Christmas Present (and Past & Future)

The High Court has ruled that someone who does not speak English cannot use marriage as a means to live and work in the United Kingdom. (Three women brought the case on behalf of their husbands. BBC Radio 2, News. There was no mention as to who paid for the litigation.)
If judges can make the law (rather than Parliament) then - for the general good of the nation - why can't judges determine that no foreign and Commonwealth men can use marriage as a means to occupy the UK?

Supremely Illogical

The Supreme Court (a Tony Blair initiative) has ruled that foreign and Commonwealth people who want to marry cannot be prevented from entering the UK. (BBC Radio 4 News, yesterday 6 p.m.)
A judge said that having to live together abroad breaches their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Art. 8: "1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
"2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
The judge is illogical. What he said clearly implies that anyone in a marriage outside these unfortunate islands is being deprived of a family life.
Besides, the 2nd. item in Art. 8 provides a clear get-out. Democracy (i.e. Parliament, not judges) should determine this issue.
The News broadcast also stated: "Youth unemployment is at an all-time high."
Litigation is very expensive. Doubtless it was the British taxpayer who funded the litigants who doubtless are very grateful to a (barmy) country that pays to have itself occupied.

Judge supports Criminal - Ridiculous

David Cameron will say today (The Daily Telegraph, page 2): "We will also end the ridiculous situation where a registrar who knows a marriage is a sham still has to perform the ceremony."
He has been Britain's Prime Minister for 18 months. Why the delay? Has he only just realised?
Besides, if foreign men were not allowed to live and work in the UK through marriage they would not take part in a sham marriage.
This issue has come to the fore because the Home Secretary's speech to the Conservative Party's annual conference last week highlighted the case of a Bolivian (pictured on page 6 of today's Telegraph) illegally in the UK who cannot be deported because he has a relationship with someone else, and deporting him would, according to a judge, contravene Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
If the two men are so much in love what's to prevent them from living in Bolivia?
They could both enter the country legally.
Being in a country illegally is a crime. The judge would soon find that out if he were in Bolivia illegally.

P.S. The politicians (e.g. David Blunkett, when he was Home Secretary) blame the judges and the judges say they are only doing what the politicians want - ridiculous - ludicrous - lunatic....
It was said of Hamlet (Act V, Scene 1) that his madness would not be seen in England because "there the men are as mad as he".

If only he were alive today!

Britain's Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, told party delegates yesterday that the European Convention on Human Rights had the support of Winston Churchill.
There is nothing in the Convention about immigration control.
And it is unimaginable to believe that Churchill supported the Convention being intepreted in such a way as to enable the UK to be occupied by other peoples.
Yet that is precisely what took place on 28 May 1985 when the European Court of Human Rights determined in favour of three women whose husbands were not allowed to live on these overcrowded and hopelessly divided islands.

Support Plea: Please Support

The British Government has launched a scheme whereby anyone can submit a petition which, if it gets 100,000 signatures, may be debated in Parliament.
I have just submitted a petition on Marriage and Migration - http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/12694
I invite people to sign it.
Thanks!

As ye sow.... so shall ye weep

The current nightly breakdown of law and order in England's biggest cities by rioting and pillaging youngsters is widely attributed to the breakdown of family life.
For a long time, some women seek careers and some enable foreign men to live and work in the UK through marriage.
Naturally, the result is a shortage of home-making women to go around and some men marry when they do not really want to.
Divorce is the inevitable consequence.

Jobs for Judges

An Indian woman living in Leicester is bringing a case in the High Court to argue that her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights are being violated.
This is because her husband and 6 children, in India, want to live with her in the UK.
Art. 8 states: "1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others."
It was forcefully argued on BBC Radio 4 Today that Article 8 should not be stretched and that judges are both unelected and unaccountable.
The European Court of Human Rights determined on 28 May 1985 that men should be allowed to live in Britain through marriage.
The law was modified last November to require the men to be able to speak English. That is what this case is all about. Because the husband doesn't.
Normal practice is that it is up to Consular Officials only as to whether a visa is issued.
Judges in Britain argue that they are involved in these issues because Parliament wants them to be.
A caller to the Jeremy Vine Show pointed out that David Cameron promised in his 2010 election manifesto to stop human rights law from intervening in immigration cases.
Surely there is a good case for a judge citing Article 8 as a reason why no foreign men can use marriage as a means for being allowed to live and work in the UK.
There is nothing to prevent that woman from living in India. (Though you[?] and I cannot.)

Common Currency

John Humphrys (BBC Radio 4 Today) and Jeremy Vine (BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show) have today both described the Norwegian gunman as a "madman".
A murderer, yes; but a madman, no.
He wants to prevent his country from being occupied by foreigners. That's not mad.
In January 1983 the British Parliament voted to allow foreign men to occupy the UK through marriage.
Mrs. Thatcher's Government thereby reneged on its 1979 election promise to end that concession. A Conservative Member of Parliament, Ivor Stanbrook, who voted against the measure, described it as "insane".
(Mrs. Thatcher killed people: 255 British servicemen died in the 1982 Falkands Conflict, not to mention Argentinians and 3 British women - all because of the occupation of territory.)
If prominent public figures (JH & JV) categorically state something it becomes common currency.

Criminal Activity (2)

Last Friday (9 June) Sky 3's UK Border Force featured an Australian who was refused entry at Heathrow and forced to return to Australia. Immigration officers were suspicious that he wanted to work because he had "only" £1,500.
He has a wife in Oz, so there could have been no suspicion that he wanted to acquire permanent residence through marriage.
One can only conclude that the reason for the cruel and inhuman treatment we witnessed was that politicians impose quotas to impress voters.

Criminal Activity

Foreign criminals cannot be deported if they have family in the UK. (BBC Radio 4 News.) This is because, it is said, of the European Convention on Human Rights.
But there is nothing in the Convention about immigration control; and the specific reason for setting up the Council of Europe was to prevent the excesses of the Second World War from happening again. So the very last thing it should do is enable people from non-member states to occupy member states.
Quite the contrary, in addition to there being laws galore in this area there is ample normative scope - see, eg, my blog of 17 April - for the judiciary (in light of current tensions with the legislature) to at long last "End the concession to foreign husbands and male fiances" - as promised by Mrs Thatcher in her manifesto at the time of the 1979 General Election.

Power to all the People

The Home Secretary decides that a Tunisian, associated with terrorism, should not be allowed to live in the UK. A judge determines otherwise. (BBC Radio 4 News.)
The concept of "rights" is widely thought to provide a necessary check on the abuse of power.
But if the only people who can avail themselves of "rights" are those who are subject to a government decision then they have a power that is denied to those who are not.
Two "Rights" Make a Wrong
President Obama, referring (BBC1, Andrew Marr Show) to Afghanistan, spoke of "human rights, including women's rights".
It was Mrs. Roosevelte who insisted that the term "human rights" replace "the rights of man" (Thomas Paine's expression) to ensure that females were included.
No one can doubt that in French "droits de l'homme" embraces both sexes.
In English, "human rights" either doesn't or feminists want something over and above "the rights of man".

Cherchez la Droite

Many Tunisians have arrived in France having crossed the Mediterranean in boats sans papiers. They are "determined" to work; to stay permanently; and to raise families. (BBC Radio 4, World at One.) Since they are all young men they will compete with Frenchmen for wives. (By contrast, the "rush" by young men from the Commonwealth to enter the UK in the first half of 1962 before the Commonwealth Immigrants Act came into force at least - for the most part - did so avec papiers.)
It is not right that these Tunisians succeed while some of their law-abiding countrymen adhere to procedures, apply for a Shengen visa, but are refused one.
It would be right for a Frenchman to complain to the European Commission of Human Rights that these young men be deported back to their own country.
However, there is no chance of the ECHR investigating such a complaint, because it only investigates complaints from people who are personally subject to a decision by a public body.
This is a systemic bias - a procedural imbalance - , i.e. not equal.

"Out of Control"

Immigration "has been completely out of control", said David Cameron on BBC Radio 4 Today this morning (8.10 a.m.)
He has been Prime Minister for 50 weeks, and, tellingly, he did not say it is now under control.
The ability of other peoples to occupy these unfortunate islands will never be under control while foreign men need only find someone to marry in order to avoid the constraints imposed by visas and entry permits.

Royal Inequality

There is much talk in Britain ahead of the Royal Wedding (29 April) of the Government proposal to enable a female to inherit the throne on equal terms with a male heir.
Broadcasting House (BBC Radio 4) also remarked today on the Government Equalities Office which employs 10 people - all women.
The Government has enforced stringent cuts in the public sector.
The Equalities Office only exists because of wealth - which is created by production.
If the argument for its existence is normative then a normative policy would be to campaign for an end to the "concession" whereby foreign men can live and work in the UK through marriage.
It is unequal, because:
1) While foreign men are exploiting this loophole, British men are being killed and wounded on active service;
2) These foreign men can avail themselves of the "equality" laws to deprive native British men of work and promotion;
3) People in same nationality marriages do not have the opportunity to live in other countries through marriage;
4) Some other countries, e.g. Indonesia, do not allow foreign men to live and work in their country through marriage. But their citizens, of both sexes, can live and work in the UK through marriage;
5) The sex ratio of young people in the UK is being deliberately distorted - young men far outnumber young women;
6) England's population does not compare favorably with other countries. It is probably the world's most crowded country. Overcrowding is a royal recipe for stress and unhappiness....
7) It is plainly obvious that foreign and Commonwealth men use marriage as a means to occupy the UK. There is clearly a huge difference/inequality between occupying and being occupied. You would think that, of all people, the native British - even in the Equalities Office - would understand that. Even if they don't, it's for sure that other people most certainly do.
Broadcasting House also complained about the infanticide of female foetuses in India. There are not enough women for Indian men to have wives, so, of course, they come to Britain.

It's still a con

"It's a con!" said a British National Party spokesman when asked on Today (BBC Radio 4) to comment on David Cameron's major speech later this morning on immigration. The Prime Minister will argue that Britain needs "good immigration, not mass immigration".
He is making this speech because elections are coming up. This is not only the BNP view, but was also a point made by the Immigration Minister, Damian Green (who said he doesn't want people to vote for "extremist parties").
In 1979 one of the principal reasons for people voting for Mrs. Thatcher was her promise to clamp down on immigration.
The Conservatives are still talking about it. Conning the voters is extreme.

Who is conning whom?

The Church of England wants to clamp down on sham marriages. This morning the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds told BBC Radio 4's Today that vicars are being conned.
He did not say that the Church had opposed Mrs. Thatcher's 1979 election policy to end the concession whereby foreign men can live and work in the UK through marriage.
If they couldn't do that they wouldn't look for someone to marry in order to stay here.

Overview

Sham marriages are increasing due to the involvement of criminal gangs. This problem is the subject of a BBC 1 Panorama program to be shown tonight.
The reason foreign men pay £8,000 to take part in a sham marriage is to enable them to live and work in the UK permanently.
Mrs. Thatcher promised to end this concession when she was elected in 1979. She didn't.
Judges opposed this reform.
So, judges are (at least, partially) responsible for criminal activity.
Well, we don't want judges to be added to the numbers of unemployed - do we?

Occupation and Control

12,000 Muslim women come to the UK for marriage every year. (BBC Radio 4 Today.) It might not be good or right (there is potential for their sons - native Britons - to be in competition with other native British men in the future). But it cannot be prevented, as it is normal for a bride to live in her husband's home.
But it is also the reason for foreign and Commonwealth men being able to live and work in the UK through marriage.
Because of the campaign successfully waged by feminists - arguing "equality" - in the 1970s and 80s.
This site argues that (a) the reality is inequality, and (b) it is a self-inflicted cause for much unhappiness to many native British men (including me).
The First World War - just like this issue of marriage and migration - was about the occupation and control of territory. While men were at war, some British women were fighting for the Parliamentary vote.
The success of the latter (a transference of power from one sex to the other) was an inspiration to those feminists campaigning for the "right" of foreign and Commonwealth men to be able to live and work in the UK through marriage. The connection between the two campaigns - with the same certainty of victory - was made by, for example, Patricia Hewitt, who wrote The Abuse of Power in 1982 (Oxford: Martin Robinson) while General Secretary of the Council for Civil Liberties (now renamed Liberty ) and who subsequently achieved power herself when she became Minister for Women in Tony Blair's Government.

Raging Imbalance

Tony Blair set up the Supreme Court to enhance independence by the judiciary. This has become a raging issue. Last night the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Phillips, gave a talk in London on Judicial Independence (which he believes is under threat).
This site has no quibbles with judicial independence. Judges should apply the law independent of political interference.
However, the reality is that judges interpret the law and the result, in effect, is that they determine the law.
In BBC 4's programme on the Supreme Court (27 January 2011) Lady Hale said: "We, of course, can say that decisions of earlier - or lower - courts are wrong."
Lord Phillips also remarked that judicial decisions can change. He added: "Fundamental human rights are of fundamental importance."
Lord Hope gave human rights as the reason why a homosexual cannot be deported. This may be a one-off case. But it doesn't stop there. It is not just one person who is affected. The law applies to all (foreign) homosexuals. And then there is chain migration. They marry and have (or adopt) children....
Uganda is said to be a country hostile to homosexuals (Metro, 8 February 2011, page 7).
If you (?) or I were to go to other countries there would be a time constraint (visa and/or entry permit). There is rarely any recourse to the law to over-ride that constraint.
This is evidence that, in the UK, not only does the legislature not make the law; but that the system is fundamentally unequal and unfair.
Gross inequality persists in part because people in transnational marriages are able to choose which country they want to live in. This is not open to people who marry people of the same nationality. (As outlined above.)
Where is that quintessence of justice - balance?
Balance could be restored if judges prosecute those politicians responsible for allowing foreign men to live and work in the UK through marriage.

Where there isn't a Will, There's a ... Waffle

Britain's Prime Minister, David Cameron, addressed a conference on Global Security in Munich (remember September 1938?) over the weekend.
Refering to this, today's The Times main Leader (page 2) states:
"Multiculturalism...
"... has, sadly, failed.
"... instead of tolerance flowing from mutual respect, multiculturalism has led to alienation and atomisation. Some minorities, under no constraint to integrate, neither feel nor wish to feel part of the British mainstream."
Some people from other countries, well aware of this and quite happy to add to the UK's problems, nevertheless take up permanent residence here.
The British Government is in a position to prevent foreign men from using marriage as a means to do so - but lacks the will.
If David Cameron had announced that he is closing that loophole with immediate effect he would have said something of really great benefit to his flagship Big Society project.

Judges on a Roll

"The power of judges has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished," so said Lord Howard, former Leader of the Conservative Party (BBC Radio 4, Today). Unlike politicians, Lord Howard pointed out, judges are neither elected nor accountable. He thought the Human Rights Act was partly to blame. "Hardly anyone disagrees with what I've just said." He ended by saying that the only winners are lawyers - financially.
However, his normative advice is unlikely to have any effect.
The Conservative Party was elected with a large majority in 1979 to end the concession by which foreign men can live and work in the UK through marriage.
But the Conservatives did not keep their promise. Mrs Thatcher's Government capitulated to the selfish demands of the feminists.
Britain has a new Supreme Court, created 1 October 2009.
Potentially, there is now an excellent opportunity for the Supreme Court to rule that allowing foreign men to use marriage as a means to occupy the UK is unlawful under the Human Rights Act.

Common Sense

"Sham bride in bed with boyfriend" says the heading in today's The Daily Telegraph, page 11.
"... The Home Secretary also announced that from last November, people applying for marriage visas would have to demonstrate a minimum standard of English.
"But last month, the laws, which were credited with cutting sham marriages by more than 70 per cent in some areas, were scrapped by European judges.
"The rules, which required some immigrants to apply for a certificate of approval from the Home Office and pay a £295 fee before they could marry, were judged discriminatory and against the right to marry by the European Court of Human Rights."
Judges should discriminate.
These (foreign) people can marry in their own country.
What is the point of democracy if elected politicians don't make the laws?
What is the point of marriage when (foreign) people can get divorced (having acquired their "right" to "Indefinite leave to remain" in the UK?)
(Common Sense, written by Thomas Paine, who also wrote The Rights of Man , argued the case that the 13 Colonies should divorce from Britain. Which they duly did.)