Spectator N0 2680 : "Two Of A...
Crosswords0 min ago
English test legal case
a woman is going to court to try and overturn the rules than immigrants HAVE to pass an english test before being allowed to live in this country (UK)
She wants her 58 yr old husband to come over, and thinks it's unreasonable for him to be made to learn english first, and claims it's infringing her human rights to family life if he dosen't come(as far as i can make out - i may have read it wrong)
What do you think?
http://news.bbc.co.uk...d_9550000/9550271.stm
She wants her 58 yr old husband to come over, and thinks it's unreasonable for him to be made to learn english first, and claims it's infringing her human rights to family life if he dosen't come(as far as i can make out - i may have read it wrong)
What do you think?
http://news.bbc.co.uk...d_9550000/9550271.stm
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bednobs. 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.
it doesnt bother me tbh em, when we have mates round there can be 3 or 4 different languages being spoken besides english.... i dont understand some of them at all, i understand some a little bit, i understand some pretty good but arent good at speaking them myself ...
though like someone pointed out in a different thread about it, if its doctors/nursing staff etc thats no good
though like someone pointed out in a different thread about it, if its doctors/nursing staff etc thats no good
Just a point or two of clarification, jake.
Much of this is most certainly a result of the 1998 Human Rights Act. It is quite true that this act incorporated into UK law the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, whilst the HRA is fully enforceable by law and courts can force the government or government agencies to right wrongs, the ECHR is not enforceable by the European Convention Court. That court sits in Strasbourg, by the way, not The Hague (which is the venue for the International Court of Justice).
Until the 1998 Act was introduced, although governments usually acquiesced to the Convention’s court, they could not be compelled to do so.
The examples you quote which would seem to make the Border Agency’s language rule unreasonable are specious. You are confusing the spirit of the law with the letter of the law. Courts would be asked to use discretion in the circumstances you cite.
Much of this is most certainly a result of the 1998 Human Rights Act. It is quite true that this act incorporated into UK law the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, whilst the HRA is fully enforceable by law and courts can force the government or government agencies to right wrongs, the ECHR is not enforceable by the European Convention Court. That court sits in Strasbourg, by the way, not The Hague (which is the venue for the International Court of Justice).
Until the 1998 Act was introduced, although governments usually acquiesced to the Convention’s court, they could not be compelled to do so.
The examples you quote which would seem to make the Border Agency’s language rule unreasonable are specious. You are confusing the spirit of the law with the letter of the law. Courts would be asked to use discretion in the circumstances you cite.
for New Judge
I have no idea how how familiar you are with the detail of the relevant legislation or of how much contact you have with it.
Given that various members of UKIP and the UK Conservative party accuse the UK government of "gold-plating" all legislation from Europe I would be grateful if you would offer you opinion on just how many of the decisions delivered from UK courts are prescribed and how many are based on interpretation.
I have no idea how how familiar you are with the detail of the relevant legislation or of how much contact you have with it.
Given that various members of UKIP and the UK Conservative party accuse the UK government of "gold-plating" all legislation from Europe I would be grateful if you would offer you opinion on just how many of the decisions delivered from UK courts are prescribed and how many are based on interpretation.
Just about every decision courts make on “Human Rights” grounds (whether made here in the UK or in Strasbourg) are matters of interpretation. The ECHR and our own HRA are both deliberately vague and can mean almost anything one wants. Article 8, for example says this:
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. “
Fine. I’m sure few people would disagree with that. However, what has happened in the UK is that people who otherwise have no right to be here have used Article 8 to maintain their right to stay, sometimes on the flimsiest of grounds. Among the most notorious of these claimants was probably Learco Chindamo who murdered head teacher Philip Lawrence in 1995. In August 2007, an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that Chindamo could not be deported to his home country of Italy on completion of his prison sentence, as doing so would breach his human rights. Although the Home Office argued that Chindamo presented a "present and serious threat" to society, the tribunal disagreed; they also argued that Chindamo had a right to a "family life" under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998. David Cameron, then leader of the opposition, argued that the case highlighted the need for a fundamental review of human rights legislation in the United Kingdom, including the abolition of the Human Rights Act 1998 and its replacement with a "British Bill of Rights". I think the electorate is still holding its breath.
Have a look at Article 12, which Mrs Chapti is also citing to have her husband allowed to settle here:
“Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.”
Nobody is stopping Mrs Chapti from marrying. In fact she is already married with seven children. Nowhere in Article 12 does it say that the partners must both be allowed to live in the UK if one or both of them has no right to be here. But so wide are the interpretations placed on the wording by judges in the UK that it has come to protect anybody anywhere in the world.
Vague laws are bad laws and lead to bad feeling. Other countries manage perfectly well without such legislation. Australia, for example, has no similar laws but I don’t see many cases of widespread torture or abuse there. What I do see, though, is their ability to control who can and cannot enter their shores.
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. “
Fine. I’m sure few people would disagree with that. However, what has happened in the UK is that people who otherwise have no right to be here have used Article 8 to maintain their right to stay, sometimes on the flimsiest of grounds. Among the most notorious of these claimants was probably Learco Chindamo who murdered head teacher Philip Lawrence in 1995. In August 2007, an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that Chindamo could not be deported to his home country of Italy on completion of his prison sentence, as doing so would breach his human rights. Although the Home Office argued that Chindamo presented a "present and serious threat" to society, the tribunal disagreed; they also argued that Chindamo had a right to a "family life" under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998. David Cameron, then leader of the opposition, argued that the case highlighted the need for a fundamental review of human rights legislation in the United Kingdom, including the abolition of the Human Rights Act 1998 and its replacement with a "British Bill of Rights". I think the electorate is still holding its breath.
Have a look at Article 12, which Mrs Chapti is also citing to have her husband allowed to settle here:
“Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.”
Nobody is stopping Mrs Chapti from marrying. In fact she is already married with seven children. Nowhere in Article 12 does it say that the partners must both be allowed to live in the UK if one or both of them has no right to be here. But so wide are the interpretations placed on the wording by judges in the UK that it has come to protect anybody anywhere in the world.
Vague laws are bad laws and lead to bad feeling. Other countries manage perfectly well without such legislation. Australia, for example, has no similar laws but I don’t see many cases of widespread torture or abuse there. What I do see, though, is their ability to control who can and cannot enter their shores.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Spam & Scams7 mins ago
Vacuum Cleaner For Dog Hair...
Home & Garden8 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.