Friday 8 March 2013
Sauce for the Gander
The President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, is currently at odds with the Home Secretary. (BBC Radio 4 "Law in Action", 7 March.) The latter wants to deport foreign criminals. Judges prevent this, citing the European Convention on Human Rights.
I am firmly convinced that, if judges rather than politicians can determine who lives in the UK, a judge could, and should, support my case - my epetition to the Home Office - that (non-EU) foreign men should not be able to use marriage as a means to live and work in the UK.
It is clearly unjust that:
1) People in such transnational marriages are privileged compared with people who are not - because they have a choice of two countries in which to live;
2) These foreign husbands are entitled - because of "equality" laws - to compete with, and deprive, British men of work and promotion;
3) Foreign men can occupy the UK while British men cannot occupy their countries.
Human rights as promulgated following the Second World War was intended to protect minority communities, not enable people to become minorities. (Native English are now a minority in London.) Besides, there is nothing in the European Convention about immigration control. Therefore the judges are acting neither in accordance with the spirit nor the letter of the Convention.
The Equal Opportunities Commission campaigned vigorously and successfully against the Conservative Party's 1979 election promise to end this concession about foreign men being allowed to live in the UK through marriage. However, the House of Lords determined on 7 July 1983 that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 did not apply to immigration control. That Act set up the EOC, which, it can be concluded, acted illegally.
1975 was International Women's Year.
There has never been an International Men's Year.
Today is International Women's Day.
There is no International Men's Day....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
In 1989 I knew that the UK intended giving £380 to Vietnamese boat-people who had gone to Hong Kong, but were being returned to Vietnam. I requested it of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because I had worked my passage to Hong Kong in November 1959 but not been allowed to live there because I was a merchant seaman. ("We have a special law to keep out merchant seamen," I was told.)
I was denied the £380 on the grounds that I am not Vietnamese.
Accordingly, I went to Westminster County Court and filled in a form to make the claim. Before long, I received a defence from the Treasury Solicitor's Office. It was prepared by a Miss W. and it said that my claim was frivolous, vexatious and a waste of the court's time.
That is easy to refute, I thought, and I prepared what I would say.
At a preliminary hearing the Deputy Registrar said: "But that was 30 years ago!" "I'm still affected by it. So the passage of time makes it worse, not better." He then said that he could not let me make a claim against the Minister. I was, however, told that I could make an appeal. "I want to be clear about costs," I said, turning to Miss M., representing the Treasury Solicitor's Office. "We're not interested in claiming costs," she replied.
My appeal came up at Westminster County Court on 28 June 1991. I went into the courtroom accompanied by Miss M. and Miss W., whom I took to be a barrister because of her flowing black gown.
The judge asked me why I was bringing the case. "Was there a contract?" "No," I replied, shaking my head. "Is it because you're black?" "That's the one. It's because I'm English." "But that was 30 years ago! You're out of time!" "That's the first I've heard of it. "I'm telling you now!" The judge then proceeded to list various time limits, none of which had anything to do with my case. I thought of telling him that, but I did not want to contradict him; I wanted to convince him of the justice of my claim.
He said something about the Kurds. "The Kurds are nothing to do with me. But I wasn't allowed into Hong Kong."
"Have you nothing better to do?You should be at work!" said the judge. "Have you got a job?"
"Temporarily."
He nodded. He nodded again when Miss W. said something in Latin.
Miss W. then said, in English, she wanted to claim costs.
"No!" I exclaimed. "You agreed not to claim costs."
"No, that was for the previous occasion." (Which I had paid for.)
The judge said "frivolous" into a dictaphone, and ordered me to pay costs.
I received it in writing a few days later. After the judge's name was "DSC, QC". The Distinguished Service Cross showed he was an ex-Naval Officer.
It dawned on me that Miss W. had deliberately used the Latin for "frivolous" so that I would not understand and refute it. I duly complained about that. It is now illegal in England and Wales to use Latin in court
Costs came over £500!
I surmise that Miss M. had no authority for saying what she had; that she sympathised with my case, and had thought that I would win.
That judge was guilty of prejudice. He gave me no chance to state my case. He also lied ("You're out of time!"), cheated (communicating in Latin), and stole (there was a contract - about costs).
BBC Radio 4's programme "The Report" (yesterday evening) was about female bankers in the City of London who had been awarded millions of pounds for sex discrimination. One had been awarded over £3 million. Why aren't their claims dismissed as frivolous?
There was nowhere I was allowed to live and work in Asia. I relied on being allowed to live and work in Hong Kong. On my return to the UK I was totally demoralised. (I have not wanted children since then.) Yet my claim was dismissed as "frivolous".
The Deputy Registrar at Westminster County Court said he could not allow me to make a claim against the Minister.
But that is just standard procedure, where immigration cases are concerned. And he must have known that, because there are many immigration cases that come before the courts. If that were not so I would not have made my claim in the first place.
Perjury in court is a serious offence, but the judge lied, and so did the defence lawyer ("No, that was for the previous occasion.")
Yet there is no redress.
Lawyers are on a gravy train with immigration cases. They don't want to upset the apple cart!
After saying "No, that was for the previous occasion" Miss W. said to me "This has gone on long enough."
Clearly it still bothers me.
Wouldn't anyone feel the same?
For a judge to support my case it would cost money.
Most immigration cases (but not mine about Hong Kong!) are payed for by the taxpayer.
It is unjust that people who are lacking in funds have a whiphand over those who have money; it is also unjust that the occupation of the UK by other peoples is funded by native Britons; to redress the situation the British taxpayer should pay for a judge to declare marriage being used for migration purposes by foreign and Commonwealth men to be illegal.
Miss W. was very quick to claim I should pay costs. That is evidence that Miss M. had told her that she had told me "We are not interested in claiming costs."
My strong impression is that if a judge opposes something very important, but can't think of a legal reason for doing so he resorts to dismissing it as "frivolous".
Nothing is more important than the occupation of territory, i.e. where one is born and happens to live.
In 1959 I was not allowed to live in Hong Kong, and there was nowhere else I was allowed to live and work in Asia (except, in retrospect, Aden).
"Frivolous" - it would appear - can be used to mean "You might be right in legal terms but because of my own personal political views I am not going to allow it."
The defence lawyer, Miss W., also lied ("No, that was for the previous occasion"), cheated (speaking in Latin), and stole (she KNEW what Miss M. had said to me).
In the early 1960s the Conservatives gave British passports - with gay abandon - to East African Asians. They must have thought this was a success because 30 years later they gave British passports to Hong Kong Chinese. Today our Prime Minister Boris Johnson says that if Beijing imposes its policies on Hong Kong he will allow these Hong Kong citizens to settle in the UK. Gee, thanks! There is probably nothing that China's President Xi would like more than for pesky rioters in Hong Kong to take up permanent residence thousands of miles away. So Boris Johnson's attitude is a bit like a man saying "If you don't do what I want I will commit suicide."
Post a Comment