Actually it wasn't anything to do with human rights. Even prior to 1998 it would have been almost impossible to deport someone to a country that they'd been granted asylum from. The ECHR serves as the highest court of appeal in all UK cases, has done so since its inception.

Choudary can't be deported because he is British, and despite being a c**t, he was born in the UK.

The cat story isn't true. The defendant had a cat, but the judges decision was based on family, the cat was irrelivent (its not mentioned at all in the judges summation). The decision was made on common-law relationships.

But don't let the actual context or facts get in the way. Much better to propose a system where by only the people you like can be british and have rights.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

We know that - that is the problem. We should administer our own laws. Does Choudhury consider himself British? In 2001 he stated that his allegiance is to Islam, and not a country. He believes that, for a true Muslim, "a British passport is no more than a travel document."

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

We do not need a foreign court to ratify UK law. We should ratify our own laws and have the highest appeal court in this country as we did in the past. Of course I don't like it because it is a European court - made up of judges from countries most of which were either fascist dictatorships or communist dictatorships within living memory. We should frame our own laws, including one that says we can deport enemies of this country to whom we have previously granted asylum. While we are at it, we should make asylum laws extremely tight to ensure that the continual abuse of people pretending to be persecuted in some way in order to come here is controlled. What nationality would you like to be then Jamie? Why don't you go to wherever it is and seek naturalisation?

Edited by leggedstruggle (23 Jul 2015 10.22am)

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

I don't want a nationality. I want independence from the states capacity to interfere in my personal life. But that's the way the cookie crumbles, I'm British, because I was born here.

One important factor that's missing here, is that the individual in question had not been convicted of any crime in the UK, but the UK had received a request for extradition to the country from which the UK had granted asylum.

The ECHR isn't a foreign court. It consists of a equal representation from each country, 1 judge. It also doesn't determine law, or enforce law, but provides arbitration where two or more laws, approved by that state, come into conflict. The country doesn't even have to accept the ruling (In fact what it mostly suggests is a reasonable compromise, or a resolution. The ECHR eventually allowed for extradition once sufficiently robust agreements were reached between the UK and Jordan about a fair trial, without evidence obtain by torture.

The individual in question was found not guilty of the crimes he was extradited to face. Similarly, Hamza was extradited to the US, once provision was obtained that the individual would not face the death penalty (the UK rejects the death penalty) and that sufficient provision would be made by the US to ensure a fair trial.

Deportation is the wrong term, really, as the individual in question was being extradited to a country that the UK government had granted them political asylum from. Certainly the idea that you can deport someone without legal grounds (ie being convicted of a crime, or breach of legal grounds) is an absurdly stupid one, the kind of policy you'd see in tyrannys like Soviet Communism or Facist states, where the law is twisted to serve the governments needs.

The reality of any reasonable situation is that you cannot say a someone is at threat from a regime, grant them asylum, and then extradite them to that country.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

It's well known that a lot of crimes aren't being reported. A friend of mine has a house that he rents out, it was empty for a couple of months and lo and behold a group of Romanians decided that they would break and enter and take up squatters rights. We don't need these people. Unskilled, homeless people. It's a lot harder to get a job now because the unskilled labour market is flooded with immigrants. We have enough of our own unskilled people who are out of work. I'm all for skilled people coming here. Doctors, engineers, scientists, but we don't need to import dossers. Like Merkel said to that Palestinian child 'you can't all come'. She went up in my estimation after that.

It is, but then the removal of human rights is open to far more serious abuse (as exampled by the numerous cases going to the ECHR, where the UK government has failed to actually implement its own law properly).

Common sense won't cut it, because law isn't about common sense (which is subjective and personal) but legally defined situations.

A case only goes to the ECHR if the courts of appeal cannot determine a conflict between legal democratically approved laws. It doesn't set law, although it does offer rulings.

But those rulings are essentially produced where two laws, rulings or rights are equally applicable.

For example, in the case of extradition. UK law states that it can extradite people to Jordan. However UK law also states information from torture is not admissible in court (Jordan practices torture), that anyone extradited would face a fair trial and reasonable treatment.

The UK had granted the individual political asylum from Jordan, on the grounds of persecution.

Irrespective of the ECHR, it would have been a nightmare to extradite someone, legally, to a country you'd granted them asylum from, that has a history of unfair trials and using evidence obtained by torture.

Even common sense says, you can't extradite someone to a country that you've granted them asylum from.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]