Comrade Charles
Reading what Tony Blair and Charles Clarke said today, they both now realise that the Chahal decision is binding upon the English courts. They will be unable to deport the “Belmarsh 10” to Algeria and Jordan. Rightly, the courts will have no truck with these memorandums of understanding in which the receiving state promises not to torture or ill-treat those the UK government deports. Our Home Secretary said today
"The key legal question will be the extent to which the memorandum of understanding and the particular assurances given in relation to individuals are respected by the British courts as being genuine I believe they should be. That is the right way to go. It cannot be right that government-to-government agreements are not respected."
That “key legal question” was answered by the European Court of Human Rights in the Chahal and Soering cases. Indeed, in the Chalal case the ECtHR did so in unambiguous tones:
“Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society... The Court is well aware of the immense difficulties faced by States in modern times in protecting their communities from terrorist violence. However, even in these circumstances, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct. Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention and of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.”
The best way out of this dilemma would be to get out of our obligations under the European Convention altogether. But I suspect this would be a step too far-just- even for this illiberal government
They cannot derogate from Article 3- the one causing their problem- so they are left with amending the Human Rights Act, leaving the Convention intact. Such an amendment, they hope, would prevent the UK courts from applying European Court jurisprudence, from Chahal, to these cases, leaving any appellant to go off to the European Court in Strasbourg for their remedy. A case the UK is bound to loose when it comes into collision with the European Court’s judges. In the meantime, the deportee is sent to Algeria, Jordan or wherever, using some form of administrative order.
Is anyone surprised that when Charles Clarke was at Cambridge he was Chairman of the University Stalinist SocSoc? Hat tip to Peter H for that nugget!
posted by Tony @ Wednesday, September 07, 2005
1 Comments:
From Peter Harvey.
You are very welcome to my comments about Charles Clarke at Cambridge. That was also the time when the National Union of Students had a Stalinist Chairman by the name of Jack Straw.
Should you or anyone else doubt his political background, read his own words. When in November last year a journalist said in the Independent that Straw was a Trotskyist, he replied in a letter (16-11-04, http://tinyurl.com/7vner):
'Mr Fisk called me an "old Trot" ... I have been consistent in my opposition to Trotskyism and the false consciousness it engenders. (I was first taught to spot a Trot at 50 yards in 1965 by Mr Bert Ramelson, Yorkshire industrial organiser of the Communist Party.)'
One of the men responsible for the dodgy dossier opposes the engendering of false conscioussnes. Hmmm.
The following day's Independent saw several letters in reply (http://tinyurl.com/dajtv):
'It is also interesting that Straw refers warmly to the "Trot-spotting" training he received under the tutelage of that unreconstructed Stalinist, Bert Ramelson, one of the cheerleaders for the Stalinist regime in the USSR during its darkest, most blood-sodden days.'
'I wonder whether Ramelson was really such an ace trot-spotter as Straw thinks. After all, Ramelson was a leading light in a party that applauded the conviction and execution of Old Bolsheviks and thousands of others on charges of Trotskyism. As the Soviet government was subsequently obliged to admit, most of these victims had nothing to do with Trotskyism. Either Ramelson had quite failed to spot that they were not Trots, or he had realised they were not and kept quiet about it. Either way he seems a quite unsuitable role model.'
What more can one say?
Post a Comment
<< Home