Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
How Long Before A British Jihadist Takes Us To The Echr?
29 Answers
http://
Good idea Dave but I fear the friends of Jihad will be against it!
Good idea Dave but I fear the friends of Jihad will be against it!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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.
Shani Shakrabarti, director of Liberty is firmly against the Prime Minister's idea - but not for the reason you might expect.
She is not, as is popularly perceived - defending the rights of Jihadists while ignoring their threat and hostilty.
Quite the opposite - in her view, if someone has gone abroad to fight in this war, then they should be prosecuted on their return, and punished within the law, not simply asked 'if it's OK with you' if the Jihadist will consent to being monitored - with attendent costs and resources from the public purse.
Refusing readmission renders the Jihadists stateless, which sounds perfect for Dave's simplistic notion that if they can't come home, we don't have to worry about them.
First of all, are our European neighbours and allies going to be happy that our toxi waste citizens are living in their countries because they can't return here? Does Dave imagine that their violent misguided attitudes to western democracies will be temporarily switched off for the duration of their exile?
And here is something else Ms Sharbarti has considered, which appears to have escaped Dave's zealous desire to exclude citizens - what happens if other countries do the same? That will mean we have their Jihadists living here with no country to go home to. Will they be busy finding secure employment and paying taxes, or will they be looking to hook up with like-minded terrorists to cause a little mischief whule they visit our fair shores?
Yet again, Dave has a plan which sounds fabulous, but falls apart under even the most curosry examination - so no change there.
She is not, as is popularly perceived - defending the rights of Jihadists while ignoring their threat and hostilty.
Quite the opposite - in her view, if someone has gone abroad to fight in this war, then they should be prosecuted on their return, and punished within the law, not simply asked 'if it's OK with you' if the Jihadist will consent to being monitored - with attendent costs and resources from the public purse.
Refusing readmission renders the Jihadists stateless, which sounds perfect for Dave's simplistic notion that if they can't come home, we don't have to worry about them.
First of all, are our European neighbours and allies going to be happy that our toxi waste citizens are living in their countries because they can't return here? Does Dave imagine that their violent misguided attitudes to western democracies will be temporarily switched off for the duration of their exile?
And here is something else Ms Sharbarti has considered, which appears to have escaped Dave's zealous desire to exclude citizens - what happens if other countries do the same? That will mean we have their Jihadists living here with no country to go home to. Will they be busy finding secure employment and paying taxes, or will they be looking to hook up with like-minded terrorists to cause a little mischief whule they visit our fair shores?
Yet again, Dave has a plan which sounds fabulous, but falls apart under even the most curosry examination - so no change there.
-- answer removed --
Under the BBC header on their main page it says:
Britons who travel to Syria and Iraq to fight could be temporarily barred from returning home under plans announced by David Cameron.
Why only temporarily? Surely this sort of measure needs to be permanent. Or is he expecting the ECHR to say that we can't bar them permanently, that they must in fact have a period of 'quiet reflection' of say 6 months before re-asserting their supposed right to return?
Britons who travel to Syria and Iraq to fight could be temporarily barred from returning home under plans announced by David Cameron.
Why only temporarily? Surely this sort of measure needs to be permanent. Or is he expecting the ECHR to say that we can't bar them permanently, that they must in fact have a period of 'quiet reflection' of say 6 months before re-asserting their supposed right to return?
I don't think this will need to go to the ECHR. Our own Supreme Court has an obligation to enforce Labour's 1998 Human Rights Act which is, in all but name, a carbon copy of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The government does not have a hope in hell of enforcing a law which prevents a UK passport holder from entering the UK. If these people want to return they will board flights to this country and once here there is no way on earth that they will be removed.
Once again a load of wind and puff from Mr Cameron who, despite an army of advisors who should advise him otherwise, seems increasingly to engage mouth before brain.
The government does not have a hope in hell of enforcing a law which prevents a UK passport holder from entering the UK. If these people want to return they will board flights to this country and once here there is no way on earth that they will be removed.
Once again a load of wind and puff from Mr Cameron who, despite an army of advisors who should advise him otherwise, seems increasingly to engage mouth before brain.
andy-hughes
/// First of all, are our European neighbours and allies going to be happy that our toxi waste citizens are living in their countries because they can't return here? ///
Then perhaps that will balance matter up, because we have enough of their 'toxic waste' that we can't seem to send back.
/// And here is something else Ms Sharbarti has considered, which appears to have escaped Dave's zealous desire to exclude citizens - what happens if other countries do the same? That will mean we have their Jihadists living here with no country to go home to. ///
Don't we already?
/// First of all, are our European neighbours and allies going to be happy that our toxi waste citizens are living in their countries because they can't return here? ///
Then perhaps that will balance matter up, because we have enough of their 'toxic waste' that we can't seem to send back.
/// And here is something else Ms Sharbarti has considered, which appears to have escaped Dave's zealous desire to exclude citizens - what happens if other countries do the same? That will mean we have their Jihadists living here with no country to go home to. ///
Don't we already?
-- answer removed --
Andy, I'm no lawyer, but Dominic Grieve - who was the UK's Attorney General until recently and, of course, is a lawyer - said on the BBC 1 o'clock News today that Cameron's plan does NOT, in fact, make jihadists stateless.
I daresay this was based on a concept known only to lawyers, but that's what he said!
I daresay this was based on a concept known only to lawyers, but that's what he said!
QM - "Andy, I'm no lawyer, but Dominic Grieve - who was the UK's Attorney General until recently and, of course, is a lawyer - said on the BBC 1 o'clock News today that Cameron's plan does NOT, in fact, make jihadists stateless.
I daresay this was based on a concept known only to lawyers, but that's what he said!"
Interesting QM.
We will have to wait and see what shakes out of this in a few days when the rhetoric has settled, and the facts emerge.
I daresay this was based on a concept known only to lawyers, but that's what he said!"
Interesting QM.
We will have to wait and see what shakes out of this in a few days when the rhetoric has settled, and the facts emerge.
-- answer removed --
Whatever laws are introduced and whatever the Attorney General does or does not counsel, the result will be the same. The UK cannot reliably keep out people who do not have a UK passport. It cannot even keep out those who have no passport at all.
The government is suggesting that those involved will not be rendered Stateless but instead will be subject to "exclusion orders" and only allowed to return under strict conditions. This is nonsense. The effect, whether they admit it or not, will be to make those people effectively stateless and that will fall foul of Human Rights legislation on a number of bases.
We don't need to argue about it now. Just wait to see how many of these people are excluded and how many of them actually remain so. To the nearest whole number I would guess at nil, plus or minus nil.
The government is suggesting that those involved will not be rendered Stateless but instead will be subject to "exclusion orders" and only allowed to return under strict conditions. This is nonsense. The effect, whether they admit it or not, will be to make those people effectively stateless and that will fall foul of Human Rights legislation on a number of bases.
We don't need to argue about it now. Just wait to see how many of these people are excluded and how many of them actually remain so. To the nearest whole number I would guess at nil, plus or minus nil.
Latest Posts
Shopping & Style1 min ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Body & Soul7 mins ago
Crosswords8 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.