| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
A small bit of anti-dhimmitude from the largely hopeless Blair. Of course these laws need overhauling -- and it needs to be done in a very careful manner, so as to assuage any legitimate human rights and civil rights concerns. Blair is right that the Afghan hijacker ruling is "barmy" -- but so is his bland and evidence-free assumption that most Muslims in Britain are loyal and pose no actual or potential terrorist threat. His unwillingness to face the scope and implications of the jihad ideology presents a problem far larger than that represented by the misuse of human rights law.
From the Guardian, with thanks to JE:
Tony Blair is planning a radical overhaul of Britain's controversial human rights legislation after claims that the present laws put the rights of criminals above those of victims.In a move which brought immediate criticism from human rights' experts, the Prime Minister wants the government to have the power to override court rulings. The move comes only days after Blair criticised a senior judge for preventing the deportation of nine Afghan refugees who hijacked a plane to Britain. Downing Street said he was determined to find a way around such 'barmy' court rulings.
Blair unveiled his plans in a letter to the new Home Secretary, John Reid, in which he set out his 'most urgent policy tasks'. Legal experts and civil liberties groups accused Blair of playing politics with fundamental rights. The Observer has obtained a copy of the letter, which says it is essential to 'ensure the law-abiding majority can live without fear'.
Posted by Robert at May 14, 2006 7:22 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
This human rights legislation should never have been passed in the first place.
Yesterday's Telegraph leader got it right:
Most of the freedoms promised in these charters could also be found in, say, the Soviet constitution; but, when our elected politicians are powerless, there is no way of ensuring their enforcement. The best guarantor of freedom is a sovereign parliament - which is another way of saying that it is up to us all to safeguard our rights. As Disraeli put it: "To the liberalism they profess, I prefer the liberties we enjoy."
More here
However, as today's Telegraph says:
The Act merely enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights in UK law...The only way to remedy judicial decisions that "defy common sense" (to use the Prime Minister's apt phrase) is to opt out of the European Convention altogether: there would be few if any harmful effects...If the price of re-establishing the connection between the democratically expressed will of the majority and the law of the land is withdrawing from the European Convention, it is a price worth paying.
Spot on. And let's get out of the wretched EU altogether, while we've still got a country.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 14, 2006 8:10 AM
The Lord Chancellor, cheeky chappie Lord Falconer has said something similar. I never thought I would find myself condemning anything called a Human Rights Act but the decisions it has inspired, which favour the defendant over the victim, or potential future victim, mean that "human" rights is a misnomer.
And doesn't it sound great to have people like me and my colleagues attacking "human rights". What a wonderful rod for our own backs we made.
at May 14, 2006 8:14 AM
Reading the morning papers and catching a bit of the BBCs Sunday morning news/chat show, I do detect a bit of spine-growing amongst the chattering classes in the UK. It would be a welcome development in the nation most infected by the Human Rights Racket, and not a moment too soon in the IWW (Islamic Western War). Too late though to persuade me to remain in London (I leave for greener -- albeit colder pastures -- next month).
By the way, the posts of Granny Weatherwax and Interested always seem to follow one another by just a few minutes. Hmmmm.... has anyone ever seen them together in the same room? ;~)
Posted by: Charles Martel at May 14, 2006 8:32 AM
We have a bit of a good cop, bad cop thing going. Usually I'm bad cop, with Granny W the voice of reason. But this may change.
I'm not sure which of us is the more alike.
Posted by: Interested at May 14, 2006 8:49 AM
I can't see a problem here. The judge who has come in for criticism merely reflects the barmy political leadership and climate in Britain. A catch-and-release illegal aliens policy; about 1,000 nasty types release from prison and allowed to stroll the countryside; inability to deport known terrorists because they might be mistreated back home; 20,000 plus failed asylum seekers who have failed to remove themselves from Britain; the stupidity of being governed by the EU; and many other 'barmy' situations.
God save the UK because I don't think politicians can.
Posted by: Salad_In at May 14, 2006 9:02 AM
We have startled one another on a couple of occasions with the syncronicity of our
great(ish) minds thinking alike.
I am sorry to hear that you are leaving London, Charles, although I wish you well in your new home/post/venture.
You will keep posting here I hope?
at May 14, 2006 9:04 AM
Thanks for the well-wishes Granny W. I will be house-hunting for a time and reorienting around the American higher education system -- which will mean having to readjust to the use of "z" in so many words (just as I was beginning to enjoy analysing the world on the East side of the pond). But I shall return to post on occasion so as not to leave all of the heavy lifting to you, Interested, and the other venerable iconoclasts.
Posted by: Charles Martel at May 14, 2006 10:34 AM
Just for the record, as a reaction to Naziism and Soviet Communism after WWII, the ECHR was drawn up by the Council of Europe (which has nothing to do with the EU) - much of the work being carried out by British lawyers. Personally I think these declarations provide a valuable benchmark for assessing states across the globe, but perhaps the people who drew up the ECHR hadn't taken into account a strange beast like Islam. There should be discussion on how it might be adjusted to do so: meanwhile common sense by judges, better government guidelines and, if necessary, suspension of sections of it, would prevent the baby being thrown out with the bathwater.
Posted by: wallyUK at May 14, 2006 6:23 PM
There's no baby. It's all bathwater. Ditch it.
Posted by: Interested at May 14, 2006 7:04 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)