Yesterday's Daily Mail had a go at the Human Rights Act, because an immigration panel ruled that a failed asylum seeker - an Iraqi Kurd - cannot be deported.
BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show had an interview with a man whose daughter had been run over and killed by that Iraqi, and London's Metro, page 27, reports the distraught father saying of the decision: "I'm really angry. We should all be angry. It is a ridiculous state of affairs."
The reason for the ridiculous state of affairs is that the Iraqi has married a British woman and has two children. In other words, though being in the country illegally, he now has the "right" to permanent residence.
It is hard to believe that those who drew up the European Convention on Human Rights (in 1952) intended the interpretation put on it by the European Court of Human Rights at the end of May 1985.
The victim (the dead girl's father) was spot on when he pointed out that he has no rights concerning deporting the man.
That was my feeling when the European Commission of Human Rights failed to investigate my 1977 complaints. "... in accordance with Art. 25 of the Convention the Commission may only receive petitions from persons claiming to be the victim of a violation of any of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. The Commission has therefore always refused to recognise as victims those applicants who - like you - have neither directly suffered prejudice by virtue of a decision or act by a public authority concerning them personally, nor indirectly as a result of a violation committed against another person." (15 September 1977.)
I've read (W.H. Prescott's The History of the Conquest of Mexico ?) that following the Spanish conquest of the Americas many Indians didn't want to have children.
It's because of this issue that I don't....
By contrast, foreign and Commonwealth men who come to the UK want children - not only in order to live here permanently but also to strengthen the power of their community.
Rights?
Just?
It's just not right!
Saturday, 18 December 2010
Monday, 13 December 2010
"Caring and Discrimination"
We were repeatedly told this morning on BBC Radio 4 Today that fashion sense depends on "caring and discrimination".
The Queen flagrantly discriminated ("sabetsu" - please see my blog of 24 November) over the Summer.
Members of the European Parliament were invited to a Garden Party at Buckingham Palace.
But an exception was made for Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, who is an MEP.
The Queen flagrantly discriminated ("sabetsu" - please see my blog of 24 November) over the Summer.
Members of the European Parliament were invited to a Garden Party at Buckingham Palace.
But an exception was made for Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, who is an MEP.
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Equality and Merit
Tonight the Moral Debate on BBC Radio 4 is "Equality v. Merit".
There is no equality.
Not while British servicemen are being wounded and killed in combat.
It is strange that the English language has more words than any other, yet the word "discrimination", basically a "good" word, is, for want of another, generally used in a perjorative context.
It used to be, in Britain, that the phrase "class distinction" was common currency. (Please see my letter to "The Japan Times" of 17 March 1962.)
It has gone out of fashion, but the gap between rich and poor nowadays is said to be as great as it was in the 19th century.
It is not foreigners, even those who have acquired British nationality, who need laws to allow them to deprive native British men of work and promotion.
It's the poor English who need laws to protect them.
That's where the true "merit", the guiding star of Buddhists, lies.
There is no equality.
Not while British servicemen are being wounded and killed in combat.
It is strange that the English language has more words than any other, yet the word "discrimination", basically a "good" word, is, for want of another, generally used in a perjorative context.
It used to be, in Britain, that the phrase "class distinction" was common currency. (Please see my letter to "The Japan Times" of 17 March 1962.)
It has gone out of fashion, but the gap between rich and poor nowadays is said to be as great as it was in the 19th century.
It is not foreigners, even those who have acquired British nationality, who need laws to allow them to deprive native British men of work and promotion.
It's the poor English who need laws to protect them.
That's where the true "merit", the guiding star of Buddhists, lies.
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Cultural and Linguistic Relativism
According to the theory of linguistic relativity, language influences thought - the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
The sole argument used by the Council of Europe - the European Commission of Human Rights (13 May 1982) and the European Court of Human Rights (end May 1985) - to enable foreign men to live in the UK through marriage was that preventing them from doing so was "discrimination against women".
In English as soon as the word "discrimination" is mentioned there's an automatic feeling of wrong-doing.
In Japanese there are two words for "discrimination": "sabetsu" means "unfair treatment"; while "kubetsu" means "distinguishing right from wrong/good from bad".
Judges discriminate. If they can't, they shouldn't be there.
The Queen's Christmas message in 2004 was all about Asians and Africans living in Britain. "Discrimination still exists," said the Queen disapprovingly.
Discrimination ought to exist. The more discrimination the better. It's a normative prerequisite for justice.
I'm afraid I'm old enough to remember Englishmen's complaint in the 1940s: "The Americans are over-paid, over-sexed and over here." To which the Americans' reply was: "The British are under-paid, under-sexed and under Eisenhower!"
If some countries are rich and peaceful, while others are poor and war-torn, then it is obvious who wants to live in which country. Women living in a rich and peaceful country have nothing about which to complain.
British women may be regarded as lucky to live in these islands, but they may also have the privilege in being able to live abroad through marriage. There is nothing in the European Convention on Human Rights about privileging people.
The sole argument used by the Council of Europe - the European Commission of Human Rights (13 May 1982) and the European Court of Human Rights (end May 1985) - to enable foreign men to live in the UK through marriage was that preventing them from doing so was "discrimination against women".
In English as soon as the word "discrimination" is mentioned there's an automatic feeling of wrong-doing.
In Japanese there are two words for "discrimination": "sabetsu" means "unfair treatment"; while "kubetsu" means "distinguishing right from wrong/good from bad".
Judges discriminate. If they can't, they shouldn't be there.
The Queen's Christmas message in 2004 was all about Asians and Africans living in Britain. "Discrimination still exists," said the Queen disapprovingly.
Discrimination ought to exist. The more discrimination the better. It's a normative prerequisite for justice.
I'm afraid I'm old enough to remember Englishmen's complaint in the 1940s: "The Americans are over-paid, over-sexed and over here." To which the Americans' reply was: "The British are under-paid, under-sexed and under Eisenhower!"
If some countries are rich and peaceful, while others are poor and war-torn, then it is obvious who wants to live in which country. Women living in a rich and peaceful country have nothing about which to complain.
British women may be regarded as lucky to live in these islands, but they may also have the privilege in being able to live abroad through marriage. There is nothing in the European Convention on Human Rights about privileging people.
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Fairness - a Good Idea
The Church of England General Synod opens today in London. It'll be opened by the Head of the Church. The Queen. Who sparked modern feminism in Britain with her Christmas message of 1967.
Top of the Synod's agenda is having women bishops.
The Government's solution to curbing immigration to the UK is a cap on Work Visas.
That cap has been announced (BBC Radio 4 Today) as 43,000 (but with exceptions).
Since Work Visas have a time limit the cap is pointless. It is also criminal. (Though, technically, that's up to a judge/jury to say.) Because David Cameron deceived the electorate during the run-up to the May General Election by stressing it was the solution to the problem of migration to the UK.
Every day 1,000 people enter the UK on Student Visas. As with most other visas there is a time constraint.
The reality is that to control immigration effectively, foreigners have to be prevented from taking up permanent residence.
A major solution would be to end the concession to foreign men who currently can obtain permanent residence through marriage.
This was promised by Mrs. Thatcher in 1979.
Britain now has another female in charge - Mrs. May is Home Secretary.
She, too, is letting down the electorate.
The European Court of Human Rights is also partly to blame.
It's pointless having elections.
Today also revealed that any asylum seeker who fails in his claim can appeal to the European Court. Under Rule 39 he cannot be deported.
At the end of May 1985 the European Court ruled in favor of three women whose foreign husbands wanted to live in the UK. That was unfair, because there was nothing to prevent them living together in their husband's country.(Malawi, Egypt and the Philippines.) I can't. And I doubt if many readers can.
The current "buzzword" amongst all British politicians these days is "fairness".
It would be fair if native Britons could make use of the European Court to prevent the occupation of "their" country. But they can't. I tried (10 June 1977).
When Mahatma Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western civilisation he famously replied that he thought it would be a "good idea".
Fairness for native Britons would be a good idea.
Top of the Synod's agenda is having women bishops.
The Government's solution to curbing immigration to the UK is a cap on Work Visas.
That cap has been announced (BBC Radio 4 Today) as 43,000 (but with exceptions).
Since Work Visas have a time limit the cap is pointless. It is also criminal. (Though, technically, that's up to a judge/jury to say.) Because David Cameron deceived the electorate during the run-up to the May General Election by stressing it was the solution to the problem of migration to the UK.
Every day 1,000 people enter the UK on Student Visas. As with most other visas there is a time constraint.
The reality is that to control immigration effectively, foreigners have to be prevented from taking up permanent residence.
A major solution would be to end the concession to foreign men who currently can obtain permanent residence through marriage.
This was promised by Mrs. Thatcher in 1979.
Britain now has another female in charge - Mrs. May is Home Secretary.
She, too, is letting down the electorate.
The European Court of Human Rights is also partly to blame.
It's pointless having elections.
Today also revealed that any asylum seeker who fails in his claim can appeal to the European Court. Under Rule 39 he cannot be deported.
At the end of May 1985 the European Court ruled in favor of three women whose foreign husbands wanted to live in the UK. That was unfair, because there was nothing to prevent them living together in their husband's country.(Malawi, Egypt and the Philippines.) I can't. And I doubt if many readers can.
The current "buzzword" amongst all British politicians these days is "fairness".
It would be fair if native Britons could make use of the European Court to prevent the occupation of "their" country. But they can't. I tried (10 June 1977).
When Mahatma Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western civilisation he famously replied that he thought it would be a "good idea".
Fairness for native Britons would be a good idea.
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Unequal Britain
37% of immigration cases brought before a Tribunal are successful. (BBC Radio 4 Today , today.)
This was used to argue that Immigration officials should be more efficient and not make mistakes.
If they do make mistakes, then equally many foreigners are in the UK when - by rights - they shouldn't be. But they do not complain to Immigration Tribunals!
In other words, there should not be any such Tribunals.
Native Britons have no recourse to Tribunals to correct those mistakes.
Similarly, the legal profession is deeply involved in immigration cases - as reference to the Law Reports in The Times reveal. But it is only those who want to live here who can avail themselves of the law.
If Britons go to other countries and their visa runs out - that's it, they have to leave.
This was used to argue that Immigration officials should be more efficient and not make mistakes.
If they do make mistakes, then equally many foreigners are in the UK when - by rights - they shouldn't be. But they do not complain to Immigration Tribunals!
In other words, there should not be any such Tribunals.
Native Britons have no recourse to Tribunals to correct those mistakes.
Similarly, the legal profession is deeply involved in immigration cases - as reference to the Law Reports in The Times reveal. But it is only those who want to live here who can avail themselves of the law.
If Britons go to other countries and their visa runs out - that's it, they have to leave.
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Warning: Ongoing Deception
Phil Woolas, until recently Britain's Immigration Minister, has been stripped of his parliamentary seat by two High Court judges. (London's Evening Standard, page 1.)
Page 8 of the same paper states that Mrs. Theresa May, Britain's Home Secretary, and Minister for Women and Equality, "promised stricter rules to make it more difficult for temporary migrants to stay in Britain permanently."
The Commons Home Affairs Committee warned that this would be impossible "unless new curbs on student arrivals and the ability of migrants to bring family members with them were introduced."
If foreigners are "migrants" then they already have the right to permanent residence. It's no wonder the Government cannot get a grip on this issue if the very words they use are misleading.
Page 8 of the same paper states that Mrs. Theresa May, Britain's Home Secretary, and Minister for Women and Equality, "promised stricter rules to make it more difficult for temporary migrants to stay in Britain permanently."
The Commons Home Affairs Committee warned that this would be impossible "unless new curbs on student arrivals and the ability of migrants to bring family members with them were introduced."
If foreigners are "migrants" then they already have the right to permanent residence. It's no wonder the Government cannot get a grip on this issue if the very words they use are misleading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
