ChatterBank1 min ago
Sham marriages
The Law Lords have over-ruled the judges in allowing sham marriages to recommence. Is the law now an ass?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8446723.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8446723.stm
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. 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.
The Law Lords ruled that measures to prevent so-called sham marriages introduced by the government were illegal on two grounds: that they were discriminatory in that they applied only to foreigners, and (needless to say) they contravened Human Rights legislation by denying some people the right to a family life.
These laws may well give the impression of being an ass, but the current government has presided over their introduction and has had ample opportunity to modify them to meet their requirements.
It has not done so, so they cannot complain.
Of course the electorate has a right to complain because these marriages are enabling immigrants who would otherwise be unable to stay to remain in the UK. But of course that does not matter.
These laws may well give the impression of being an ass, but the current government has presided over their introduction and has had ample opportunity to modify them to meet their requirements.
It has not done so, so they cannot complain.
Of course the electorate has a right to complain because these marriages are enabling immigrants who would otherwise be unable to stay to remain in the UK. But of course that does not matter.
Someone who has a marriage certificate is not thereby entitled to a visa [ says our friend, and Joanna Lumley's victim, Mr Woolas]. Come to that they weren't before the scheme was introduced,methinks. Trouble with that, of course,is that we're trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.You can do a lot when possessed of a marriage certificate long before anybody gets around to enquiring whether the marriage was a sham, if they ever do.
NJ, don't you suspect that, if the government changed the law, by statute, somebody would be arguing that the statute contravened European law, to which we are all subject ?
NJ, don't you suspect that, if the government changed the law, by statute, somebody would be arguing that the statute contravened European law, to which we are all subject ?
-- answer removed --
Yes, fred, I agree 100% with your contention.
Legislation to counter these marriages of convenience would undoubtedly fall foul of our own Human Rights Act of 1998 which itself incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. Indeed this is partly the reason for their Learned Lordships’ ruling.
As I have said many, many times on AB and elsewhere, the UK will not be able to control its own affairs in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the electorate unless and until the 1998 Act is repealed and the UK withdraws as a signatory to the outdated ECHR. It is no use governments blaming judges for what they see as perverse rulings against them whilst this legislation is in place. It is deliberately vague and some of its provisions are open to almost any interpretation the judges wish to place on it. It was designed to counter the excesses of over-zealous governments after WW2 but is now a charter for criminals, illegal immigrants, and travellers wishing to circumvent planning legislation. Ironically, the very people who should benefit from such measures – the ordinary Joe wishing to go about his own legitimate business – gets no protection from them and this country is now the most spied upon, controlled and monitored by the State of any in the so-called free world.
It is unlikely to change. Apart from the lucrative trade generated for the legal profession (with many MP’s among its membership) membership of the EU is more or less conditional on having such measures in place. So despite Mr Cameron’s pre-election wind and puff to the contrary, the measures are likely to stay in place for some time.
Legislation to counter these marriages of convenience would undoubtedly fall foul of our own Human Rights Act of 1998 which itself incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. Indeed this is partly the reason for their Learned Lordships’ ruling.
As I have said many, many times on AB and elsewhere, the UK will not be able to control its own affairs in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the electorate unless and until the 1998 Act is repealed and the UK withdraws as a signatory to the outdated ECHR. It is no use governments blaming judges for what they see as perverse rulings against them whilst this legislation is in place. It is deliberately vague and some of its provisions are open to almost any interpretation the judges wish to place on it. It was designed to counter the excesses of over-zealous governments after WW2 but is now a charter for criminals, illegal immigrants, and travellers wishing to circumvent planning legislation. Ironically, the very people who should benefit from such measures – the ordinary Joe wishing to go about his own legitimate business – gets no protection from them and this country is now the most spied upon, controlled and monitored by the State of any in the so-called free world.
It is unlikely to change. Apart from the lucrative trade generated for the legal profession (with many MP’s among its membership) membership of the EU is more or less conditional on having such measures in place. So despite Mr Cameron’s pre-election wind and puff to the contrary, the measures are likely to stay in place for some time.
I am of the opinion that judges, law lords whatever are biased against any legislation put forward by the Labour party. Time and time again they have over-ruled any put forward that will benefit the country. I say this because just a few years ago when the Tories were in power the judges supported everything they did whether it was working practices, strikes, layoffs and the Murdoch fiasco at canary wharf. British human rights took a back seat always in favour of the employer.
Human rights law is not a bad law its how its been interpreted by the judiciary.
Human rights law is not a bad law its how its been interpreted by the judiciary.
-- answer removed --
What human rights did we not have before Human Rights legislation, which we now have as a result of it ? All of the rights in it seem to be no more than we had before, at common law, and were enforceable through the courts.
Of course, once you have new legislation of this kind, though it's merely declaratory of existing rights, every lawyer will plead it at every opportunity, just to see how far they can 'run with it'. It's also a useful makeweight for them in many a case where it's not, itself, the basis of a claim or defence.
Of course, once you have new legislation of this kind, though it's merely declaratory of existing rights, every lawyer will plead it at every opportunity, just to see how far they can 'run with it'. It's also a useful makeweight for them in many a case where it's not, itself, the basis of a claim or defence.
1 to 9 of 9
