European Court of Human Rights – Your views, Part 3

The European Court of Human Rights intervened to stop the deportation flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda.  The UK is a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.

We asked your views on:  How should the government react to the ruling by the ECHR?

Back to Part 2On to Part 4

Maureen Martin of the Christian Peoples Alliance.

“The desire for a better life is not a valid reason to illegally enter a nation and expect to be welcomed with open arms.  They must go through the process legally”

This is the now very familiar battle between the rule of law and woke social justice or asylum seekers versus economic migrants.  Nations without controlled, patrolled and hard boarders are not sovereign nations at all but merely what the USA calls sanctuaries for whosoever.  The UK government has a responsibility to its legal citizens to ensure they carefully vet whom we allow into this country, this process must be governed by the rule of law and not fuzzy feelings of social justice policies, otherwise known as the European Court of Human Rights.

The ECHR is making rulings based upon individual appeals and of course as they are all in basically the same predicament the court has ruled similarly in each case.  For one of these individuals the argument is being made that he was seeking a better life in the UK and would still be vulnerable in Rwanda.  If the vulnerability of the individual is the issue, would he be vulnerable wherever he settled? What makes Rwanda a dangerous place for him? This is not clear. In addition to which seeking a better life makes him an economic migrant and not eligible for asylum seeker status.  This must be addressed as the cry of human rights activists seems to focus on this point; it is not humane to deny someone the chance of a better life. The answer to that is if a better life is the goal, then the rule of law must be adhered to.  The desire for a better life is not a valid reason to illegally enter a nation and expect to be welcomed with open arms.  They must go through the process legally.

The UK government should pursue its mandate to protect our boarders and enforce its immigration laws and policies.  The message must be sent to other nations, human traffickers, and drug smugglers that the UK is not open for illegal immigration business. If they know that asylum seekers will be sent to another closer/bordering nation it will deter those considering making the trip across the Chanel risking their lives in the process. 

We have to look no further than the USA to ascertain that such policies are extremely effective.  During the Trump administration the Stay in Mexico Policy was instrumental in controlling the Southern border with amazing results.  The current administration has rolled out the welcome mat for whosoever resulting in record illegal immigration numbers, the highest in 97 years. We do not want the same in the UK.

Zack Stiling of the Heritage Party.

“it refuses to recognize the merit in deterring would-be asylum seekers from making the dangerous journeys across the English Channel”

The interference of the European Court of Human Rights in the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda is disgraceful, but sadly predictable. I strongly doubt that any flights will ever go ahead, because the E.C.H.R. is unlikely to relent and I do not believe the Johnson administration really cares about cracking down on illegal immigration. Having mixed a preposterous cocktail of socialism, totalitarianism and spectacular economic cretinism during its first 2½ years, who can honestly expect the Johnson government to successfully implement a genuinely conservative policy?

Through its decision to suspend the flights, the E.C.H.R. has given up the pretence of existing to protect human rights and quite openly revealed its politicized agenda. The deportations do not contravene any part of the European Convention on Human Rights and yet the Court is happy to remain silent when serious contraventions do occur in Europe (the Convention is supposed to guarantee the right to personal liberty, freedom of expression and freedom of association, all of which are disregarded by so-called public health measures and the criminalization of ‘hate speech’). All migrants do, of course, have a right to live in Britain provided they follow the correct legal procedures and satisfy at least the same criteria as are required of all native-born British citizens.

The E.C.H.R. would appear to prefer the policy mooted in May of destroying a Yorkshire village by filling it with 1500 asylum seekers, at enormous cost to the British taxpayer. By the same margin, it refuses to recognize the merit in deterring would-be asylum seekers from making the dangerous journeys across the English Channel which have already resulted in dozens of them perishing. Perhaps the E.C.H.R. prefers them dead, or maybe it just thinks British resources should be stretched even further by having coastguards posted on 24-hour dinghy-watch.

An important distinction which must be made is that the right to life is the right not to be killed, not an entitlement to be spoon-fed by Nanny Taxpayer. If we presume that the E.C.H.R. would rather claim the latter (and we must presume much, for it is being so suspiciously cagey), we can be certain that it has abandoned any interest it may have had in protecting actual human rights in favour of trying to impose costly and community-destroying socialism on countries within its jurisdiction. To suggest that working taxpayers who are struggling to make ends meet and young workers with no hope of ever buying a house should have money taken from them and given to people with no entitlement to British residence is much worse than crassly insulting.

As with the E.U., we again find ourselves being coerced into acting against our own interests by an unelected body. The best thing the government can possibly do is withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. As nice as it is to have such a convention, which looks on the surface to be so righteous and upstanding, its value is nil when existing clauses are ignored and non-existent ones are fabricated and used against us. Britain would be much better off with her own intelligently drafted human rights constitution.

Cllr Mary Lawes, The Foundation Party, Folkestone Town Council.

“We campaigned and won the right to be a sovereign nation. We must leave the ECHR and bring in a UK owned ‘Bill of Rights’”

Decisions taken by a foreign body on UK & it’s citizens, must be stopped at all costs. 

When the rights of foreigners come before the country’s own citizens it’s time to leave. This is something that should have been done at the same time as leaving the EU. We campaigned and won the right to be a sovereign nation. We must leave the ECHR and bring in a UK owned ‘Bill of Rights’. This must be agreed by the people of this country not Parliament. 

If in many years to come this country can sustain taking in large numbers of economic migrants, then great. However, the infrastructure is not in place for its own people never mind those illegally entering the UK. The country also needs to reduce the amount of work visa being issued to many countries around the world. 1,000,000 foreign nationals came to the UK on work Visa’s last year during Covid 19.

I, as a local Councillor see local people having to go back home to parents with their families in overcrowded housing condition. Families being separated and moved to other parts of the country. If you have a partner and cannot prove how long you have lived together you cannot live with them if the Council is helping them out. 

In my local town there are no private properties available to rent as London Boroughs send those on their waiting lists to us and other towns. London Borough’s pay large deposits to landlords and agents to guarantee those on their waiting lists above locals. No social housing is being built even though there is such a huge need. 

We have insufficient medical services, too few GP’s, patients unable to see a GP, too few beds in ICU units, overcrowded A&E departments. 

Schools are overcrowded and having to spend time teaching foreign children English. Children leaving primary and secondary school illiterate. Insufficient vocational education, too many children being pushed for academic education. Pushing vast numbers to university instead of training for future carpenters, electricians, bricklayers, engineers, or plumbers. 

If the country continues the way it is going, we will end up with most of the country’s citizens getting poorer with no housing, no education, mental health continuing to rocket. People dying as they would be unable to get any medical care. 

People calling for more migrants to come, pushing wages down while trying to fight for better wages and conditions for those already here, is perverse. Businesses looking for cheap labour and rubbing their hands together.  Let’s look after our own first and when we have improved our infrastructure and helped all our own then by all means put infrastructure in place and bring in those in need at an agreed number. 

This whole of Parliament has for the last 6 years been pitting people against each other on all these matters. We need to have a grown-up conversation about this country going forward but this useless Parliament are incapable of doing so. 

The people are the masters not the servants – we are stronger together. 

Back to Part 2On to Part 4

Image: detailsoriginalamended.

2 thoughts on “European Court of Human Rights – Your views, Part 3”

Comments are closed.