The Immigration Question

With respect, if you manage to acquire the knowledge that Rwanda was a big bluff, I'm sure those running the people smuggling gangs would be capable of working it out too.

I'm not saying it was a bluff.

"NEARLY 20 years ago a vicious Ugandan thug joined a group of Romanian hoodlums in attacking a rival gang in north London. One of the victims of the assault climbed into an ambulance in an attempt to get away. The attacking group simply went in after him and clubbed him to death amongst the life-saving equipment.



Caught, sentenced to life and released after serving something over 16 years, the Ugandan was understandably served with a deportation order. An immigration judge however blocked it. Why? He had a mental health condition which could not be treated in Uganda, and to send him back there would amount to torture or inhuman treatment. To add insult to injury, the press were told they could not even name him since this would invade his privacy (despite his having been named in reports of the original trial): he had to be called ZM. That judgment was later upheld on appeal.

Apart from the fact that we now apparently have to shelter the dross of the world despite the danger they present to our people, treat them at the public charge, and protect their sensibilities at being even named, what is doubly depressing is that this decision is correct as a matter of human rights law. Which in turn ought to convince anyone of decent sensibilities that there is something seriously rotten in the European Convention on Human Rights.

It was not always so. The Convention we signed up to in 1950 was, as then understood, a limited and rather wholesome agreement. It was aimed simply at discouraging states from ever engaging again in the kinds of practices associated with Nazi and fascist regimes: overt torture, wholesale suppression of dissent, religious suppression, random searches of houses and correspondence, and so on. In other words, it covered deliberate wrongdoing of a type so extreme that no civilised government would think about committing it.

No one foresaw that in the hands of an activist European Court of Human Rights it would morph into a would-be constitutional document, interpreted in an expansive and free-wheeling way which would have astonished the original signatories. More to the point, no one envisaged that it would become not so much an expression of decent morality as a blueprint for progressive politics and at times blatant immorality.

The case of ZM actually shows this rather neatly. His successful resistance to deportation rested on Article 3 of the ECHR, which reads: ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ You could be forgiven for a distinctly raised eyebrow here. At least according to most people’s views, no one seemed to be torturing, brutalising or degrading anyone merely by putting a highly unpleasant murderer on the next plane out when he had no settled right of abode here.

But that would be reckoning without the new-style interpretation of the ECHR. Like many other prohibitions, Article 3 is no longer limited to the kind of deliberate brutal state wrongdoing which the framers had in mind. Inhuman conditions now include not only old-fashioned brutalisation, but anything that causes severe pain or distress, such as being sent to a Third World country with an inadequate health service.

More importantly, the link with sound morality – with the imperative to suppress serious and deliberate state wrongdoing – has gradually gone. Instead of concentrating on the egregious cases where the state itself engages in torture or other barbarity against people under its control, the prohibition in Article 3 now goes much further. It potentially includes almost any state action by the UK which has the likely effect of causing severe pain or distress, even if the immediate cause is something entirely outside the UK’s control, such as the action of another government, or in this case the inadequacy of the health service in Uganda.

Moreover, also much diminished is the notion that there are two sides to rights: the idea that the person claiming his rights are infringed should have at least a degree of deservingness. Grant for a moment, however implausibly, that ZM as a foreigner otherwise had a claim to shelter and therapy from the taxpayers of this country. Surely he had forfeited it by his behaviour. After all, any Christian or other moral duty I may have to shelter you in my house from a howling mob outside baying for your blood surely disappears if, having been admitted, you then start smashing up the furniture or seducing my wife.

But the brave new human rights world isn’t like that any more. Human rights are now simply a matter of self-serving personal entitlement rather than a call for ethical government; the moral undeservingness of the person claiming them is seen as an irrelevance, an exercise in judgmentalism that needs to be suppressed.

There is only one ray of hope from this latest debacle. The more cases like ZM’s we see, the stronger the calls will become for UK withdrawal from the European human rights machine lock, stock and barrel. This isn’t what we signed up to in 1950; it is time we made it clear that we expect our government to support the interests of our own people, whatever they may say in Strasbourg."

Tomorrow we launch 🚀

My new book #Manifeso will be LIVE to order from first thing in the morning.

This 📖 is a game changer.

5 years of research.

Once you have this information, adding to the mass awakening, the establishment are going to be gunning for me even more

Our tommys new book , can’t wait to read it

Presumably ghost written with plenty of lawyers proof reading it?

Caught a bit on the radio this morning about an Albanian thief who was deported but sneaked back into Britain (seems easy to do) and is now to be allowed to stay here,must be more to the story but I didnt hear all of it.

Some in the know say it's 1 in 50.

Who are?

Cheers, although I haven't found a link.

This is an interesting interview, covers Rwanda, numbers of spaces and how to mitigate boat crossings.

www.channel4.com/news/only-way-to-stop-the-boats-is-an-agreement-with-the-eu-ex-uk-border-force-chief-says