Banning: you're doing it wrong, along with a few other things. One great irony here is that one of the cases depends on the notion that two prospective deportees would be in danger under Sharia in Somalia... even as Britain has imported Sharia and it becomes increasingly entrenched in the country. Where will one seek asylum from British Sharia?
"The joke of 'secure Britain': Vile banned militant extremist strolls through Heathrow immigration as 200 Somalian criminals are allowed to stay due to human rights," by Jack Doyle for the Daily Mail, June 29:
Britain's powerlessness to control who has the right to be in this country was glaringly exposed last night by two extraordinary cases.
In the first, an anti-Semitic preacher of hate whom the Home Secretary had banned from entering Britain was able to stroll in through Heathrow.
Last night, Raed Salah was giving a lecture organised by Islamist radicals to a large crowd in Leicester, and today he was due to speak at Westminster at the invitation of Left-wing Labour MPs.
In the second, a bombshell ruling by European judges blocked the deportation of some 200 Somali criminals back to their homeland.
The Strasbourg court said the men, including drug dealers and serial burglars, might be persecuted in war-torn Somalia, and that they must be allowed to stay to protect their human rights.
By that logic, Somalia is unlivable for anyone -- think of the non-criminals -- and they would be duty-bound to evacuate the entire territory.
So, irrespective of how heinous their crimes or the danger they present to the public, Britain has no power to expel them.
The ruling by the European Court of Human Rights stemmed from appeals against deportation by two asylum seekers convicted of a string of serious offences including burglary, making threats to kill and drug dealing.
But it will now also apply to 214 other similar cases which have been lodged with the court using Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Article 3, which protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, is an 'absolute' right, meaning that it applies regardless of the offences committed.
The two men, who were both granted thousands in legal aid to fight their cases, will now be released from immigration detention centres and will be free to walk the streets.
They were jointly awarded more than £20,000 for costs and expenses.
Critics accused the Government of rolling over to the demands of the court, and branded the Human Rights Act a 'criminals' charter'.
Backbench Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: 'The pathetic truth is that we do not have control over our borders, and these cases quite clearly show that we do not control not only who comes in to the country but who we choose to remove. [...]
Abdisamad Adow Sufi, 24, entered the country illegally in 2003 using a fake passport. He claimed asylum on the grounds that he belonged to a minority clan persecuted by the Somali militia.
His claim was rejected by officials and an appeal tribunal said his account was 'not credible'.
Since then he has amassed a string of convictions for offences including burglary, fraud, making threats to kill, indecent exposure and theft.
The second Somali, drug addict Abdiaziz Ibrahim Elmi, 42, was granted asylum in 1988. Since then he has committed crimes including handling stolen goods, fraud, robbery, carrying a replica gun, perverting the course of justice, theft and dealing heroin and cocaine.
Attempts to deport him began in 2006 and his appeal was rejected by an immigration judge. A deportation order was stayed in 2007 pending the outcome of his Strasbourg case, and since then he has been convicted of possessing Class A drugs and charged with drug dealing.
The panel of seven judges ruled that because the level of violence in Mogadishu was so high there was a real risk of the men coming to harm.
In a unanimous judgment, the court also rejected the argument the men could leave the capital and return to safer parts of the country.
The judges said Sufi could not join his relatives because they lived in an area controlled by a strict Islamic group. If returned, he could face punishment according to their code – also a breach of his rights.
He would also be particularly vulnerable if forced to live in a refugee camp because of his 'psychiatric illness', the court said.
Elmi claimed he would be at risk of persecution if he moved to an area controlled by the same group, because he wore an earring, which might lead to them thinking he was gay.
Somalia or Tower Hamlets?
If they found out he was a drug addict and thief he could face amputation, public flogging or execution, he said.
The court ruled he had no experience of living in a strict Islamic area because he has been in this country for so long and would therefore be at risk of harm...
With our border agency due for cuts and job losses, things can only get worse.
It shows the contempt these people like Salah have for us and our country by even attempting to enter Britain knowing full well that they are banned here. Being invited to speak at the House of Commons by Left-wing Labour MPs doesn't exactly support the government's position on border control either.
"Elmi claimed he would be at risk of persecution if he moved to an area controlled by the same group, because he wore an earring, which might lead to them thinking he was gay."
Well he could take the damn thing out...
The first duty of any government is to ensure the safety of its citizens.
Cameron, Brown and Blair have failed in this duty abysmally; and not only that, they deny us the right to protect ourselves.
They have surrendered great swathes of our sovereignty to the corrupt unelected elites of Brussels and have broken their solemn promises for a referendum.
This can't go on for ever. Sooner or later something has to give.
Yeah, we have a similar case in my Danish hometown.
The man in question received a heavy jail sentence followed by expulsion. Apparently he considered the state subsidy he accepted from the Danish state - based on a war psychosis that rendered him unable to work, but that nonetheless did not prevent him being the boss in a drug dealing gang - to be insufficient to maintain himself, his wife and their eight children.
Now there's talk whether the eight children are reason to let him stay.
Also when he was arrested, I remember the Police hesitating a bit before entering the Muslim Street and his brother in law bragging that the Police did not dare come in. In the end I believe our friend walked calmly out and let himself be taken into custody, just to show to the Street who's the Boss.
Update:
"Raed Salah apologists push back against the vile sheikh's arrest"
(by Michael Weiss)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100094467/raed-salah-apologists-push-back-against-the-vile-sheikhs-arrest/
European countries will dissolve themselves if they remain in the European Union.
The bureaucracy in Brussels is unaccountable to anyone. They are free to indulge their theories, largely left-wing socialism, without a spec of feedback from an actual constituency.
The attraction of the EU is, of course, German money. Germany seems fairly aware of their position, but in my opinion, are still acting out of well-deserved guilt for World War II, making them unwilling to flat-out pull the money plug and walk out.
I wonder if Michael Savage would be similarly tolerated?
"Article 3, which protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, is an 'absolute' right, meaning that it applies regardless of the offences committed."
Why doesn't Article 3 also apply to the victims or potential victims of these criminals? Knowing that this "court" has usurped your nation's sovereignty and given every Third World raggamuffin free reign to invade your shores and rob, rape and murder your citizens is certainly degrading. Forcing the native population and LEGAL immigrants to live in perpetual fear of these thugs is psychological torture.
The UK should immediately withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights, withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, and ship their foreign-born criminals to the doorstep of this so-called court. Let those "judges" (in the US we call people like them "accessories before/after the fact") run a gauntlet of predators every day, and then be hamstrung by their own rulings that force them to cower and submit to their tormenters!
No one can fault the way the British have opened their doors and hearts to the citizens of their former empire. They don't need a bunch of clueless nitwits in another country telling them how to manage their own security.
"Yard seizes banned Islamic preacher"
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23965516-yard-seizes-banned-islamic-preacher.do
Also:
"Raed Salah, Sitting in a Cell, Awaiting Deportation"
http://hurryupharry.org/2011/06/29/raed-salah-sitting-in-a-cell-awaiting-deportation/
Amazing, UK doesn't have sovereignty over it's own country!! The British lion is indeed now a hapless and toothless old shell of itself. See what political correctness and multiculturalism can do to you!! God save the Queen - or King -- they will indeed need that?
Unfortunately the British lion was neutered by the American eagle after WWII. The USA couldn't miss an oportunity to extract tribute, and we're still paying for lend-lease. And we were supposed to be on the same side.
Guess that's what Britain gets for trying to expropriate the image of an animal that was never native to this country. The true national animal of the British is the fox; sly, untrustworthy and conceited.
Raed Salah's apologists wring their hands after the vile sheikh's arrest
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100094467/raed-salah-apologists-push-back-against-the-vile-sheikhs-arrest/
BBC on this story - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0124nqq
East London Mosque: the lies go on
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100094401/east-london-mosque-the-lies-go-on/
"The true national animal of the British is the fox; sly, untrustworthy and conceited."
Very funny!
I had a look at the original article in full, the one about the two Somali Muslim mobsters.
I observed the names of two British politicians who are making noise about it.
"Backbench Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: 'The pathetic truth is that we do not have control over our borders, and these cases quite clearly show that we do not control not only who comes in to the country but who we choose to remove.
My constituents do not want any more mealy-mouthed promises about getting a grip on this – they want to know what the Government is actually going to do.
'Successive governments have given all the promises on immigration you would expect of a second-hand car salesman. Ministers now need to start actually delivering on real promises and real control over our borders.'
And:
UK Independence Party MEP Gerard Batten said: 'It is the absolute duty of the British Government to protect the lives and property of British citizens.
'If foreign nationals prey on people here they should be sent home to where they came from – no ifs, no buts.'
He added: 'For the European Court of Human Rights to give Britain orders is bad enough; knowing that the Government will roll over to their demands is worse.
'This decision confirms that the Human Rights Act is a criminals' charter.'
Looks to me like Mr Douglas Carswell and Mr Gerard Batten are showing a little fight.
Whenever anyone does that: get behind them and PUSH.
UK jihadwatchers - write to these two men. Tell them they are spot on. Encourage them. Loudly. Tell them that you expect them to live up to their words.