Inhuman wrongs

My complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights of 10 June 1977 about foreign and Commonwealth men being allowed to live and work in the UK through marriage even though I (and other Englishmen) often cannot live and work in their countries through marriage was, I believe, exactly the sort of complaint the Council of Europe was set up for.
But the ECHR would not even investigate it.
I was at the time (unhappily) married, but separated.
I had a Japanese girlfriend, Kazuko-san, who left the UK in 1977 when her visa expired. She obtained a job at an embassy in Tokyo, and had a holiday in September 1978. She bought a return ticket to Frankfurt. She then caught the Ostend-Dover ferry where she arrived at 2005 on 25 September. BUT immigration control sent her back to Ostend (Port ref: DE 1626/78) on the 0020 ferry.
Kazuko-san was not only very depressed about this, but had spent a lot of money for nothing.
The underlying basis for human rights is human dignity. It means that or nothing.
When I eventually knew what had happened to her I determined to obtain justice for her. (Fat chance!)
The Home Office (ref: A142251) claimed that she was "not a genuine visitor".
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (Appeal no. TH/36408/78) was refused on 3 May 1979 on the grounds that the immigration officer had not acted improperly. That makes it worse, because it means that Kazuko-san's scandalous treatment was systemic.
I met her in Paris on 8 August 1979 and we arrived in St. Helier on 12 August. The immigration officer rang the Home Office in Croydon and we were duly returned on the hydrofoil back to St. Malo. The immigration officer had said her return ticket was meaningless as "she could easily sell it".
One reason I got married in 1966 was because I never met my Japanese pen friend who came to Britain at my request. She was returned to Japan on 30 May 1965; the immigration officer at Heathrow told her she would have to go back because she did not have a return ticket. (!)
I complained to the European Commission of Human Rights about Kazuko-san. This was investigated (application no. 10105/82). But its decision of 6 March 1984 was: "... no relationship of family life exists between the applicant and his girlfriend and thus no issue under this provision can arise."
I had to leave Japan in 1962 before my visa expired. I arrived back in the UK just as the Commonwealth Immigration Act was coming into force. In November 1962, under the Anglo-Japanese Navigation Agreement, visas were dispensed with between the two countries (for tourism purposes). I had the feeling that Britain was going in two directions at once (closing down/opening up).
But in 1965 I thought: At least she won't need to get a visa.
The UK is abnormal. It is normal in other countries that foreigners are regulated by their visa and/or entry stamp.
BBC Radio 4's Law in Action told us on 11 March 2008 that 58% of judicial reviews are about immigration (into the UK). The former Conservative Party leader Michael Howard commented that lawyers are neither elected nor accountable.
Radio 5 had a female Member of Parliament from Luton saying that some 3-400 girls a year go missing from schools in Luton. They are believed to be forced into marriages in their home countries. Not all are Asian, she said. Some are Chinese. (!)
She truly said "their home countries". We all know the reason for these marriages. So that young men can occupy the UK. None of which would happen if the Conservatives had honoured their 1979 election promise about this issue, and if the European Commission of Human Rights had determined my 1977 complaints concerning this issue to be admissible.
London's Metro newspaper of 11 March 2008 reported that since 2004 Spain had given amnesties to 700,000 illegal immigrants. Now that they are legal they (and their relatives) can all come here (despite the UK not being signed up to the Shengen Treaty).

Smokescreen

Cultural relativism is defined (encarta.msn.com/dictionary) as: "judging cultures on their own terms>"
Cultural relativism and cultural positivism are not mutually exclusive.
The main case in favour of the former, however, is that history plays a prominent role in determining a nation's laws.
This means that the current controversy concerning Iraqis who have worked for Britain and now want to live in Britain (as do retired Gurkhas) comes up against issues of cultural relativism.
Therefore the Council of Europe's activity in which it prevailed on the Japanese to allow foreign men to be allowed to live and work in Japan through marriage while at the same time (1982-5) determining that foreign and Commonwealth men should be allowed to live and work in the UK through marriage was contrary to the precepts of cultural relativism. The UK has problems peculiar to herself.
Only the UK had a Commonwealth Immigration Act in 1962 (which was supposed to have resolved the issue of immigration) and subsequently the UK brought in laws that enable foreigners to deprive indigeneous Britons of work and promotion.
Involving Japan does nothing to ameliorate the UK's predicament. Instead, it brings problems to Japan - and that is not a good thing to do.
The UK's immigration laws continue to be clouded by "smoke and mirrors". Involving Japan was a smokescreen to hide the mischief caused by the Council of Europe's actions.
If foreign and Commonwealth men did not take advantage of the UK's (unequal) laws, then there would be room for Iraqis and Gurkhas on this crowded (and sinking) island.