Whose Human Rights?

My last post spoke about the problem of Human Rights and how it is not being used properly, which you can read here: https://rightblueview.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/are-you-taking-the-human-rights/.  Now in this short post I would like to draw your attention to the compete hypocrisy of the Human Rights Act.

With the exception of the couple mentioned in the previous post*, there has been an increasing use of the Human Rights Act to stop the deportation of convicted criminals, many of whom have carried out horrendous crimes and devastated lives here in the UK.

Compare this to the story of the British nun Jacqueline Jean McEwan, dubbed the ‘Geordie Mother Teresa’ by the Daily Mail.  Sister Jean, now 63 years old, has worked in the city of Bangalore in India since 1982, tirelessly helping leprosy patients in the Sumanahalli Society.  However this week, due to not having a visa, as these were not needed when she arrived in 1982, she was due to be deported.  Had it not been to a last minute decision by Indian Government to grant her a temporary visa while she sorts a more permanent one out, she would have left India where she was living so as to help people.

While the countries are different, it is an interesting comparison on the subject of deportation.  A kind hearted women, who says, “I will strive for their welfare”, faced the prospect of being deported from India.  While in the UK, criminals who have destroyed others welfare cannot deported as they claim it breeches their Human Rights.  If anyone’s Human Rights are being breeched, it is surely the patients of the Sumanahalli Society had Sister Jean been deported!

Also on a final note, compare Sister Jeans selfless work, to some of the cases some Human Rights Lawyers work on, and claim they are protecting the Human Rights of their clients.

Some food for thought I believe…..

The inspiring story of Sister Jean can be found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019366/Geordie-Mother-Teresa-granted-minute-reprieve-outcry-deportation.html

*Mr & Mrs Chapti mentioned in the previous post are not convicted criminals, and have no connection whatsoever with the criminals I mention.

Are You Taking the Human Rights?

From being set up with good intentions, the Human Rights Act is now constantly in the news about how it is being used as a loophole for criminals.  This is a shame, as such a bill of rights in theory is beneficial for everyone.  The problem is, in reality, (and I agree there is a large overemphasis by the press), that many do not actually care about the Human Rights they are claiming, it is just a way of getting around the law – they would claim whatever article of the Human Right Act which gives them the desired result.

This causes two outcomes:  Firstly, it completely undermines the rule of law.  Secondly, it stigmatises those genuine cases where the Human Rights Act is used by those it was meant to protect.

This week Vali Chapti an Indian national, and his wife Rashia Chapti a British national, are using Article 8, (the right to family life), Article 12, (the right to marry) and Article 14, (to be free from discrimination) of the Human Rights Act, in an attempt to revoke the decision that Mr Chapti cannot stay in the UK.

Under new immigration rules announced by the Home Secretary Theresa May in June 2010, English is now a basic requirement for all immigrants coming into the United Kingdom, and unfortunately for Mr Chapti he can neither speak, write, or read English, and thus cannot move permanently to the country.

While it may seem to contradict David Cameron’s view of marriage as an important institute, and his push to recognise it in places such as the tax system, this ultimately is a fair and coherent decision.  This is once again another example of abuse of the Human Rights Act.  Most likely not personally by Mr and Mrs Chapti, it is in fact quite understandable that they have challenged the decision, but by the Human Rights lawyers.  These lawyers do not protect Human Rights like some institutions and charities, rather they specialise in how to use the Human Rights Act to win cases and line their pockets.

It is not unfair for an English speaking country, where everything from shopping, to going to the doctors is done in the English language, to insist that those who wish to come and live and be part of the society speak the language.  The most basic requirement for good integration is the ability for everyone to be able to communicate with each other.  Recently, the London Evening Standard has been highlighting how many children in London cannot read and write, and how detrimental it is for them in life.  Take this further, and imagine being unable to read, write and even speak, and the serious limitations this puts on your ability to do achieve your best.

This decision is also completely coherent with other countries such as Australia, where unless a passport from an English speaking country is held, an English test must be taken to prove a certain level of English language competence.  Many non English speaking European countries have the same requirement, the Netherlands for example requires a basic level of the Dutch language, and France has had a basic level language requirement since 2007.  Many countries such as Australia and Canada take this further, and will not allow immigration into the country unless certain skills are held and immigrants are below a certain age, even if the basic English requirement is met.

It is sad fact that many racialise such arguments as these when they have absolutely no interest in the colour of ones skin.  The point of immigration policies such as these, whatever the language, is to allow both parties involved (immigrant and country) to achieve the best from the situation.  The simple fact is, language is the basis of good integration, and good integration benefits everyone.

David Cameron in his many election promises said he would bring immigration levels down into “the tens of thousands”, and reassess the Human Rights Act, with the view of implementing a British Bill of Rights.  It is becoming increasingly clear that to achieve his promise on immigration, Cameron must carry out his promise of a reassessment of the Human Rights Act, for the former relies heavily on the latter.