There has to be a point when Parliament is considered to be the main defender of the
I say this, because the British judiciary continue to display a reckless disregard for the safety of others, by thwarting every effort to deport scumbags back their own countries. Now they have decided that house arrest for people deemed a threat to national security, is only legal if the security services give disclosure of the evidence (and presumably therefore, from whom and how, it was obtained) to those accused.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am aware that Habeas Corpus has long been used as a means of redress, which a person can seek from the unlawful detention of themselves or of another person. It protects the individual from harming him or herself, or from being harmed by the judicial system. In fact the writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom, against arbitrary state action.
However, when we can’t remove persons who act against the state and the national security of the UK, because the courts insist that terrorists, murderers, rapists etc have ‘human rights’ that supercede those of the law abiding citizen. And that this 'right' means they can’t go back to a 'place of danger' (even though the ‘danger’ is often a legally sanctioned penalty, for their terrible crimes commited in that country), then how exactly can we defend ourselves?
I like many others, despair of the fact that an act of Parliament is no longer the law of the land, but merely an excuse for unelected judges to determine the social, immigration and public defence policies of the UK, often against the wishes of the general public, and the aims of the legislator.
What is democracy, if even those elected are subject to the decisions of the totally unelected?
Interestingly, the Judges are now saying that 'Human Rights' legislation that New Labour signed us up for, includes the right for relatives of soldiers to sue the UK government if the soldier gets killed or wounded.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be no end to the madness that the judges will countenance under the umbrella of 'human rights'.