Human rights for dangerous immigrants

[lavrentis]

http://news.aol.co.uk/main-news/story/undesirables-cannot-be-deported/1867063

The Government cannot deport "undesirable" or "dangerous" immigrants who may face ill-treatment at home - however bad their crimes in the UK, human rights judges have ruled.

In a test case ahead of more than 200 similar actions pending against the UK, the Strasbourg judges decreed that the UK's duty to protect people against torture or inhuman treatment is "absolute".

The case involved two Somalis facing enforced return to Mogadishu after receiving convictions in the UK for serious criminal offences. The European Court of Human Rights awarded Abdisamad Adow Sufi and Abdiaziz Ibrahim Elmi, both currently in UK immigration detention centres, 14,500 euro (£13,000) and 7,500 euro (£6,700) respectively for costs and expenses in bringing the case.

Sufi, 24, claimed asylum in the UK in 2003 on the grounds that he belonged to a minority clan persecuted by Somali militia. His account was rejected as not credible and asylum refused. Elmi, 42, arrived in the UK in 1988 and was granted leave to stay as a refugee in 1989, renewed indefinitely in 1993.

After convictions for a number of serious criminal offences - including burglary and threats to kill in Sufi's case, and robbery and supplying class A drugs cocaine and heroine in Elmi's case - they were issued with deportation orders. Their UK appeals that they risked being ill-treated or killed if returned to Mogadishu were rejected.

The European Court of Human Rights blocked their deportation pending a hearing of their appeals to the Strasbourg court.

The seven-judge court has now ruled unanimously that deporting them would breach the Human Rights Convention Article 3 which bans "inhuman or degrading treatment".

The ruling said: "The court reiterated that the prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute, irrespective of the victims' conduct. Consequently, the applicants' behaviour, however undesirable or dangerous, could not be taken into account."

The judges said no one disputed that, towards the end of 2008, Mogadishu was not a safe place to live for the majority of its citizens. The situation had deteriorated since then.

The judgment described the case as the "lead case" against the UK, with 214 similar cases pending before the same court.

Worrying that the European courts have more power over this than our government.

Give us a referendum Cameron FFS

[Nick]

http://news.aol.co.u...eported/1867063

Worrying that the European courts have more power over this than our government.

Give us a referendum Cameron FFS

If we send people to their country of origin to be executed then we may as well do it here right?

What's the difference?

[Houdini Logic]

If we send people to their country of origin to be executed then we may as well do it here right?

What's the difference?

Exactly what I was going to post - it's effectively capital punishment

[FoxyPV]

They're still human regardless of where they are from.

[ozleicester]

Human rights.are, and should be, just that.... Fundamental human rights

No-one should be subjected to torture or murder, if we agree to sending someone to face this, then we are responsible and therefore are no better than them.

long may human rights preside over vigilanties.

[ozleicester]

WOW... first 4 replies are rational and logical.... sniff, makes me proud to be on Foxestalk

[Alexikokopops]

If we send people to their country of origin to be executed then we may as well do it here right?

What's the difference?

Exactly what I was going to post - it's effectively capital punishment

They're still human regardless of where they are from.

Human rights.are, and should be, just that.... Fundamental human rights

No-one should be subjected to torture or murder, if we agree to sending someone to face this, then we are responsible and therefore are no better than them.

long may human rights preside over vigilanties.

I echo these sentiments.

The real question though is how long is it before "liberal lefties" or "right-wing xenophobes" gets used in anger in this thread? All replies are agreeing with each other and we're up to FIVE (OR SIX, I'M NOT SURE, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO LET THAT STOP ME WRITING IN CAPITALS).

WOW... first 4 replies are rational and logical.... sniff, makes me proud to be on Foxestalk

Haha, I made that point in my post (which this reply has merged with). Damn liberal lefty.

[John Matrix]

i'll bite. then there needs to be a stipulation that if you are to seek asylum here that you don't commit serious offenses in this country. Apart from being criminal it's incredibly disrespectful to commit acts such as rape, murder, assault, drug dealing in a country that has let you in it's borders, let alone granted you asylum. there needs to be clear definitions of what is expected of people when the enter this country.

[Zingari]

I thought he European Union ( Lisbon Treaty )has kept ( or reintroduced ) the death penalty for use in times of riot , upheaval, war and civil unrest in Europe

If it's ineffective and inhumane to use against paedophiles , rapists , murderers etc, why does it remain effective and necessary for vague political offences such as causing "unrest " ?

Hypocrisy ?

i

[Houdini Logic]

i'll bite. then there needs to be a stipulation that if you are to seek asylum here that you don't commit serious offenses in this country. Apart from being criminal it's incredibly disrespectful to commit acts such as rape, murder, assault, drug dealing in a country that has let you in it's borders, let alone granted you asylum. there needs to be clear definitions of what is expected of people when the enter this country.

There are stipulations and there are expectations - it's called the law and it should be equal for everyone, otherwise you're playing a very dangerous (and in my opinion immoral) game.

[Lineker's Left Foot]

There are stipulations and there are expectations - it's called the law and it should be equal for everyone, otherwise you're playing a very dangerous (and in my opinion immoral) game.

Hope these two scum bags either get killed by Combat 18 or they go and murder the fookin judges themselves. Eventually we'll be out of the EU IMO.

[Houdini Logic]

Hope these two scum bags either get killed by Combat 18 or they go and murder the fookin judges themselves. Eventually we'll be out of the EU IMO.

[MPH]

Human rights. hmm.

Just as long as they stay locked up for the rest of their lives i don't mind them having their human rights.

[Head Honcho]

If we send people to their country of origin to be executed then we may as well do it here right?

What's the difference?

If they've committed a crime in their own country that is deemed to warrant a death sentence then why should they be allowed to escape the sentence by seeking political asylum?

[Alexikokopops]

If they've committed a crime in their own country that is deemed to warrant a death sentence then why should they be allowed to escape the sentence by seeking political asylum?

That isn't the situation though

[Jon the Hat]

It amazes me how on one hand people get upset about the extradition treaty with the US, but then are happy to condemn people to their deaths in countries with far worse records of justice.

I agreement with most of the thread, if we determine that we are not in favour of captial punishment, and if an appropriate judge reviews the evidence and concludes that torture or execution are likely in their country of origin then we have to let them stay. They are of course subject to our laws.

[Finnegan]

You big lefty you.

[Jon the Hat]

You big lefty you.

Socially liberal, fiscal conservative thats me!

[Finnegan]

I'd have called you socially central, fiscally psychotic, really.

[FoxyPV]

Socially liberal, fiscal conservative thats me!

Are you sure you're not a Lib Dem hawk?

[Jon the Hat]

Are you sure you're not a Lib Dem hawk?

I did vote Lib Dem once.

[John Matrix]

There are stipulations and there are expectations - it's called the law and it should be equal for everyone, otherwise you're playing a very dangerous (and in my opinion immoral) game.

i understand what you're saying. but if someone claims asylum here to escape their country then i don't think they should be committing heinous crimes here. saying to them if commit said crimes means you will be sent back. i don't see that as immoral. i see that as trying to ensure the safety of the country's citizens. we have bee far too lax with the types of people we've let in this country. you only had to watch that dispatches programme to see that,

[Jon the Hat]

i understand what you're saying. but if someone claims asylum here to escape their country then i don't think they should be committing heinous crimes here. saying to them if commit said crimes means you will be sent back. i don't see that as immoral. i see that as trying to ensure the safety of the country's citizens. we have bee far too lax with the types of people we've let in this country. you only had to watch that dispatches programme to see that,

If someone is here on a visa then there are already measures in place to mean they can be removed if they commit crimes, right up to the point when they gain citizenship and become our problem as it were.

However, if someone is here as an asylum seeker on the basis of likely torture or execution on return to their country of origin, then you are effectively sentencing that person to torture and execution if you deport them. Whatever the crime, our laws enable us to punish them in this country to a level deemed appropriate. There is no reason whatsoever why we should treat people who are not citizens differently when it comes to the death sentence or torture. We don't give these as sentences here, end of.

[FoxyPV]

I did vote Lib Dem once.

Did you feel dirty? Goodness knows I would.

[Zingari]

Moral guidance needed

Why should I feel morally wrong about a criminal who is deported back to his/her own country because it may be dangerous for them? Surely if it is a dangerous place for them it is a dangerous place for lots of other citizens who have not had the good fortune to have escaped it.

Are they in any more danger than these people ?

Why should I feel any less morally wrong about leaving the unfortunate ones who have not got the opportunity to leave that country, such as children, the old and infirm and probably most women?

Shouldn’t we be more proactive in trying to save the less able rather than the ones who are physically and financially strong enough to have escaped and committed crimes

here?

If the country they left is as bad as we are led to believe, why aren’t these seemingly healthy men and women keen to go back and assist their families and country folk, rather than abusing the hospitality and sanctuary that they sought?

Shouldn’t they be trying to recruit from our community to go and assist them not robbing and committing crimes against them ?

That’s what we are taught to do isn’t it ?

If the Nazis had succeeded in invading Britain and all the financially able and young able bodied men had scarpered to the USA leaving the less able to their fate and at the same time committing terrible crimes in their new sanctuary, should they expect to be treated as equal citizens?

Don't get me wrong , I'm not saying they should be deported , but I can understand those that think they should