Thread: Another Win for “Human Rights” over Victims’ Rights

Mon, 11/04/2011 - 06:00 | News Team

The government’s failed bid to deport an “asylum seeker” who killed a twelve-year-old girl in a hit-and-run accident underlines the pathetic state of our judicial system and the impotence of our “rulers”.



Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, an Iraqi Kurd who was already banned from driving, served just four months for running down schoolgirl Amy Houston and leaving her dying under the wheels of his car in Blackburn in 2003.

Although Ibrahim already faced being removed from the UK as an illegal immigrant after having his asylum claim rejected in 2002, he was allowed to stay in the country in 2009 when an immigration judge ruled that he had established a "family life" in England.

Ibrahim claimed that sending him home to Iraq would breach the Human Rights Act as he had fathered two children here.

When refusing permission to appeal, judges of the case expressed their “greatest sympathy” for Amy’s family, but ruled that there had been no error of law.

After the judgement was read, Amy’s father Paul Houston asked from the public gallery, " What about my right to a family life?"

Outside the court he said: "The judges had the opportunity to stand up for the hard-working people of this country, the people who pay their wages, and show the world and the country that the Human Rights Act isn't just about asylum seekers, criminals and terrorists but the average man – but they let me down and didn't do that."

Before the 2010 general election, David Cameron wrote a personal letter to Paul Houston, promising to repeal the Human Rights Act if the Conservatives were elected. As with all of the Prime Minister’s other “cast-iron” promises, he lied.

Sadly, the case is just the latest in a number of similar high-profile injustices already passed this year.

In January 2011, another Iraqi asylum seeker who had been on the run in Britain for six years was granted the right to stay in Britain because he was now married to a Slovakian woman.

Also in January, sex attacker and convicted Sierra Leone criminal Mohammed Kendeh was granted to the right to stay in Britain on the basis of the Human Rights Act.

Significantly, the judge who ruled in Kendeh’s favour was Sir Henry Hodge, husband of Labour MP Margaret Hodge.

Kendeh, a serial sex attacker, who admitted to indecently assaulting eleven women over the past five years, has convictions for a string of robberies, burglaries, arson and drugs.

One of his victims, quoted in a daily newspaper, said that “Kendeh must be laughing at the law”.

The Human Rights Act is an extension of the EU’s Human Rights legislation, and was brought in by the previous Labour regime to bring British law into line with EU regulations.

This means that even if the act were to be repealed, as the Tories promised to do, it would provide no relief, as the invaders would simply appeal to the European Court of Justice, which would then overrule British courts, as has already happened in many other cases.

The only answer then is for Britain to leave the EU and escape from under the jurisdiction of EU law, as the British National Party has always argued.

Another Win for ?Human Rights? over Victims? Rights | British National Party

It tends to be, these days, that minorities and "immigrants" are far better treated than Whites and those who are native to a country. It's very backwards, indeed.