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]

So if its not British, what nationality is it. The British have as much influence and membership as any other EU member?

I'm complicated. But I prefer the oversite of an independent Court, should I need it to protect my rights than one that is appointed by the state and politically allied to that state.

Probably, but that's his prerogative and right. Its mine not to agree with him. The idea of course that someone who hasn't actually been convicted of an offence, can be 'done away with' because you don't agree with what they're saying or represent, is exactly the kind of tyranny like Soviet Communism or Nazi Germany, where the act of legal defiance or protest, became grounds for persecution.

I don't see how you can comfortably resort to terms like thought crime, on a regular basis, and then actually suggest implementing exactly the same kind of thing.

And no, it should never be legal to extradite someone to a country, from which you, as a state, offered them political protection from. You should either try them in the UK (terrorism has universal jurisdiction). The very nature of the idea of asylum, means you can't extradite them. The UK does not extradite its citizens to states where they will not have a reasonable fair trial.

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

Says the man referring to the ECHR as being socialist, and with a habit of quoting 1984 at the drop of a hat.

The whole point of any kind of rights, is that government, even if elected, cannot choose to change them. They'd arguably need a referendum or landslide majority to do it with any legitimacy. Even the Conservatives were only planning to replace the bill of human rights.

That's what seperates us from animals like IS and regimes like Saudi Arabia or Russia, that the state does not possess the power to do whatever it likes, but is held to its own laws.

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

The problem with the ECHR is that they are liberal idealist, which will explain their breath taking idiocy.

It does not matter whether it is the greatest set of laws ever devised. The point is that we should make and administer our own laws. If the ECHR is so great, we could enact our own versions of the laws.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

With all due respect, that's a crock as history clearly shows.

Time to move forward together.

Current Tory party/government more "liberal"?

On certain social issues,yes.Economically,yes if you mean classic 19th century economic liberalism,nowadays generally thought of as the key terrain of the Right.

Tory Party more "liberal" in the everyday use of the word than the Tory Party 1945-74? You're having a laugh...Much of that Tory party IMO would in many ways sit comfortably in the centre of the Labour Party of today.

Edited by legaleagle (23 Jul 2015 11.16pm)