And the winner is ..... The "Human Rights Act 1998!"
If ever there was a lawyers charter, designed apparently solely to destroy western civilisation by making it incapable of active defense, and ensure that society holds the law in total contempt it must be this act.
Tony Blair (Prime Minister and trained lawyer), incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, through the Human Rights Act 1998. Ever since, the lawyers and judiciary have had fun, using it to give money to criminals, protect land seizures by Irish welfare travellers, punish victims, defend illegal immigrants, allow a million law suits to be fired off and protect terrorists ... for Joe public, sod all has been added to his rights.
To be fair, its possible that, as usual, New Labour had not thought it through, and realised that the UK Judiciary, renowned for their belief that it's they and not Parliament who determine the policies in the UK, would use this act to undermine UK legislation for eternity. Judges back this legislation to the hilt, because it allows them to circumnavigate any UK legislation they don't like, by the manner in which they interpret it.
It's noticeable that other European countries have no such problems with this convention, but then then their judiciary doesn't have quite the absolute freedom to determine case law as in the UK and guess what, civilisation has not collapsed in France, Germany or Italy!!
Still, even they should have guessed that it would lead to cases like that of Islamic preacher Abu Qatada, who far from being deported to Jordan as the Government promised, has now been granted bail with a 22-hour curfew by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). This is because we can't deport him for fear of breaching his "Human Rights".
Or the fact that the Northern Rock share holders suing the government for not giving them fistfuls of dollars for their broken company under the "Human Rights Act" ....
Michael Howard, also a lawyer and ex leader of the Conservative party, has said that under this legislation, absurdities abound and the rule of law is eroded. He has given examples such as "the schoolboy arsonist allowed back into the classroom because enforcing discipline apparently denied his right to education; the convicted rapist given £4000 compensation because his second appeal was delayed; the burglar given taxpayers' money to sue the man whose house he broke into; travellers who thumb their nose at the law allowed to stay on green belt sites they have occupied in defiance of planning laws".
And even senior Labour Politicians have criticised the willingness of the UK Judiciary to rule against the wishes of both the government and Parliament. Former Home Secretary John Ried has stated that the Human Rights Act is hampering the fight against global terrorism in regard to imposing control orders: "There is a very serious threat - and I am the first to admit that the means we have of fighting it are so inadequate that we are fighting with one arm tied behind our backs. So I hope when we bring forward proposals in the next few weeks that we will have a little less party politics and a little more support for national security,"
And yet despite failure after failure to get legislation to stick in the courts because of this pernicious act, which added nothing to my rights, but a battery of new rights for the criminals, illegal asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, and terrorists, this lack lustre Government just stays mute or witters on along the lines of "I am extremely disappointed that the courts have granted Abu Qatada bail, albeit with very strict conditions. Public safety is our main priority and we will take all steps necessary to protect the public. I am already seeking to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision that it is not safe to deport Qatada (Because of his Human Rights) and we will continue with deportation action with this and the other Jordanian cases." and this despite the usual spin about doing something only a year ago.
In the meantime cases like those of Anthony Rice's murder of Naomi Bryant in Winchester, in which a report said that probation officials released him, because they had considered his human rights above their duties to protect the public, will continue to happen.
We could of course have introduced this legislation within a supremacy of Parliament Act, that put the provisions of UK national security and public safety (including limiting its provisions in prisons or too criminals to prevent abuses such as suing their victims) above the act, and ensuring that it was interpreted as it is elsewhere in Europe, with the intention of parliament to the fore, but that's not the New Labour way and definitely not the lawyers way.
But guess who has done well out of this act .... the lawyers.
If ever there was a lawyers charter, designed apparently solely to destroy western civilisation by making it incapable of active defense, and ensure that society holds the law in total contempt it must be this act.
Tony Blair (Prime Minister and trained lawyer), incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, through the Human Rights Act 1998. Ever since, the lawyers and judiciary have had fun, using it to give money to criminals, protect land seizures by Irish welfare travellers, punish victims, defend illegal immigrants, allow a million law suits to be fired off and protect terrorists ... for Joe public, sod all has been added to his rights.
To be fair, its possible that, as usual, New Labour had not thought it through, and realised that the UK Judiciary, renowned for their belief that it's they and not Parliament who determine the policies in the UK, would use this act to undermine UK legislation for eternity. Judges back this legislation to the hilt, because it allows them to circumnavigate any UK legislation they don't like, by the manner in which they interpret it.
It's noticeable that other European countries have no such problems with this convention, but then then their judiciary doesn't have quite the absolute freedom to determine case law as in the UK and guess what, civilisation has not collapsed in France, Germany or Italy!!
Still, even they should have guessed that it would lead to cases like that of Islamic preacher Abu Qatada, who far from being deported to Jordan as the Government promised, has now been granted bail with a 22-hour curfew by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). This is because we can't deport him for fear of breaching his "Human Rights".
Or the fact that the Northern Rock share holders suing the government for not giving them fistfuls of dollars for their broken company under the "Human Rights Act" ....
Michael Howard, also a lawyer and ex leader of the Conservative party, has said that under this legislation, absurdities abound and the rule of law is eroded. He has given examples such as "the schoolboy arsonist allowed back into the classroom because enforcing discipline apparently denied his right to education; the convicted rapist given £4000 compensation because his second appeal was delayed; the burglar given taxpayers' money to sue the man whose house he broke into; travellers who thumb their nose at the law allowed to stay on green belt sites they have occupied in defiance of planning laws".
And even senior Labour Politicians have criticised the willingness of the UK Judiciary to rule against the wishes of both the government and Parliament. Former Home Secretary John Ried has stated that the Human Rights Act is hampering the fight against global terrorism in regard to imposing control orders: "There is a very serious threat - and I am the first to admit that the means we have of fighting it are so inadequate that we are fighting with one arm tied behind our backs. So I hope when we bring forward proposals in the next few weeks that we will have a little less party politics and a little more support for national security,"
And yet despite failure after failure to get legislation to stick in the courts because of this pernicious act, which added nothing to my rights, but a battery of new rights for the criminals, illegal asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, and terrorists, this lack lustre Government just stays mute or witters on along the lines of "I am extremely disappointed that the courts have granted Abu Qatada bail, albeit with very strict conditions. Public safety is our main priority and we will take all steps necessary to protect the public. I am already seeking to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision that it is not safe to deport Qatada (Because of his Human Rights) and we will continue with deportation action with this and the other Jordanian cases." and this despite the usual spin about doing something only a year ago.
In the meantime cases like those of Anthony Rice's murder of Naomi Bryant in Winchester, in which a report said that probation officials released him, because they had considered his human rights above their duties to protect the public, will continue to happen.
We could of course have introduced this legislation within a supremacy of Parliament Act, that put the provisions of UK national security and public safety (including limiting its provisions in prisons or too criminals to prevent abuses such as suing their victims) above the act, and ensuring that it was interpreted as it is elsewhere in Europe, with the intention of parliament to the fore, but that's not the New Labour way and definitely not the lawyers way.
But guess who has done well out of this act .... the lawyers.
***************************************
This post is from the site No PC Views.
if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen.
You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (http://no-pc.blogspot.co.uk/)
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are welcomed, or even just thanks if you enjoyed the post. But please make any comment relevant to the post it appears under. Off topic comments will be blocked or removed.
Moderation is on for older posts to stop spamming and comments that are off topic or inappropriate from being posted .... comments are reviewed within 48 hours. I don't block normal comments that are on topic and not inappropriate. Vexatious comments that may cause upset to other commentators, or that are attempting to espouse a particular wider political view, are reviewed before acceptance. But a certain amount of debate around a post topic is accepted, as long as it remains generally on topic and is not an attempt to become sounding board for some other cause.
Final decision on all comments is held by the blog author and is final.
Comments are always monitored for bad or abusive language, and or illegal statements i.e. overtly racist or sexist content. Spam is not tolerated and is removed.
Commentaires ne sont surveillés que pour le mauvais ou abusif langue ou déclarations illégales ie contenu ouvertement raciste ou sexiste. Spam ne est pas toléré et est éliminé.