It doesn't matter how many times the error is pointed out - Mail journalists, it seems, are determined to parade their ignorance, confusing the Council of Europe with the EU.
Not only is the confusion sown in the headline, but we also see the caption to the picture of the ECHR in Strasbourg stating: "A leaked document says Britain should be given enhanced 'margin of appreciation' in interpreting EU rulings".
It might not be so bad if the paper could actually copy out stories properly, as this one is filched from The Guardian, which perfectly correctly refers to the Council of Europe, even in its headline. There is no mention of the EU anywhere in the report.
Apart from illustrating its unreliability though, the Mail is demonstrating that it simply doesn't listen to anything but itself. This is the archetypal top-down MSM, engaging in a one-way "conversation" with its readers. No wonder people turn to social media, which – despite the obvious deficiencies – is a two-way process.
COMMENT THREAD
COMMENT THREAD
She would have us believe that she wants to "axe the Act", except – as Dellers points out – the UK cannot withdraw from the ECHR without also leaving the EU. And May's master-in-crime ain't going to allow that. The whole thing is conference fluff.
And illustrating exactly the point Dellers makes, we see the Taxpayers' Alliance on the conference fringe. They have assembled Matthew Elliott, "Chief Executive", Douglas Carswell, Patrick O'Flynn, "Chief Political Commentator" of the Daily Express, Tim Montgomerie and Priti Patel, all to tell us: "We need to talk about Europe".
No … really? I'd never have worked that one out.
The Grand Old Duke of York marched us up to the top of the hill, and marched us down again. That's Euroslime Dave for you. Having raised a faux campaign in order to give the impression he was doing something about the ECHR, he is actually doing nothing at all.
Now he has taken us to the pinnacle of nothingness, though, he can't even be bothered to lead us back down again. That has been delegated to his good and filthful servant, Kenneth Clarke. It is he who thus tells us that Britain will seek to kick-start reform of the Convention – which wasn't what was promised - just as Lord Woolf says there's "very little chance" of change, because it would mean persuading 47 countries who are all signed up to the Convention".
As we knew all along, Dave is full of BS. Absolutely nothing is going to happen.
But what is really terrifying is Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty. This madam really doesn't get parliamentary democracy. "We have a Bill of Rights in this country: it's called the Human Rights Act and is thoroughly British, European and universal in its values," she says:
It protects all of us from the whims of politicians and when the current frenzy of misinformation has died down, voters will worry about MPs who seek to put themselves above the law.Somebody ought to lead this little Shami gently by the nose and tell it that, in a parliamentary democracy, it is Parliament that matters. Parliament is sovereign, but it is not above the law. Parliament is the law. Which is, of course, why the "colleagues" are doing their best to destroy it.
Then we got shadow home secretary David Davis pressing Reid on Blair's pledge to "automatically deport" every foreign offender. "When does the home secretary believe he will fulfil the prime minister's undertaking of the third of May to automatically deport every foreign national who has served a prison sentence?" he asked.
Reid, we are told, said that "the presumption" would be that foreign criminals convicted of serious offenders would be deported. "It is my aim," he said, "to ensure that foreign nationals who serve significant custodial sentences in this country face deportation automatically."
Hang on…!? Did he say that all foreign nationals… would be deported automatically? Er… no! He said they would "face" deportation... In other words, they would be considered, but not necessarily deported as a result.
This reflects the reality of the situation. Both in terms of the ECHR and EU Directive 2004/38/EC, Reid knows that he cannot deport anyone "automatically" (and many, not at all).
He knows that. We know that. Why does he try to deceive us?
Reid, we are told, said that "the presumption" would be that foreign criminals convicted of serious offenders would be deported. "It is my aim," he said, "to ensure that foreign nationals who serve significant custodial sentences in this country face deportation automatically."
Hang on…!? Did he say that all foreign nationals… would be deported automatically? Er… no! He said they would "face" deportation... In other words, they would be considered, but not necessarily deported as a result.
This reflects the reality of the situation. Both in terms of the ECHR and EU Directive 2004/38/EC, Reid knows that he cannot deport anyone "automatically" (and many, not at all).
He knows that. We know that. Why does he try to deceive us?
Abraham Lincoln, who was an extremely cunning politician, had different methods of speaking. Sometimes, as at Gettysburg, he spoke tersely and to the point. At other times he told folksy stories to divert his listeners and convince them that he was really a very ordinary guy. Political spin was not invented ten years ago.One of his folksy performances involved a story about a man who was chopping wood while his wife was gathering kindling when a bear attacked her. According to Lincoln, the man sat down on a log, put the axe next to him and shouted, according to who was winning: “Go it woman. Go it bear.”
That is more or less the way I feel about the clash, long predicted, between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. With the ECJ wanting to take over from the ECHR as the ultimate arbiter of all matters, including human rights, and the ECHR wanting to rule the world (well, those bits of it that are part of the Council of Europe) a clash at some point was inevitable.
Mind you, this is not yet their Cuba. The two superpowers do not stand face to face yet. They are still fighting through proxies, in this case the Belgian police.
These thoughts were occasioned by the ECHR ruling that
the right to protect the identity of sources was an essential pillar of freedom of the press.Yes, dear readers, we are back with the Tillack case. The ECHR has awarded him €10,000 in damages and €30,000 for costs and expenses. One assumes that it will be the Belgian authorities who will be liable for the sums, not OLAF or Eurostat, the body he had been investigating when this whole appalling saga began.
Let us have a quick review of our coverage. Here are two summaries, when the journalist and his employers, Stern magazine took the case to the European Court of Justice and when the Court of First Instances decided against him. In the latter story we quoted the judgement, which cleared OLAF, whose job it is to sort out the blatant corruption in the institutions of the European Union, of handing material over to the Belgian police (something that they have now admitted) and of smearing Mr Tillack’s good name.
Needless to say, the ECJ agreed with the Court of First Instances and decided that OLAF was not guilty of anything it was being accused of. This is now being used as an excuse by the spokesman for the Commission. Commenting on the ECHR decision, Johannes Laitenberger commented rather smugly that it is “Belgium that had been found at fault rather than EU institutions”.
"Neither OLAF nor the commission has the possibility to order member states' authorities to take any particular action," Laitenberger said, adding that a separate but related case against the Commission and OLAF in the European Court of Justice had been lost by Tillack in October 2006.As I recall, OLAF insisted that it had nothing to do with the Belgian case and had not handed over any documentation to the Belgian police not that it had no option but to do so.
OLAF said it had no alternative but to hand over the information to the Belgians who were responsible for subsequent actions. "Our legal base required us to transfer the information to the judicial authorities," said Jörg Wojahn, its spokesman.
Oh and in case anyone is wondering:
None of the allegations of fraud at Eurostat has yet come to trial according to OLAF. But it says that two dossiers have been sent by an examining magistrate to the prosecutor in Luxembourg and that a separate judicial investigation is still under way in Paris.No change there, in other words. Still, once started on this path of finding in opposition to the ECJ, the ECHR may well decide to continue to do so.
From the press coverage of the Snatch Land Rover litigation, on which a judgement in the High Court was handed down yesterday, you would think that the case against the MoD had been lost. It hasn't. The campaigners trying to bring the Ministry of Defence to book, for knowingly fielding dangerously vulnerable equipment in Iraq, have won a qualified victory.
The impression that the case was lost comes from the misleading headline on the BBC report (above), but this owes its origin to a similarly misleading report from the Press Association, which completely misrepresents the situation.
The essence of the flawed report, which has been replicated hundreds of times in local and national media, is that "a High Court judge has blocked attempts by families of four soldiers killed in Iraq to seek compensation from the Government".
The soldiers concerned were Pte Phillip Hewett, of Tamworth, Staffordshire, Pte Lee Ellis, of Wythenshawe, Greater Manchester, and Lance Cpl Kirk Redpath, 22, of Romford, Essex, all of whom were killed in Snatch Land Rovers, and Corporal Stephen Allbutt, 35, who was killed by "friendly fire" after his Challenger was hit by another.
However, to project – by juxtaposition – that the judge accepted this particular MoD argument is simply false. As a spokeswoman for relatives' lawyers made clear, this was the MoD relying on the principle of "combat immunity", which removes any liability for exercising a "duty of care" in combat zones.
Here, the judge broke new ground. He refused to accept the principle, allowing Courtney, aged 10, daughter of Pte Lee Ellis, to proceed with a case of negligence. Similarly, the Challenger "friendly fire" case has been allowed through.
Where the Press Association had got itself confused is that there were two separate legs to the case. The first was the group of relatives, including Sue Smith, mother of Pte Hewett, who were not dependents, collectively seeking to make the MoD "... accountable for allowing their loved ones to go into combat in vehicles that were manifestly unsuitable for the job".
Because they were not dependents, they have no claim under common law and cannot seek damages for negligence under duty of care provisions. Before anyone can pursue a claim, the law requires them to prove they have suffered financial loss, which the relatives cannot or will not do.
Thus, this group of relatives have instead proceeded under Human Rights legislation (ECHR) and, since even that requires compensation to be claimed, the cases have been lodged in terms of the relatives seeking damages. However, as the entire group have constantly pointed out - articulated by Sue Smith - they are not interested in the money. This, in any case, is likely to be minimal, and soaked up by legal fees and repayment of legal aid. The relatives simply want the MoD brought to book.
Now, it is the ECHR leg of the case that has been blocked - on the grounds that the deceased soldiers were outside the jurisdiction of the UK at the time of their deaths because they were not in the UK nor on a British Army base. Therefore, it is held, the ECHR does not apply.
That the ECHR case would be rejected was actually an expected development, especially after theJason Smith case. When I spoke to Sue Smith after the judgement, she was not at all dismayed. There are other, different cases being heard which may settle this point – or these cases themselves may end up in Strasbourg.
But on the negligence issue, ground really has been broken. And, for once, the loss-makingGuardian has got it right, a distinction shared by the Belfast Telegraph. Both note that, relying on the principle of "combat immunity", the ministry had argued that this was a complete legal defence for incidents that took place in war zones.
The judge, says the papers, disagreed. In The Guardian, he is cited as saying: "There can be no doubt that the [MoD] is under a general duty to provide adequate training, suitable equipment and a safe system of work for members of the armed forces". Thus Courtney's claim, plus claims by Cpl Allbutt's widow, Debi, and Dan Twiddy and Andy Julien – two soldiers injured in the Challenger - could continue.
Before all the misleading publicity, a ministry spokesman had declared that: "The courts have upheld our arguments on Article 2 of the ECHR. We will be seeking leave to appeal against the decision about liability claims for equipment provision".
Latterly, Sky News got the news mostly right – but still with a misleading headline. The Mirrorbecame a late entrant, correcting its earlier story - as did the Mail, while The Sun continues to get it wrong. Interestingly, the Failygraph does not carry a report at all.
Nevertheless, the manoeuvring continues. Those who lost their lives in Snatch Land Rovers – as well as the Challenger set - are one step closer to getting their day in court. Unfortunately, due to the bulk of the media and its churnalism, most people will never realise what has happened.
COMMENT THREAD
The Sun newspaper yesterday was all a twitter this morning about a "pledge" by the Boy King to "reform, replace or scrap" the Human Rights Act if he is elected.This also appeared in The Telegraph and was later picked up by the BBC website.
Cameron's comments follow the court decision to allow nine Afghans who hijacked a plane to Britain to claim asylum in the UK, and had the Conservative Home website purring with approval.
Reading the small print, however, the Boy's pledge is very narrowly drawn. His first recourse is to seek "memorandums of understanding" with Middle Eastern and North African countries like Jordan, Lebanon and Algeria containing assurances that deported people will not be subjected to torture or execution on their return.
That is all very well but it does not address the issue of returning people to war zones, like certainSomali thugs whose country has now degenerated into chaos.
Nor does it address the vexed problem of asylum-seekers who destroy their papers before presenting themselves to the immigration officials, making it impossible to determine their countries of origin and allowing their home countries to disown them.
These "minor" issues aside though, we have been here before. Responding to concerns about asylum seekers, the Conservatives floated the idea in autumn 2001 of leaving the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). This was repeated by Blair on the Frost Programme on 26 January 2003, and then again by shadow home secretary, following the prime minister's comments.
This would be a technical device, enabling the government to circumvent Article 3 – which prohibits a State from returning a person to a place where they might face ill-treatment – following which the convention would be ratified but with a reservation which would exclude Art. 3.
That option has been authoritativelydebunked, but Cameron is not even going that far - he is only pledging to tackle the Human Rights Act. But its main effect is to make the ECHR judicable in the UK.Without the Act, the ECHR still applies and aggrieved persons would still have the right to appeal to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and, unless the UK withdrew also from the convention it would still be bound by the court's judgements. In other words, at several different levels, the Boy's pledge is simply gesture politics.
Former Europe minister, Denis MacShane, is certainly of that mind. In today's Independent, he says, "Cameron seems to have said this for the sake of a headline without thinking it through. You can tear up the British legislation, but that only means that cases will go to the European Court of Human Rights, so it doesn't actually do anything. But if Cameron is saying that Britain is going to withdraw from an international treaty, we will be out of line with every other civilised country."
More to the point, countries that withdraw from the ECHR automatically leave the Council of Europe, which means this is a move the Boy is unlikely to make.
And he will get no support from the prime minister. According to the Independent, his official spokesman indicated yesterday that it was the way the Human Rights Act is applied by the courts, rather than the legislation itself, which was causing public concern. "There is a need to reassure the public that common sense logic should be right through the legal system, so there is the need, if necessary, to rebalance the system so that happens," he said.
COMMENT THREAD
A certain amount of excitement has been generated by the recent decision by the Court of First Instance, which according to Matthias Storme of the Brussels Journal “undermines the rule of law and the principles of the constitutional state and of democracy.”Since, according to the same writer, the ruling says
“that decisions of the United Nations Security Council take precedence over national constitutions, European law and even the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).”,one cannot help doubting the seriousness of the problem.
Anyone who thinks that it is horrifying that a decision should take precedence over “even” the ECHR does not necessarily understand the basic concept of the rule of law or of the “principles of the constitutional state and of democracy”. The fact is that the ECHR in itself undermines those principles and, indeed, the rule of law.
The decision was taken over the case of Ahmed Yusuf Ali, a Swedish citizen of Arab origin. His name appeared in 2001 on a list of persons suspected of being linked to terrorist organizations. In particular, he ran a money-transfer facility for Somalis world-wide and there is more than a hint of a suspicion that this was used to transfer money to terrorist organizations.
The list was established by the UN Security Council and transferred into EU law immediately, though, as it happens, this would come under Pillar 3, that is inter-governmental agreement.
Yusuf Ali’s assets were frozen by the Swedish authorities, who are also bound to respect the decision of the UN Security Council. However, he and his lawyer Thomas Olsson, decided to appeal against the EU decision.
The argument was two-fold: in the first place, Mr Yusuf Ali argued that EU legislation cannot apply to individuals – a dubious proposition since EU legislation in this case taking the form of several Regulations, which are directly applicable, works through that of the member states and that can and does apply to individuals.
The second point was probably more valid: Mr Yusuf Ali and Mr Olsson argued that he had not been allowed to defend himself in a court of law, which, they ought to have stated, is against the principles of natural justice and the rule of law. But they did not say this. It was, they argued, against the European Charter of Human Rights, an unsatisfactory transnational document that can be used to over-rule the democratically enacted legislation of supposedly sovereign states.
Matthias Storme finds the whole idea horrifying:
“Though terrorism should be combated by the international community, Wednesday’s verdict effectively implies that decisions of the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party can gain precedence over the European Human Rights Convention. China is a member of the Security Council and its position can determine the outcome of Security Council decisions. What is the value of “human rights” which in the hierarchy of values rank lower than the preferences of the Chinese CP.”That was, of course, the argument used by those who opposed the United States going to the UN before invading Iraq. Then it was valid. In the case of the European Human Rights Convention, it is less so. The ECHR is a document of the Council of Europe, whose members nowadays include Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Russia and all the former member states of Yugoslavia. Their judges sit on the European Court of Human Rights. Not China, perhaps, but hardly people one would go to for guidance on the rule of law and democracy.
The Court decision, as is usual, lists all the various Security Council Resolutions and the treaty articles related to the common foreign and security policy:
In accordance with Article 11(1) TEU:
The Union shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy covering all areas of foreign and security policy, the objectives of which shall be:
– to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests, independence and integrity of the Union in conformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter,
– to strengthen the security of the Union in all ways,
– to preserve peace and strengthen international security, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter …”
Sad but true. We have all signed up to this. (Well, our governments have on our behalf and I do not suppose that many Swedish lawyers protested at the time.) And the role of the European Union courts is to ensure that the treaties are complied with and European integration proceeds apace.
Much of the debate seemed to revolve round the question whether the Regulation in question went beyond EC rules, which can impose sanctions on third countries. The court upheld the argument that sanctions can be imposed on individuals and organizations in order to interrupt their economic dealings with third countries. In this case, the third country was Afghanistan, at that point the home of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden (wherever he may be now). Therefore, EC rules were not breached.
The debated part of the decision that concerns the question of legal supremacy is stated in thepress release of the Court of First Instance:
“The Court of First Instance finds that, according to international law, the obligations of the Member States of the United Nations under the Charter of the United Nations prevail over any other obligation, including their obligations under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and under the EC Treaty. This paramountcy extends to decisions of the Security Council.The debate is, therefore, about the supremacy of UN or EC legislation. The member states come into it only as entities that are obliged to fulfil one or the other. Democracy and rule of law have nothing to do with any of this. What we are witnessing is a fight between two transnational organizations (known not so affectionately as tranzis) for supremacy.
Although it is not a member of the United Nations, the Community must also be considered to be bound by the obligations flowing from the Charter of the United Nations, in the same way as are its Member States, by virtue of the Treaty establishing it. First, the Community may not infringe the obligations imposed on its Member States by virtue of the Charter or impede their performance. Second, it is required to adopt all the provisions necessary to allow its Member States to fulfil those obligations.”
Once we have acknowledged that one transnational organization (be that the Council of Europe or the European Union) has supremacy over our own laws, enacted within our own consitutional structure and accountable to the people of this country, the idea that the UN has supremacy over them is not that shocking.
The freezing of assets of criminals and suspected criminals (the financing of terrorism is a criminal offence in the UK and most other countries) may be an arguable piece of legislation but is, in fact, there in British law.
As long as we remain part of the UN (and Sweden is, as well as the UK) we are supposedly bound by the Security Council decisions. But the legislation, in this case, is EU legislation implemented by the Member States. And that is non-negotiable, until such time as we or Sweden decide to become independent sovereign states.
I imagine, even after that there will be legislation to deal with terrorists and those who finance them.
COMMENT THREAD
The recent judgement by the ECHR in Strasbourg on the human rights of Iraq citizens has caused not a little concern about the increasing reach of human rights law into military operations. However, that concern is misplaced.
The judgement relates to a case had been brought by the Birmingham-based firm, Public Interest Lawyers, on behalf of Iraqis who claimed their relatives had been variously shot dead, raped, disappeared or tortured by British soldiers between 2003 and 2006.
In its judgment, the court said: "Following the removal from power of the Ba'ath regime and until the accession of the Iraqi interim government, the United Kingdom (together with the United States) assumed in Iraq the exercise of some of the public powers normally to be exercised by a sovereign government".
"In particular", it said, "the United Kingdom assumed authority and responsibility for the maintenance of security in south-east Iraq. In those exceptional circumstances, a jurisdictional link existed between the United Kingdom and individuals killed in the course of security operations carried out by British soldiers during the period May 2003 to June 2004".
"Since the applicants' relatives were killed in the course of United Kingdom security operations during that period, the United Kingdom was required to carry out an investigation into their deaths", the court ruled.
The court then found there had not been an effective investigation into five of the killings. It noted that, in contrast, the UK has held an inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa, a hotel worker who had died while in the custody of British troops in 2003.
Now, the key issue here is that, after the fall of the Saddam regime in Iraq in 2003, the United Kingdom assumed the legal status of an occupying power. In so doing, it took on the powers and obligations set out in the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.
There was no compulsion on the British government to take up that status. Others of the coalition forces took part in post-conflict operations without that status. But, having done so – freely and without coercion – the UK then failed entirely to live up to those obligations.
In specific terms, this was a failure of Blair and his leadership, but since he was the prime minister at the time, the UK bears the responsibility for his actions and failures.
And, although one is hesitant to allow for foreign courts having jurisdiction over the UK, these were – as the ECHR acknowledges - "exceptional circumstances".
If one denies Iraqi citizens access to this court, in the absence of any access to the UK courts, we are saying that they had no redress when exposed to behaviour of UK personnel, military or otherwise, whose behaviour would have been illegal on British territory.
It would have been preferable if the British government had taken note of the legal obligations it had assumed, without the issue having to be put before the ECHR. But since this has not happened, then in the interests of justice, the Iraqis concerned had no option but to go elsewhere for their hearing.
When our public authorities or their officers or servants – and that includes our military – misbehave, it cannot be right that they should escape censure, and that their victims' rights should be denied, merely on the basis that such behaviour was perpetrated overseas.
In our name, our government gave some of our own the power of life and death over others. We have a responsibility to make sure that power was used properly, and obligations to those who suffered when it was not. To our eternal shame, it seems we need foreign judges to remind us of this.
COMMENT THREAD
They have just won their case in the European Court of Human Rights, that the UK legal system breached the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression. This was because they were denied legal aid to defend themselves against a libel suit from McDonalds after the pair had distributed defamatory leaflets against the fast food chain and had refused – after multiple warnings – to desist.
Unable to afford their own lawyers, the pair defended themselves in what became the longest civil or criminal action in English legal history, lasting 314-days.
The oddest thing is that, during the course of the trial – and mainly because of it – the pair gained massive publicity for their cause – being elevated in the process from unknown activities to international figures, lauded by fellow campaigners throughout the world.
On that basis, the very fact that they were denied legal aid and were thus seen as the plucky Davids taking on the corporate Goliath, gained them immeasurable publicity and enabled them to put their case in a way that they could not even have dreamed of before the trial started.
So much publicity did they get, in fact, that the trial has been regarded as one of the worst corporate PR disasters of all time.
Thus, one can hardly agree with the ECHR that the lack of legal aid effectively denied the pair the right to a fair trial, and still less that it also breached their right to freedom of expression.
As to the fair trial, in my view the judge – as is required when dealing with defendants in person – was scrupulously fair. He bent over backwards in affording Steel and Morris every opportunity in presenting what was, in fact, a very thin case, as indeed did the plaintiff’s legal team.
Oddly enough, the threat to their case came from a much more insidious source. Of a technical nature, arguing over the merits of the claims in the leaflet, Steel and Morris needed the back-up of expert witnesses, with experience of the food industry.
From them, they got very little assistance, most experts refusing to help them on the basis that taking on McDonalds was not a career-enhancing move.
However, in their search for assistance, they did contact me and, even though I did not agree with much of what was on the offending leaflet, I agreed to assist them and, in fact, gave expert evidence in the trial. (When a television documentary was made after the event, I had the singular and amusing experience of seeing myself being portrayed by an actor with a thick Yorkshire accent, the assumption being that, living in Yorkshire, I must have been thus handicapped).
I took a considerable amount of criticism for my action but, as I said at the time, right or wrong, Morris and Steel deserved a fair trial – and for that they needed experts.
In the end, I believe they got their fair trial, and they got massive publicity and the opportunity to express themselves in spades. The only travesty now is that the ECHR judges found in their favour. And, as always, the long-suffering taxpayer is going to have to bear the cost.
It doesn't matter how many times the error is pointed out - Mail journalists, it seems, are determined to parade their ignorance, confusing the Council of Europe with the EU.
Not only is the confusion sown in the headline, but we also see the caption to the picture of the ECHR in Strasbourg stating: "A leaked document says Britain should be given enhanced 'margin of appreciation' in interpreting EU rulings".
It might not be so bad if the paper could actually copy out stories properly, as this one is filched from The Guardian, which perfectly correctly refers to the Council of Europe, even in its headline. There is no mention of the EU anywhere in the report.
Apart from illustrating its unreliability though, the Mail is demonstrating that it simply doesn't listen to anything but itself. This is the archetypal top-down MSM, engaging in a one-way "conversation" with its readers. No wonder people turn to social media, which – despite the obvious deficiencies – is a two-way process.
COMMENT THREAD
COMMENT THREAD
She would have us believe that she wants to "axe the Act", except – as Dellers points out – the UK cannot withdraw from the ECHR without also leaving the EU. And May's master-in-crime ain't going to allow that. The whole thing is conference fluff.
And illustrating exactly the point Dellers makes, we see the Taxpayers' Alliance on the conference fringe. They have assembled Matthew Elliott, "Chief Executive", Douglas Carswell, Patrick O'Flynn, "Chief Political Commentator" of the Daily Express, Tim Montgomerie and Priti Patel, all to tell us: "We need to talk about Europe".
No … really? I'd never have worked that one out.
COMMENT THREAD
But, says the paper, in a staggering reversal yesterday, the European Court of Human Rights said this would breach his right to a "private and family life". This is despite him not having a wife, long-term partner or children in the UK.
However, you have to read a long way into the article before you find out that Akinshipe was 13 when he came here, was 15 when he committed the crime, has been fully rehabilitated, and his mother and sisters live here. There may be a very good reason for deporting this person, and it should always by British judges that make the decision.
Nonetheless, you do get the feeling – he said guardedly – that the story is not exactly balanced. This is not honest journalism.
That apart – this is another one for Cameron, the man who was going to do something about the ECHR … like he was going to do something about the Agency Workers Directive. Perhaps we should deport him to Brussels, where he would really be at home.
COMMENT THREAD
"It makes me physically ill to even contemplate having to give the vote to anyone in prison," Cameron said in Parliament. Now the European court has rejected a government attempt to overturn the ruling, and given Britain six months to draw up proposals for changing the law.
What now? Do we see "cast-iron Dave" honour his promise and abrogate the ECHR, or will he crawl back under his stone? And how long is it before people in this country wake up and realise that our politicians are no longer in charge?
COMMENT THREAD
The Grand Old Duke of York marched us up to the top of the hill, and marched us down again. That's Euroslime Dave for you. Having raised a faux campaign in order to give the impression he was doing something about the ECHR, he is actually doing nothing at all.
Now he has taken us to the pinnacle of nothingness, though, he can't even be bothered to lead us back down again. That has been delegated to his good and filthful servant, Kenneth Clarke. It is he who thus tells us that Britain will seek to kick-start reform of the Convention – which wasn't what was promised - just as Lord Woolf says there's "very little chance" of change, because it would mean persuading 47 countries who are all signed up to the Convention".
As we knew all along, Dave is full of BS. Absolutely nothing is going to happen.
But what is really terrifying is Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty. This madam really doesn't get parliamentary democracy. "We have a Bill of Rights in this country: it's called the Human Rights Act and is thoroughly British, European and universal in its values," she says:
It protects all of us from the whims of politicians and when the current frenzy of misinformation has died down, voters will worry about MPs who seek to put themselves above the law.Somebody ought to lead this little Shami gently by the nose and tell it that, in a parliamentary democracy, it is Parliament that matters. Parliament is sovereign, but it is not above the law. Parliament is the law. Which is, of course, why the "colleagues" are doing their best to destroy it.
COMMENT THREAD
Reinforcing the well-worn saw that "no man is an island", we note with concern the wave of Tunisians who have landed on the Italian island of Lampedusa, there demanding asylum. Some 2,000 of the 5,337 who arrived in recent days have remained on Lampedusa, awaiting transfer to immigrant holding centres elsewhere in Italy.
But where it gets distinctly worrying is that interior minister Roberto Maroni is raising concerns of 80,000 North Africans heading to Europe – i.e., the territories of European Union member states. In the short term, Italy has asked the EU for about €100million following this "biblical exodus" and is asking the European border agency Frontex to launch a mission to beef up border control.
The big deal though, is that anyone being processed through this system is going to end up with rights under EU law (to say nothing of the ECHR, which is getting to be the same thing). And, from past form, sooner or later, a goodly number are going to end up knocking at our door.
There then comes the spectre of these people acquiring the right to import their spouses, children, grandparents, and even siblings and cousins. The 80,000 or so very quickly grows to about a million, and that is just the first batch. Of course, we can sympathise with Italy's plight, and in these sorts of cases, there is an argument to be made for offering aide and practical assistance. Beyond that, we should have control over what we accept and what we do not.
But, when we start seeing ranks of Tunisian asylum seekers queuing at Calais, awaiting their transport to Dover, we are going to find once again that membership of the European Union carries with it unacceptable penalties. And when are our masters going to wake up to this? Or are they going to wait for the next race riot?
We already have the murder and mayhem, so there is only that left to come.
COMMENT THREAD
If I had time, I would do my own analysis, but it wouldn't look much different – so we need not reinvent the wheel. But don't get angry ... that's bad for the blood pressure. Get even. That's going to take a little time, but remember also that revenge is a dish best eaten cold. My plate gets colder by the day.
BTW: the quality of her writing is delicious ... on the sale of HuffPuff to AoL: "Really, AOL could have got any of that for a lot less than $315m. It's all free on almost any lavatory wall in any Detroit bus station." I wish I'd written that.
COMMENT THREAD
The story of George Blake, one of the most successful Soviet spies in Britain, and his human rights, as trampled on by the Attorney Genera, according to the ECHR, is not precisely a theme for this blog.However, some of our readers might like to see the musings over on the Conservative History Journal blog.
The Lib-Dims have published on their website an edited version of the speechtheir Shadow Home Secretary, Nick Clegg, made in the debate about the extradition of the NatWest bankers.His argument is that the agreement with the United States that was incorporated into British law in 2003 is uniquely wrong because at present it is not reciprocal. There is a good deal to be said for that point of view but Mr Clegg rather blows his credentials with the following comments that oppose the terribly unfair agreement with the United States to the amazingly just and fair agreements we have with our European partners of different description:
"First, as I mentioned, we have reciprocal agreements with those countries, but none of the arrangements have such wildly differing evidential burdens. Hence our support for the European arrest warrant which, as I said, is based on symmetry between the parties that entered into it, and is reciprocal between nations. The US-UK agreement, by contrast, is unique in its lopsided provisions. Secondly, Council of Europe countries are all signatories of the European convention on human rights, which is not binding on the United States. Any contravention of the ECHR by a Council of Europe state subsequent to extradition can be reviewed by the European Court of Human Rights, but such judicial review is not available to individuals extradited to the United States.’"Brilliantly argued Mr Clegg. The European Arrest Warrant may introduce symmetry but it also introduces several criminal offences that simply do not exist in this country. Are we to consider it to be completely fair and just for people to be arrested for xenophobia and carted off to some European country because there is a reciprocal agreement there?
As for being signatories of the European Convention of Human Rights, only a Lib-Dim could think that it was worth the paper the signature was written on, when it comes to such bona fide members of the Council of Europe as Albania or Azerbaijan (just to stay with the 'A's)
COMMENT THREAD
Don't worry – it's a rhetorical question. I'm not expecting an answer. But the question remains there, hanging over the new home secretary, John Reid, after his performance in the Commons today.Having admitted that 98 of the 1,023 foreign prisoners released without being considered for deportation remain at large, and that the number included one murderer and eight rapists or child sex offenders, he then revised the level of serious offenders freed from 150 to 179. Furthermore, 57 serious offenders had gone on to commit further crimes following their release from jail, with 19 involving violence or a "sexual element".
Then we got shadow home secretary David Davis pressing Reid on Blair's pledge to "automatically deport" every foreign offender. "When does the home secretary believe he will fulfil the prime minister's undertaking of the third of May to automatically deport every foreign national who has served a prison sentence?" he asked.
Reid, we are told, said that "the presumption" would be that foreign criminals convicted of serious offenders would be deported. "It is my aim," he said, "to ensure that foreign nationals who serve significant custodial sentences in this country face deportation automatically."
Hang on…!? Did he say that all foreign nationals… would be deported automatically? Er… no! He said they would "face" deportation... In other words, they would be considered, but not necessarily deported as a result.
This reflects the reality of the situation. Both in terms of the ECHR and EU Directive 2004/38/EC, Reid knows that he cannot deport anyone "automatically" (and many, not at all).
He knows that. We know that. Why does he try to deceive us?
COMMENT THREAD
In an important decision, the Law Lords, led by Lord Bingham, have upheld the right of Denbigh High School in Luton to devise its own uniform – in this case a version of the shalwar kameez – and to exclude anyone who refuses to adhere to it.The case of Shabina Begum (who is usually flanked by her brother and cousin, both members of the Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organization that openly supports Al-Qaeda and one that has been banned in a number of countries, though not, naturally, in Britain) has been going on for some time but has, now, reached the end. Unless, of course, she and her brother and cousin do go to the ECHR.
Ms Begum’s argument, conveyed by her counsel, Cherie Booth QC, was that the shalwar kameez was not modest enough for her and she had to have the right to wear a full hiljab, an outfit that is completely unsuitable to a school.
Denbigh High School pointed out that the shalwar kameez is worn across the Indian sub-continent (whence Ms Begum’s family originates) and was considered to be perfectly suitable by the many Muslims who attend the school, teach in it and sit on its parent teacher association and the governing body.
There was some debate as to why Ms Begum thought that a shalwar kameez was unsuitable. The school’s lawyers quoted her as opining that it was worn by “unbelieving women” and, therefore, she could not sully herself with it. I expect the hiljab is worn by unbelieving women, too, on occasion, particularly when they have to hide cuts and bruises inflicted on them by their loving families.
Ms Booth QC insisted that the lawyers were not accurate. Apparently Ms Begum did not consider the shalwar kameez suitable for a pubescent and post-pubescent girls. Which opinion, M’lud, is obvious nonsense, as many women of varying ages wear it.
At this point, rather uncharacteristically, I should like to ward off the personal attacks on Ms Booth. She is a barrister and, therefore, takes cases as they come up. I have no idea whether Matrix Chambers has a cab rank system or whether she took this one because it was likely to be high-profile. But if we start saying that barristers must not take on certain cases because they are clearly wrong we undermine the basic notion of both the English and the Scottish legal systems, that everyone has the right to defence.
It is, of course, true that Ms Booth set up the Matrix Chambers, to specialize in Human Rights cases immediately after that particularly contentious piece of legislation had been pushed through Parliament by her husband, the Prime Minister.
While this may not qualify as sleaze, many of us held our noses as we read about it.
Another question is who paid for the Ms Begum and her family through the various appeals (the one to the Law Lords was brought by the school). Not, I trust, the taxpayer.
Having defended, however lukewarmly, Ms Booth QC, I must add that it would be ever so nice to see her in court defending a girl who had managed to escape her family’s imprisonment, having refused to go along with a forced marriage. What price human rights in those cases?
COMMENT THREAD
According to the same article, penned by no less a person than Toby Helm, the Chief Political Correspondent:
“His supporters, however, argue that Mr Cameron is the man to modernise the Tory party with his blend of centre-Right thinking and compassion, as effectively as Tony Blair reformed Labour in the 1990s.”Well, now. One or two questions seem to me to be begged here. First of all, if David Cameron, hitherto known as a moderniser, if of the centre-Right persuasion, why does he have to set out his wares for the right of the party. Why do they not know that Mr Cameron is one of them? Could it be because Mr Cameron has not so far been particularly vocal on the subjects that the right of the party is interested in?
His stand on education (reminiscent of Ken Clarke’s, incidentally, in the days of that jolly chap’s position as Education Secretary) is that vouchers, generally acknowledged as the only possible solution to the catastrophic situation in our schools and colleges, is “not what the electorate wants”. What it wants, apparently, is better control, discipline and curriculum, all set by the government. Just as we have had for decades. What a success, eh? Hardly right-wing policy, though.
Incidentally, it seems quite extraordinary how many Tory MPs, from Mr Cameron to Mr Bercow know exactly what the electorate wants. Why don’t they put this knowledge into action? For sure as eggs is eggs, what the electorate does not want is the Conservative Party. Have they forgotten those 1 million voters they lost since 1997 and have not recovered?
The second problem with that description of Mr Cameron is the compassion. Who on earth needs the “compassion” of a thirty-something year old Etonian with no experience in anything except politics?
The use of the word “compassion” indicates that Mr Cameron and his supporters consider the bulk of this country’s population to be somehow inferior to him and in need of help and guidance. Big government, in other words.
Or maybe, most people would just like Mr Cameron and others of that ilk get out of their lives.
What of the famous speech, then?
To start with, Mr Cameron comes up with his own definition of what Britishness is all about: “Freedom under the rule of law”.
“This simple, yet profound expression explains almost everything you need to know about our country, our institutions, our history, our culture – even our economy.What none of that explains is how it is that a large proportion of our legislation comes from the European Union that our Parliament, one of those institutions enshrined in our constitution, cannot throw out.
It is why British citizens are free men and women, able to do what they like unless it harms others or is explicitly forbidden.
And why no-one and nothing is above the law.
These shared values, enshrined in our constitution and institutions over centuries, are the foundation of our civilised society.
They are democratic, progressive and protect our human rights.”
Nor does it explain how it is that the ECJ can routinely over-rule legislation and legal decisions decided on by our institutions or why international law, promulgated by the tranzis seems to have become superior to British law and British institutions. But then, Mr Cameron may have had his immediate audience in mind. The FPC is greatly in favour of transnational organizations.
Then we have the usual blarney about the horrors of the July bombs in London and Britain joining the long list of those that have been victims of “extremist Islamist terror”. Mr Cameron is one up on the Prime Minister who, in his list, back in July, omitted both Iraq and Israel. Mr Cameron remembered Israel but not Iraq. Clearly there have been no terrorist bombs in that country. Or, maybe, as someone said about Mr Blair, Iraq is in a different folder on Mr Cameron’s speechwriters’ computer.
To be fair to Mr Cameron, he did touch the rather difficult subject of so many of those terrorist being British born and bred and, even, compared Islamic terrorism with Nazism and Communism. All to the good, though his knowledge of either seems limited. Just to be on the safe side there are various references to well-known aspects of the rise of Nazism in the thirties but nothing at all about Communism. Wrong folder again, I expect.
After dealing rapidly with all the various aspects of the problem in the Middle East and the Gulf, without going too deeply into what might be Conservative foreign policy on the subject (mindful, perhaps of the fact that there is a common foreign policy to consider) Mr Cameron turned to what is to be done on the home front.
He suggests tightening up border controls and spending more money on the security services, hinting heavily that, perhaps, something will have to be done about the Human Rights Act (amending it, nothing so crass as repealing but, at least, it is better than just having a look at it) and, possibly temporarily withdrawing from the ECHR.
No mention of such interesting developments as the Single Area of Justice and Security, the two Tampere agreements and various other developments within the European Union. Perhaps Mr Cameron knows nothing about them. Perhaps, following his well-trodden path, he would rather not talk about “Europe”.
What of the problems inside the country? Well, Mr Cameron welcomes the oath of allegiance new citizens have to swear (which they have always had to swear but let that pass), the citizenship ceremonies and the required knowledge of the English language and life in this country.
It is not entirely clear to me what aspects of the life in this country will be required knowledge. Will it be cricket or Big Brother; Shakespeare or Coronation Street; Jamie Oliver or Victoria Beckham? As for the knowledge of language, given the complaints we are getting from employers, is it wise to create a system in which new immigrants know English better than the present inhabitants?
In fact, there is no particular need to enforce the knowledge of English at arrival. As long as that is the language of the country, people will learn it. The important thing is not to provide taxpayer-subsidized alternatives. And, again to be fair, Mr Cameron did refer to the problem:
“We need to ask whether Government and other bodies, by allowing other languages to be used in official settings, can almost encourage the belief that learning English is not essential.So, Mr Cameron, do you think Councils should produce all their literature in 20-odd languages at great expense to the taxpayer or not? At what stage are people deemed not to need help to get Government services and are expected to speak English?
Of course, we must make Government services accessible – and that means helping people who have not yet learnt English. But we must always be clear that use of other languages is a means to an end not an end in itself.”
There is a certain amount about the need to teach in English and teach history in schools and a further need for people to do things together outside schools. And the need to set up a Mosque council led by Muslims (just any old Muslims?) to oversee the various Mosques. Given the rather ambivalent stance leading Muslims in this country have taken on certain important issues, that might be an inadequate answer but, perhaps, Mr Cameron likes to idea of the prefect system: give them responsibility and they will live up to it. Perhaps.
Well, that was that, apart from a few rather general comments along the lines of:
“Our nation is not a blank sheet in which each goes his own way.And more of the same. Unfortunately, it all reminds me of the mushier kind of sixties pop song rather than of a sensible political statement.
It is a shared home with values which make it tolerant and hospitable in the first place.
We need to build that home together.”
What of that most important question – will he stand together with Ken Clarke on a “dream ticket” (whose dream one would like to know?)? Apparently not, as he does not agree with Mr Clarke’s views on Europe.
Then again, what are Mr Clarke’s views on Europe? He seems to have changed them rather drastically in the last couple of days. As we have never heard Mr Cameron express any views on the subject, it could be that he disagrees with the latest reincarnation of the Clarke persona. Perhaps Mr Cameron thinks the euro is a success and the constitution is a good idea.
According to the Independent, Mr Cameron tried to bolster his eurosceptic credentials:
“He [Mr Clarke] believes we should have an ever closer union of European states and I believe we need a new sort of Europe, much more open and free-trading,more flexible and we should be returning some powers to nation states.”The trouble with a sudden need to acquire eurosceptic credentials, having always avoided the subject of Europe, beyond explaining to one’s colleagues that one would never want to see Britain outside the EU, is that it one finds oneself mouthing rather meaningless platitudes of the kind Conservative politicians have been saying unsuccessfully for a decade or so.
Faites vos jeux, messieursdames, faites vos jeux.
COMMENT THREAD
It seems that the Hungarian Parliament’s Human Rights Committee (an interesting concept) has rejected a petition by 2,500 people to be considered an ethnic minority, to wit, descendants of Attila the Hun.
Recalling stories of the Huns’ behaviour back in the 4th and 5th century when they were last in evidence and, specifically, Attila’s behaviour, 2,500 descendants are a little on the low side. When you look carefully around you in Hungary, various Asiatic features are still clearly in evidence in people’s faces. Whether that is the Magyars, the Huns, the Tatars or the later Ottomans that left traces is impossible to tell.
Attila has never been regarded in Hungary with quite as much revulsion as the rest of Europe. The name is enormously popular and the greatest Hungarian poet of the twentieth century was Attila József.
The historic Attila is the secondary hero of one of the best known children’s adventure novels by Géza Gárdonyi, “Slave of the Huns”. (His other even better known novel is “Stars of Eger” about the Ottoman conquest of Hungary.)
One of the favourite April 1 jokes among school children used to be the one about a newspaper article that they had found Attila’s tomb. Attila was supposed to be buried in three coffins somewhere in the river Tisza and the stream was supposed to have been dammed for the funeral, to be undammed afterwards.
The slaves who buried him were instantly shot, as were those who shot them and those who shot the shooters. I think there may have been a third rank of shot slaves. In other words, nobody knew where precisely the burial was. And that is that.
Apart from these exciting stories all that is known about the Huns is described by a Byzantine delegation that visited Attila. They themselves were not much given to introspection.
The Hungarian Academy of Sciences in the nineteenth century decided that the Hungarians were not descendants of the Huns and the present group maintains that the decision was unscientific.
It also maintains that thirteen other groups in the country have had minority status conferred on them with all the privileges that entails, so why not the Huns. Why not, indeed? I am looking forward to the discussions before the ECHR and, if the Constitution is passed, the ECJ, as they will be deciding on the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Will the Avars and Khazars make their appearance soon? I do hope so.
Posts
