Hey Ukip pick a page any page I chose xxi .. First lie by omission

My Why Vote Ukip book has arrived, written by Suzanne Evans. There is already a quite brilliant deconstruct of the entire book by Michael Abberton.

I decided on a different approach pick a page at random and fact check what we find.

Page xxi “we are unable to deport foreign criminals any where in the he world because of our compulsory surrender to the judgements of the ECHR”

“We are unable to deport”

Clearly we are able to deport.

From the headlines in newspapers and Ukip rhetoric you would think all 324 are hardened criminals who have committed heinous crimes. There are of course those who no one realistically wants to keep in the UK –

In 2013 there was
2 Attempted Murderers
1 Attempted Rape
1 Indecent Assault on a minor
2 Manslaughter
1 Murder
2 Offences under the sex offenders act
4 Rape
1 Rape of a minor
34 Violent Crime

That we would like to deport these criminals is not in doubt. That a judge has looked at their cases and decided that their families have primary importance and that, that, outweighs any future threat they pose, is also not in doubt.

Article 8 is oft blamed for the inability to deport criminals. What is not accurately quoted is that the right to a family life is not about the person to be deported but about the rights of the partner and children. For example in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim who failed to stop after an accident where a 12 year old child was killed. There was no effort to deport him after release and in the mean time he married and became a father to two children and a stepfather to a further two. The judge in the case said that the children could not be expected to move to Iraq and as a result he would be allowed to stay in the UK. If there had been no children the judge said his decision would have been different.

“Compulsory surrender to the ECHR ”

The press often makes an assumption that if a judge says legislation is incompatible with the HRA than parliament must change the law. This is not the case, government has the choice on his to respond, if at all. The courts can not use HRA to force Parliament to change the law. (R v Shayler 2002 754 para 53)

The desire to remove us from the EHRA is not confined just to Ukip, some tories are also similarly afflicted with these illogical thoughts. That they quote the EU and the ECHR is to completely mislead they are unrelated. Since 1959 the ECHR has delivered rulings to the UK less than 500 times.


Some of the cases the UK lost

In 1979 the ECHR ruled against an injunction imposed on the Sunday Times which prevented them reporting on the thalidomide scandal.
When the Republic of Ireland banned homosexuality in 1981, the ECHR challenged this under Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life.
The same happened when our armed forces were dismissing homosexuals from armed forces after investigating their private life.
In 1986 the ECHR ruled in favour of trans* people allowing them to change their legal gender.
In 1998 the ECHR ruled against the UK government for failing to protect a child who was being beaten by their stepfather.
In 2008 the ECHR ruled against the police storing the DNA and fingerprints of innocent people on their database.
in 2010 a government scheme which charged some immigrants a fee only if they were not planning to marry in the Church of England was ruled against.

Of course Ukip are about removing our rights, whilst trying to convince the public it’s all in their interests.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s