that happened all the time here prior to the Convention, didn't it? )
"So just WHAT hes this to do with Europe ?? "
The clue is somewhat in your question, brionon. Judgements such as this stem from the EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights (which spawned our own Human Rights Act of 1998). It was devised by European leaders in the aftermath of a world war whose principal participants (at least at its outset) were European.
If, by "Europe" you mean the European Union, then there is, apparently, no direct connection. However, bear with me. The ECHR is a principal instrument of the European Council (which, allegedly, has no direct connection with the EU) and European Council members cannot maintain their membership unless they subscribe to the ECHR. Moving on a step, membership of the European Union cannot be achieved by nations which are not members of the Council of Europe and the Council of Europe's own blurb states that "The Council of Europe and the European Union are sister organisations".
So, in summary:
- member nations of the EU must belong to the Council of Europe (which are "sister organisations")
- members of the Council of Europe must subscribe to the ECHR
- so it follows that member nations of the EU must subscribe to the ECHR.
- so it also follows that should an EU member state resign as a signatory to the ECHR it could no longer me a member of the European Council and as a result could not be a member of the EU (which is a further very good reason why withdrawal from the ECHR is absolutely off limits).
Is that enough of a connection for you?
The clue is somewhat in your question, brionon. Judgements such as this stem from the EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights (which spawned our own Human Rights Act of 1998). It was devised by European leaders in the aftermath of a world war whose principal participants (at least at its outset) were European.
If, by "Europe" you mean the European Union, then there is, apparently, no direct connection. However, bear with me. The ECHR is a principal instrument of the European Council (which, allegedly, has no direct connection with the EU) and European Council members cannot maintain their membership unless they subscribe to the ECHR. Moving on a step, membership of the European Union cannot be achieved by nations which are not members of the Council of Europe and the Council of Europe's own blurb states that "The Council of Europe and the European Union are sister organisations".
So, in summary:
- member nations of the EU must belong to the Council of Europe (which are "sister organisations")
- members of the Council of Europe must subscribe to the ECHR
- so it follows that member nations of the EU must subscribe to the ECHR.
- so it also follows that should an EU member state resign as a signatory to the ECHR it could no longer me a member of the European Council and as a result could not be a member of the EU (which is a further very good reason why withdrawal from the ECHR is absolutely off limits).
Is that enough of a connection for you?
The rights of the victim are protected by normal laws - these are laws that the state brings against citizens
In this case he got 5 and a half years for it
Human rights are laws that protect us from the state itself - that's why they can't be used against individuals or companies.
As mentioned above Churchill was a driving force for the convention of human rights - however people don't like to be reminded of this as he's a poster-boy for the right wing who hate the convention of Human rights because it interfers with their fantasy of an authoritarian state.
In this case the man showed that he faced a real risk of torture if sent back - and we don't torture criminals whatever they have done and we don't get other people to do it for us - this is not the middle ages where we pull out people's fingernails to satisfy the blood lust of the mob
In this case he got 5 and a half years for it
Human rights are laws that protect us from the state itself - that's why they can't be used against individuals or companies.
As mentioned above Churchill was a driving force for the convention of human rights - however people don't like to be reminded of this as he's a poster-boy for the right wing who hate the convention of Human rights because it interfers with their fantasy of an authoritarian state.
In this case the man showed that he faced a real risk of torture if sent back - and we don't torture criminals whatever they have done and we don't get other people to do it for us - this is not the middle ages where we pull out people's fingernails to satisfy the blood lust of the mob
Apparently it is not only him but also his brother that we cannot get rid of, I wonder what his excuse was?
/// It emerged in Harverye’s case that his brother, Matthew, also overturned a deportation bid on human rights grounds last year after being convicted of common assault. ///
But getting back to this case, why, by not finding himself unable to support Mugabe makes him a supposed victim of torture as suggested by JTP, where is the proof, did all those who did not vote for Mugabe at the latest election get tortured?
Here is further information regarding Harverye, also supplied by the Telegraph:
http://
/// Harverye came to Britain in 1998 as a dependant of his mother, who had married a British citizen. ///
/// He received his first reprimand in 2004 for common assault, and was then convicted of a further 12 offences over the next five years. ///
/// The most serious was the assault on the 34 year-old woman which took place at her home in January 2009. ///
Prostitute or not, no one deserves the treatment that this poor woman was forced to endure.
/// It emerged in Harverye’s case that his brother, Matthew, also overturned a deportation bid on human rights grounds last year after being convicted of common assault. ///
But getting back to this case, why, by not finding himself unable to support Mugabe makes him a supposed victim of torture as suggested by JTP, where is the proof, did all those who did not vote for Mugabe at the latest election get tortured?
Here is further information regarding Harverye, also supplied by the Telegraph:
http://
/// Harverye came to Britain in 1998 as a dependant of his mother, who had married a British citizen. ///
/// He received his first reprimand in 2004 for common assault, and was then convicted of a further 12 offences over the next five years. ///
/// The most serious was the assault on the 34 year-old woman which took place at her home in January 2009. ///
Prostitute or not, no one deserves the treatment that this poor woman was forced to endure.
He is not a suppose victim of torture.
But if he returned to Zimbabwe, there is the possibility he will be tortured.
We do not know why he fled Zimbabwe or why he was accepted to stay here.
The fact that his brother has been dealt with the same way suggests that the ruling is at least consistent with other cases. Probably the reason this case has been highlighted and his brother's wasn't, is the nastiness of his crime.
But if he returned to Zimbabwe, there is the possibility he will be tortured.
We do not know why he fled Zimbabwe or why he was accepted to stay here.
The fact that his brother has been dealt with the same way suggests that the ruling is at least consistent with other cases. Probably the reason this case has been highlighted and his brother's wasn't, is the nastiness of his crime.
Gromit
/// But if he returned to Zimbabwe, there is the possibility he will be tortured. ///
Does that mean that any ex-Zimbabwean cannot be deported back to their country of origin, no matter what crime they have been proven guilty of in their adopted country?
/// We do not know why he fled Zimbabwe or why he was accepted to stay here. ///
That is easy he came to join his mother, his brother, his mothers husband and any more of his family already residing in this country.
/// But if he returned to Zimbabwe, there is the possibility he will be tortured. ///
Does that mean that any ex-Zimbabwean cannot be deported back to their country of origin, no matter what crime they have been proven guilty of in their adopted country?
/// We do not know why he fled Zimbabwe or why he was accepted to stay here. ///
That is easy he came to join his mother, his brother, his mothers husband and any more of his family already residing in this country.
We could try, brionon, but I don’t think we’d succeed for the reasons I have pointed out. Perhaps you could tell me where I’ve gone wrong.
“…and we don't torture criminals whatever they have done and we don't get other people to do it for us…”
I don’t think that should this individual suffer torture in his homeland that the authorities there will be doing it for us. I imagine they will be doing so on their own behalf. Of course this will provoke the reply “so that’s alright then?” Well, if it means, as a result, we are forced to keep amongst us people who otherwise have no right to be here and who think nothing of inflicting on their victims the sort of treatment they “might” be subject to at home then my response would be that yes, that is perfectly alright.
The problem (well one of the many problems) with the ECHR is that it does not only seek to control the behaviour or the nations who are its signatories but it also passes judgement on nations who are not - and forces European citizens to accept the fallout if they do not comply. As far as I am aware nobody in the UK has suffered torture at the hands of the State for some time and nobody is likely to in the immediate future. The fact that it happens elsewhere hardly justifies the UK having to accommodate people who quite simply are not wanted here.
“…and we don't torture criminals whatever they have done and we don't get other people to do it for us…”
I don’t think that should this individual suffer torture in his homeland that the authorities there will be doing it for us. I imagine they will be doing so on their own behalf. Of course this will provoke the reply “so that’s alright then?” Well, if it means, as a result, we are forced to keep amongst us people who otherwise have no right to be here and who think nothing of inflicting on their victims the sort of treatment they “might” be subject to at home then my response would be that yes, that is perfectly alright.
The problem (well one of the many problems) with the ECHR is that it does not only seek to control the behaviour or the nations who are its signatories but it also passes judgement on nations who are not - and forces European citizens to accept the fallout if they do not comply. As far as I am aware nobody in the UK has suffered torture at the hands of the State for some time and nobody is likely to in the immediate future. The fact that it happens elsewhere hardly justifies the UK having to accommodate people who quite simply are not wanted here.
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
Editor's Blog5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles67 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles73 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.