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.)
Thursday 28 July 2011
Wednesday 27 July 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
