Saturday, May 13, 2006

Human Rights, Legal Wrongs - incompetent administration

So, Charlie Falconer is thinking of changing the law is he? Why is this? Because it's being criticised. Yet why is it being criticised? For doing exactly what it was designed to do? No. It's being criticised because they failed to train those responsible for enforcement properly.
Lord Falconer said the government did not intend to pull out of the convention but it is considering a programme of education and training or new legislation to make sure it is not wrongly interpreted.
Charlie? The former, that of proper training to make sure people don't get carried away with erroneous concerns? That's good. New legislation? What is it with you lot and new legislation? Why not fully make use of the laws we've already got first? A new law should be the last resort, not the first. Your staff, and other State employees charged with protecting us, etc are failing in their duty out of erroneous concerns. One of the other cases in question:
Appeal judges quashed their convictions in May 2003 but insisted that their decision was "not a charter for future hijackers".

They said a mistake in directing the jury was the only reason the men's appeal had succeeded.

On Wednesday, the High Court ruled the men could remain in the UK until it was safe to return to Afghanistan. The government has said it will appeal ... Tony Blair has said the decision not to return the men to Afghanistan is "an abuse of common sense".
Tony? "Common Sense" to me says that Afghanistan is not currently safe. The ruling is that you can return them there when it is safe. Where, exactly, is the problem here? They fled an evil oppressive regime that you, eventually, went to war in order to depose. You're now saying that their lives weren't under threat? James at Quaequam Blog! has more to say:
Labour seem to think the fact they introduced the HRA means they must now be regarded as immune from it. The problem stems from the fact that the broad coalition that brought Labour to power in 1997 has now been sloughed off, and we are left with an authoritarian, illiberal core that doesn’t quite understand why it did half the things it did in the first three years of power.
The Act was implemented in order to promote a Human Rights culture by Tony Blair's Govt. Now that we've got one? He doesn't like it.

Time to go Tony, your Government is too tired to get anywhere.


Andrew Bartlett said...

Bloody hell, I' m glad that I have found someone who agrees with me on the subject of the nine Afghanis.

More fuel for the bonfire of the liberties.

The way I see it, if Tony Blair really thinks that what they did was so terrible, given the circumstances in Afghanistan at the time, then he damns himself as a self-declared war criminal

Andrew Bartlett said...

Oh, and the Mirror shamed itself yesterday, with some guy called Stott(?) linking the hijackers with genocidal terrorism, and Carole Malone suggesting that they ought to have had their fingernails ripped out and been sent back to Afghanistan. She then proceeded along a sub-BNP rant about asylum seekers.

Frankly, if the incitement and glorification of terrorism laws don't cover calls to torture, then I am not sure just what their use is. I am far more frightened that Carole Malone will get her way in Britain, changing the character of the state, than I am of acts of terror conducted by a bunch of idiots.

Malone also went out of her way tomake sure that her readers knew that the men wanted for questioning in the murder of the female police officer were black. What that had to do with anything is beyond me, unless I assume that, given Malone's hysterical anti-immigrant rant, 'black men' present her with a particular problem.

MatGB said...

That is scary. Not encountered Ms Malone before, but that column is evil.

instead their kids and their wives have all been told they can come and live here in houses that most Brits earning a decent wage couldn't afford, and all without ever having to dirty their hands with work.

What the hell is that?

Ouch. The worst of it is, she can write it, the Mirror prints it, it therefore becomes real.

Does the PCC have rules on this sort of thing?