European Judges: UK cannot deport dangerous immigrants

[Si Hunt]

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.

So there we have it. Europe tells the UK who it is allowed to have in its country. Furthmore we have a duty of protect people in danger, even criminals and "undesirables".

Is something wrong here? Or not?

Si.

[Rob McCow]

I suggest you have a look at http://www.ein.org.uk/echr-rules-ret...s-human-rights .

Human Rights Watch described the situation as "one of the world's worst human rights catastrophes". In particular, the reports -including that of the United Kingdom Border Agency Fact-Finding Mission -suggested that all parties to the conflict continued to engage in indiscriminate violence, conducting mortar attacks and firing indiscriminately in densely populated areas of Mogadishu. As many as 20-50 civilians were dying in the city every week and hospitals were swamped. Outside Mogadishu, the conflict was described as sporadic and localised around key strategic towns. The lowest levels of violence were reported to be in the areas controlled by al-Shabaab, an armed Islamic faction with suspected links to al-Qaeda. However, in those areas al-Shabaab were enforcing a particularly draconian version of Sharia law, regulating every detail of daily life from dress codes, and the length of men's beards to music being listened to and the choice of mobile phone ring tone. There were reports of Somalis being beaten and/or flogged for minor infringements, such as playing scrabble, watching World Cup matches, and dressing inappropriately. There were also reports of forced recruitment of adults and children by al-Shabaab in the areas under their control. 1.3 million Somalis had been displaced on account of the conflict and half the population was dependent on food aid. Aid agencies had virtually no access to the Afgooye Corridor and both adults and children living there were extremely vulnerable to exploitation, sexual violence and forced recruitment. Refugees in the Dadaab camps were living in severely overcrowded conditions (nearly 300,000 refugees were living in camps intended to hold a maximum of 90,000), such that many refugees had limited access to water and shelter. Refugees living in those camps were also vulnerable to theft, sexual violence, and exploitation by the Kenyan authorities.

So you're not necessarily singing their death warrants if you send them back, but they certainly won't be welcomed back to Somalia with smiles and sombreros. In fact they'd probably be screwed.

Globalisation has happened, people and we've got to deal with it. Besides, these people have committed crimes on English soil and should be subject to our laws and punishments.

[Si Hunt]

I suggest you have a look at

Bear in mind I haven't yet given my own opinion on whether this is right or wrong.

Si.

[Rob McCow]

For further information!

[WhiteCrowNZ]

This isn't really anything new though is it? The same rules came about over Abu Handsa, who is a preacher of hate here, but can't be deported back to Egypt cos he has a death warrant for him ... because he's been tried as a terrorist there.

And as was well covered - had Osama Bin Laden arrived on UK soil, the UK would have been obliged by law NOT to hand him to the US where he would have faced the death penalty, because he faced the death penalty.

Alas the law can be an ass. This is a law really designed to stop people who are caught shoplifting in a supermarket being deported for something minor and executed in their home country. But the "one size fits all" kind of breaks down when you find out you're harbouring people who are murderers, rapists, terrorists, and they're all claiming asyllum.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

If they are immigrants living here legally, and commit a crime here, then it seems odd to just deport people back where they came from anyway, regardless of whether it's safe back "home" or not. Surely in such circumstances they should be treated the same as everyone else?

Having said that, I wouldn't really care at all if some murderer gets sent home and gets mortared in the face the moment he steps off the plane. One less drain on the prison system here.

[Ralph]

So there we have it. Europe tells the UK who it is allowed to have in its country. Furthmore we have a duty of protect people in danger, even criminals and "undesirables".

Is something wrong here? Or not?

Si.

Of couse it's completely wrong! I think these European "on the gravy train" fat a***d bureacrats are going to push the thinking, sensible and responsible people of Europe too far...

[Rob McCow]

I think these European "on the gravy train" fat a***d bureacrats are going to push the thinking, sensible and responsible people of Europe too far...

Yes! And maybe the English too!