The Home Secretary should go on the offensive for the public is behind her on this issue. The first duty of the Government is to protect its citizens, not foreign criminals - or gay Bolivian cat enthusiasts. How very true but when the so-called "Minister for Justice" is stabbing the Home Secretary in the back how can any so-called government properly function? Someone needs to be sacked but will "Call Me Dave" be up to the task?
Theresa May's stance was right - October 7,2011 - By Leo McKinstry
THERE are few more repellent sights in civic life than a subsidised professional lobby fighting to defend its vested interests against reform. That is exactly what is happening now with the legal establishment as it battles to uphold the increasingly discredited Human Rights Act. Judges, lawyers and campaigners reacted hysterically when Home Secretary Theresa May attacked the whole iniquitous human rights culture in her speech to the Tory conference. In particular they vented their fury at her for daring to mention the case of an illegal immigrant from Bolivia whose ownership of a cat had helped him avoid deportation from Britain.
So furious were their denunciations of the Home Secretary that the episode became the Tory conference's most explosive controversy, inevitably dubbed "Catgate". Ms May was completely wrong, her critics declared. In a typically sanctimonious contribution Shami Chakrabarti, head of Liberty, pompously told us that she found Ms May's conduct "dangerously unbecoming." Even May's colleague Ken Clarke, who has devoted much of his career to fighting genuine Conservatism, complained that her claims about the pet had been "laughable" and "childish".
Yet for all the ferocity of the abuse hurled at her Theresa May was absolutely right. Her detractors were the ones resorting to deceit, distortion and hollow propaganda, as an examination of the court papers demonstrates. The unnamed Bolivian came to this country on a two year student visa in 2002 but like so many others decided not to leave once his visa had expired. It was only when he was arrested for shoplifting in 2007 that the Home Office told him he must leave Britain. But by this time the Bolivian, who is gay (that used to be a useful, pleasant, descriptive word, now annexed by the homosexual lobby B&A), had embarked on a relationship with another man and together they had acquired a cat called Maya.
So the Bolivian went to court to challenge the ruling by the Home Office, citing Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which enshrines the "right to a family life".
Subsequently the judge overturned the decision by the Home Office and ruled that the Bolivian could stay. Contrary to the campaigners' phoney propaganda the judge explicitly stated in his six-page verdict that the "joint acquisition of Maya reinforces my conclusion on the strength and quality of the family life" enjoyed by the Bolivian. Astonishingly the judge even argued that he might suffer "serious emotional consequences" if the bond with his pet was broken.
Further appeals by the Home Office against this judgment failed. The Bolivian is still here. Far from undermining Theresa May this ludicrous case is all too indicative of the damage caused by the Human Rights Act, which has made a mockery of all concepts of British citizenship, national integrity and border controls.
Thanks to greedy lawyers and morally blind judges, illegal immigrants can systematically abuse the "right to a family" clause to remain in the country.
But it is all a nonsense. What is to stop the Bolivian having a gay relationship and a cat in his own native land?
When the European Convention on Human Rights was first drawn up in 1950, in the aftermath of the Second World War, the aims were to prevent genocide and rebuild democracy. The goal was certainly not to allow homosexual South American cat lovers to settle in Britain with impunity.
The human rights industry is playing a dirty game. They are focusing their energies on Catgate in order to make objections to the Human Rights Act seem comical, even extreme. It is a classic diversionary tactic, a cynical attempt to distract public attention from epic abuses of the Act. With typical cowardice and dishonesty they fail to utter a squeak about the lengthening catalogue of other outrageous human rights cases, such as the decision to allow bogus Iraqi asylum seeker and serial criminal Aso Mohammed Ibrahim to stay in this country even after he ran over and killed 12-year-old Amy Houston and left her "to die like a dog" in Blackburn in 2003 when he was driving while disqualified. Ibrahim fathered two children in Britain after killing Amy and the decision not to deport him was also based on his "right to a family life".
Altogether 3,200 foreign criminals, benefit cheats and illegal migrants escape deportation every year because of the wretched Act. For the sake of our national integrity this grotesque measure has to go. The human rights industry is defending the indefensible. They blather about compassion and liberty but in reality they really want to maintain a structure that provides lucrative earnings at our expense through endless appeals and court actions.
In addition many judges adore the human rights culture because it provides them with enormous scope to indulge in judicial activism, slapping down elected politicians and formulating state policy without having to go through the ballot box. Shami Chakrabarti said this week at the height of Catgate: "Theresa May
knows full well that the Human Rights Act leaves the last word on immigration control to Parliament."
That is precisely what it does not do. In an affront to democracy, immigration rules are largely in the hands of judges and the European Court. The Home Secretary should go on the offensive for the public is behind her on this issue. The first duty of the Government is to protect its citizens, not foreign criminals - or gay Bolivian cat enthusiasts.
Posts
