Immigration Watch International (2): Migrant ruling sparks UK threat to ditch European court

Friday, June 17, 2022

Migrant ruling sparks UK threat to ditch European court

The judges of the court are political appointees who often have little judicial background. More on the dubious background of many of the judges here

Britain has refused to rule out abandoning a European human rights pact after a judge dramatically blocked the government’s plan to fly asylum-seekers to Rwanda, sparking fury among Conservative Party MPs.

Home Minister Priti Patel said the government “will not be deterred from doing the right thing” and that plans for further flights “have already begun”.

But government sources have said the Home Office would not book another flight until it was sure it would not be grounded by judges in Strasbourg.

The last-gasp intervention by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) forced the government to cancel the first flight on Tuesday night, after the number of claimants aboard had already been whittled down by UK legal challenges.

Ms Patel attacked the “usual suspects” among lawyers’ firms and rights groups for defying the “will of the British people”, as well as “evil” gangs behind a flourishing cross-Channel trade in migrants.

The court is unrelated to the EU, which Britain left in January 2020. But Tory backbenchers, fresh from rebelling in large numbers against Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s leadership, said the ruling infringed on British sovereignty.

“Yes, let’s withdraw from European Court of Human Rights and stop their meddling in British law,” MP Andrea Jenkyns tweeted, echoing others in the party and banner headlines in right-wing newspapers.

Attorney-General Suella Braverman said many in Britain would be frustrated at the role played by a “foreign court”.

“We are definitely open to assessing all options available as to what our relationship should be, going forward, with the European Court of Human Rights,” she told BBC Radio.

The European convention was enshrined in British law in 1998 by Tony Blair’s Labour government. It notably underpins the Good Friday Agreement of the same year, which brought peace to Northern Ireland after three decades of bloodshed.

The Prime Minister’s spokesman said “we keep all options on the table” to facilitate the deportation plan.

“We would do nothing that would in any way jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement.”

Mr Johnson’s government is already in a bust-up with the EU over post-Brexit trading rules for Northern Ireland, and critics allege it is picking a separate fight over asylum-seekers to distract from economic trouble and political scandals.

The convention has been used frequently by human rights lawyers to frustrate Mr Johnson and

Last month, in the Queen’s Speech opening a new session of parliament, the government committed to replacing the 1998 act with a new bill of rights.

Mr Johnson’s maternal grandfather, James Fawcett, helped to write the European convention and was the commission’s president for a decade in the years after World War II.

Anneke Campbell, a cousin to Mr Johnson’s late mother, wrote in the Byline Times newspaper last week that Fawcett would have been “appalled” at the government’s actions.

Under Britain’s agreement with Rwanda, all migrants arriving illegally in the UK are liable to be sent to the east African nation for processing and settlement.

More than 10,000 migrants have crossed the Channel from northern France since the start of the year.

On Wednesday about 150 more people including two dozen children were taken ashore in the English port of Dover from two dinghies that appeared partially deflated.

Enver Solomon, head of Britain’s Refugee Council, said the ever-rising numbers of crossings disproved the government’s claims that it was putting people-smugglers out of business.

Its determination to press on with the Rwanda plan heightened “the human suffering, distress, and chaos the threat of removal will cause with far-reaching consequences for desperate people”, he said.

Various legal challenges had highlighted concern over human rights in Rwanda. But the government in Kigali insists it is a safe country.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/migrant-ruling-sparks-uk-threat-to-ditch-europena-court/news-story/a291947aad5dbc3c3356338e86b97db0

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Friday, June 17, 2022

Migrant ruling sparks UK threat to ditch European court

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors