h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This lady seems to understand perfectly why many feel the HRA or at least is incorpation into UK law has been such a balls up.

Quote
<< Mrs Lawrence told the BBC's Radio 4 Today programme: "I didn't anticipate that I would feel so utterly devastated as I felt.

"I think that within the confines of the law Mr Chindamo has the same rights as, for instance, my son whose father he killed.

"But what I don't understand and what makes me so depressed is how the Human Rights Act, which was set up... in order to be an exemplar to show how human beings should live together fairly and equally and kindly, and now it's allowed someone who destroyed a life to pick and choose how he wants to live his.

"When we speak of morality, we've only got to utter the word and we're derided.

"And when we speak of the relationship between rights and responsibilities we can be held in contempt. And to me, I see this underlying the growing problem, the plague of knife crime and violent crime." >>

I also heard a snippet on Radio 4 this morning that a Judge ( High Court ?) has said that we may have to let out of prison a whole host of dangerous men, because keeping them locked up without facilities to learn and attend courses for an indeterminate time infriges their rights.

This cannot be what the HRA intended to achieve.

Novo

I was annoyed by this too, as I always am when the noble cause of human rights is turned into a joke like this in a way that can only benefit its opponents.

"This cannot be what the HRA intended to achieve."

No, I don't think it was. It's the age-old problem of trying to fit humanistic philosophical concepts into law where they can be turned into loopholes by lawyers. Obviously human rights law is intended to protect the rights of the individual *not* provide a loophole for violent people to leave prison early (and no, I don't believe they are the same things - primarily because I think the rights of convicted criminals are not the same as those of ordinary citizens). Ideally, liberals would accept the failings and try and fix them before the conservative rightwing (many of whom, in my experience, deride the notion of human rights full-stop preferring property rights) use them as a springboard for undermining the very idea itself. However, in my experience the official liberal line is that any sort of challenge to human rights laws is essentially to take the same line as the "Daily Mail" and so they shrink away from it. It'll be interesting to see how this thread develops.

This boy came to England when he was 6.

He doesn't speak Italian - he was raised in this country.

Surely the failure for this child took place in England - and we should bear the responsibility for it.

"This boy came to England when he was 6.

He doesn't speak Italian - he was raised in this country.

Surely the failure for this child took place in England - and we should bear the responsibility for it."

Sorry, but I'm not responsible for the fact this young man decided to stab someone to death and neither are you.

Having said that, I am a little worried that the law seemed to want to offload him to Italy as if trying to pass a problem onto him. It's not the denial of extradition that bothers me so much as the legal loophole that exists to be exploited and which helps make a mockery of the notion of human rights on a regular basis and is creating the popular perception that human rights are there to help the oppressive and not the oppressed - a perversion of their true intentions.

""And when we speak of the relationship between rights and responsibilities we can be held in contempt. And to me, I see this underlying the growing problem, the plague of knife crime and violent crime.""

She's being somewhat hyperbolic here (there are plenty of people who agree on the idea of rights and responsibilities being co-dependent - it's only a few maniacs who don't) and the notion that it's the "underlying" reason for violence and knife crime is simplistic - poverty, gang-culture, social breakdown and peer-pressure all have to be taken into account as well.

However, I think there is definitely something in challenging the idea that someone convicted of a violent crime has extensive human rights the same as a free citizen and it's this notion that creates the loopholes (the judge giving the example of having to set criminals free because facilities aren't provided is one such). Criminals should have basic human rights (right to life, freedom from torture, access to food, water, hygeine etc) but not more extensive rights (freedom of assembly, for example). However, even that can be abused. All it takes is a lawyer attempting to "extend" the definition of "torture" to mean "something my client finds irritating"...

Another (far better) solution is for judges to throw-out cases where the law is being abused.

For example, after the conviction of Tony Martin there was a lot of hysteria in the press about how the homeowner now had no rights to defend themselves against burglars. However, Martin's case was exceptional since he had shot a *retreating* burglar. Other cases went to court where a homeowner had killed a burglar and they were thrown-out since the court had sympathised with the situation the homeowner had found themselves in - often the law realises its being made an ass of and rather than try and instrigate changes simply trys to differentiate cases better. This case and similar ones may create a shift in how human rights laws are applied. We shall see.

In Coventry - this week - a taxi driver was attacked by 3 thugs, one of whom was wielding an iron bar. The police were called but another taxi driver arrived first. He piled into the 3 yobs attacking his helpless colleagues.

Guess who the police arrested first when they arrived ?

Even after the situation was explained they still took the man away and initially charged him. Common sense came later, but I await the trial of the 3 yobs - cause I'm sure the defense wil drag this one out.

"In Coventry - this week - a taxi driver was attacked by 3 thugs, one of whom was wielding an iron bar. The police were called but another taxi driver arrived first. He piled into the 3 yobs attacking his helpless colleagues.

Guess who the police arrested first when they arrived ?

Even after the situation was explained they still took the man away and initially charged him. Common sense came later, but I await the trial of the 3 yobs - cause I'm sure the defense wil drag this one out."

This sort of thing happens quite a lot. It's nothing to do with Human Rights Laws but largely to do with the police and their desire to fulfil quotas. Having done this (the thugs having presumably legged it) they can say there was a disturbance and they made an arrest. Of course, I doubt the taxi driver will be convicted of anything but that isn't really the point.

It's actually a good thing that there are howls of derision when the law insults a sense of "natural" justice because it means their happening again is less likely.

Even more head-bangingly annoying - it's specific EU legislation that Blair signed-up to that allows this man to remain in the UK despite being a convicted murderer and legally being an Italian citizen (he holds an Italian passport). The law states that anyone who has lived in the UK for "more than ten years" cannot be deported even if most of that time was spent in prison. It's the last bit that strikes me as utterly perposterous and prone to abuse - if someone commits a serious crime here then they're going to be held here and thus qualify. It's a choice between not convicting them or being unable to deport them later.

The Europhobic pundits and press are going to have a field day over this and I'm afraid that, as a moderate Europhile, I can't think of a single good argument in favour of this law.

Right here's my solution - amend the present law. Anyone who commits a serious crime in the UK that requires them to spend more than five years in prison (say) does not qualify under the "ten year" rule. Brown is more of a Eurosceptic than Blair so he might be able to negotiate this. The EU will protest, of course, but other major EU members regualrly flout the rules (France for example) with no consquence because EU law isn't really centrally-enforced it relies more on agreements. This would close the loophole, draw the worst fangs of the Europhobes (who, of course, will use this primarily as a lever to bring-about a hoped-for total withdrawal from the EU) and perhaps provide the basis for a more state-by-state interpretation of EU law.

Better still, send the shiftless murdering foreign scum back where they came from to serve their sentences, and never, ever let them back in this country again.

"Oh, but I can't speak Italian, I've not been there since I was five..."

Well, you'll have plenty of time to learn, won't you. Here's a handy phrasebook to help you.

"Faccia attenzione quando prendete il sapone nell'acquazzone"

This means "Be careful when you pick up the soap in the shower."

SoRB

"Better still, send the shiftless murdering foreign scum back where they came from to serve their sentences, and never, ever let them back in this country again."

Eeeexcept, the "shiftless murdering foreign scum" committed the crime here so said foreign country can rightly say "why should we have to pay to incarcerate someone who didn't break our laws?"

And, of course, assuming there's no hypocrisy involved this would mean Saudi Arabia demanding that our prison system cope with ex-pat Brits committing crimes (such as drinking alcohol) over there - all paid for by our taxes.

"Eeeexcept, the "shiftless murdering foreign scum" committed the crime here so said foreign country can rightly say "why should we have to pay to incarcerate someone who didn't break our laws?""

Thing is, this particular piece of foreign scum DID break their laws. He committed murder. We, as a nation, should, I think, take it as a first priniciple that if a foreigner commits a crime in this country, they go home. No arguments, no appeals, next flight. If, on their arrival, they find that where they've arrived what they've done is not a crime, and they're free - good for them. Good for us too, because we're (a) safe, because they're abroad and (b) better off, because we don't have to feed them for the next x years of their sentence.

Of course, if they find that where they come from their crime carries a death sentence... tough shit.

"And, of course, assuming there's no hypocrisy involved this would mean Saudi Arabia demanding that our prison system cope with ex-pat Brits committing crimes (such as drinking alcohol) over there - all paid for by our taxes."

Absolutely. Works both ways. Anyone with a British passport convicted of drinking alcohol in Saudi ABSOLUTELY should be put on the next flight back to be dealt with as is appropriate in our justice system. I.e. welcomed with open arms and a big placard saying "that's what you get if you go to nasty, filthy uncivilised countries - coming to the pub?"

No hypocrisy at all. Get all the British drug traffickers off death row in Thailand and get them back here. And get all the foreign prisoners in British jails out of the country and back where they came from, *tomorrow*, regardless of where and how they end up. They came here and broke the law. Why does anyone think we owe them oxygen?

SoRB

Morning SoRB

<< Thing is, this particular piece of foreign scum DID break their laws. He committed murder. We, as a nation, should, I think, take it as a first priniciple that if a foreigner commits a crime in this country, they go home. No arguments, no appeals, next flight. >>

I concur.

I wonder what his 'lawyer' would say to that ? Would he take a moral stance, being an individual of high principles, or is he yet another clever pocket liner, who sees no advantage other than his own......

Novo

Totally wrong, I would argue. I've already put this in a post a couple of years ago, but just to recap...

Define crime for a start.

Take someone like me if you like, immigrant into Belgium seven years ago, married, had child here, found job, bought house, speak local language.

One night I have too many beers, one drunk and disorderly and a £200 fine later and I'm on the next boat home?

Totally disproportionate.

Also, and I know you're not bothered about human rights issues but still, there is a fundamental point about double penalties here - say after I had my beer, I get into a fight with a local - we both get fines and then on top of that I get sent home?

If you were in Benidorm and this happened, and the judge doubled your fine because you're a tourist and an English hooligan, you would complain about double standards, wouldn't you?

Finally - he's been here since he was six and he's still a foreigner - don't think you can blame this one on the mafia - UK crime in a UK environment, I reckon.

sprout

"Define crime for a start."

Um... breaking the law? That's really a rather easy one.

"Take someone like me if you like, immigrant into Belgium seven years ago, married, had child here, found job, bought house, speak local language."

And law-abiding, I hope it goes without saying.

"One night I have too many beers, one drunk and disorderly and a £200 fine later and I'm on the next boat home?"

Why not? You're a guest in their country. Abuse their hospitality, get thrown out, why not? If you want some security, get citizenship, that's what the process is for.

"Totally disproportionate."

Easy for you to say. The poor Belgian woken by your drunken shouting (or whatever) might have a different view.

"Also, and I know you're not bothered about human rights issues but still, there is a fundamental point about double penalties here - say after I had my beer, I get into a fight with a local - we both get fines and then on top of that I get sent home?"

No... you just get sent home. Read what I wrote, please.

I said when a foreigner is found guilty of a crime, put them on the next plane home. No appeals, no second chances, and incidentally get a DNA sample so they can in principle be prevented from ever coming here again. No double punishment, just flush the scum out of the country and back where they came from.

"If you were in Benidorm and this happened, and the judge doubled your fine because you're a tourist and an English hooligan, you would complain about double standards, wouldn't you?"

Yes, I would, but as I pointed out, that's not what I advocated. This is called the "straw man" fallacy, where you lie about what I said, then demonstrate that there's a fault in the argument you lie about.

If I was in Benidorm and I was arrested for drunk and disorderly, to be honest I'd think it was perfectly reasonable that I was put on the next flight back to the UK.

"Finally - he's been here since he was six and he's still a foreigner"

Well, yes. Clue's in the name, the face, and - the clincher - the ITALIAN PASSPORT.

"don't think you can blame this one on the mafia - UK crime in a UK environment, I reckon."

Who mentioned the mafia? That's rather racist stereotyping don't you think, and also, if anything, giving this little shit rather more "respect" than he deserves. He's not some organised criminal mastermind, or a cold-hearted assassin. He's a common street thug from a foreign country, and *I* have been paying for the roof over his head and the food in his belly for the last eleven years. Why? He should have been on the next plane home the moment the guilty verdict was passed, let the Italian taxpayers waste their money keeping him alive. Don't see why he should be our problem.

SoRB

You really think that is proportionate?

Average punishment for drunk and disorderly for UK citizen - caution, or a £200 fine.

Average punishment for non-UK citizen - loss of job, house, family.

In other words, you think that someone who doesn't have the little bit of paper stating that they are a UK citizen, has no rights to any errors at all - they could live there till they are ninety, and still not acquire any margin of tolerance - conviction for careless driving and off you go?

If that's what you think, well you are entitled to your opinion, but it seems to me to be ridiculously arbitrary and disproportionate - let the punishment fit the crime, don't they say?

sprout

I'm not sure what the idea is here, but as far as I can see, you're suggesting that if a foreign national commits a crime on UK soil then they should be sent back to their own country to stand trial...

If that's the case, then just who's laws should be taken into consideration...

For instance, if you were to assume UK law, then you're either requesting that every other country in the world accepts the UK's legal system or you risk someone committing a crime in the UK getting off scott-free because what they did is not against the law in their own country.

The other alternative would be for the UK to adopt every law laid down in every other country's legal system...

Silly examples:

All Indian nationals employed in UK abatoirs to be immediately sent back to stand trial for killing sacred cows.

Alternatively, a Jordanian woman marries an Englishman against the wishes of her family and her brother decides to turn a shotgun on her... She is killed, he is shipped back to Jordan where he's given a maximum of six months in Jail for committing an 'honour crime'.

Sound feasible to you?

Actually yeah. The main consequence is the Jordanian guy is no longer in the UK and therefore represents no risk to the UK public.

Instead of nebulous "what ifs", how about Yusuf Abdillh Jamma and Muzzaker Imtiaz Shah. They were illegal immigrants jailed for life for killing a WPC. (They've just stabbed an inmate in jail btw). After 10 years of their sentence, we can't deport them.

"someone who doesn't have the little bit of paper stating that they are a UK citizen, has no rights to any errors at all "

Yes. It's not arbitrary at all. Nor is it disproportionate - it's proportionate to the *offence*.

An analogy:

If someone came into my house, got drunk on my beer, and spilled a drink down the back of my television, what would be a *proportionate* response?

If it was my brother, or cousin, or whatever - a member of my own family - I'd probably be extremely angry and demand they replace the TV. And when they had, I'd probably consider forgiving them and inviting them round again at some point in the future (taking care to lock the beer fridge...)

But if it was some random friend-of-a-friend, say, someone who was a guest in my house but had no real connection to me, I'd probably physically chuck them out on the street at that very moment and never, ever let them in my house ever again, then claim on the insurance for the TV.

Disproportionate? Arbitrary? To an extent, they "get away with it" in a way my brother doesn't - they're not paying for the TV. To a different extent, they are punished more severely - there's no way back for them. BUT - and this is the main point - they should know that in advance. As a guest, they should be on their best behaviour.

Back to reality, I wouldn't fine or caution a foreigner for drunk & disorderly. In that sense, they'd "get away with it", in a way a UK citizen wouldn't. I'd simply put them on the next plane back where they came from. If that means their family has to move back there to be with them... tough shit, they should consider that before BREAKING THE LAW. It's not like we're talking about them doing something they can't help. I'm talking about getting rid only of *convicted criminals*. I'm baffled why anyone would care.

If you're not a UK citizen, you're a guest here. If you don't behave, why should you expect ANY of the rights of citizens? Why should you expect us to tolerate law-breaking behaviour by guests? And if you're not happy being treated as a guest... apply for citizenship. Lots of people do it.

SoRB