Arrogant Judiciary is Undermining British Society

Ex: http://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/ourcomments/view/21...

ARROGANT JUDICIARY IS UNDERMINING BRITISH SOCIETY

By Leo McKinstry

BRITAIN is no longer a properly functioning democracy. The governance of our
country is increasingly in the hands of a judicial elite that is beholden to
Brussels and its own Left-wing bias.

Puffed up with power, these courtroom zealots appear to have nothing but
contempt for justice, the national interest or the will of the British
people.

And in the Human Rights Act they have the perfect instrument for pushing
through their own agenda.

One recent legal case graphically symbolises the destructive influence of
our politically correct judges. Ignoring common decency, a court decided
last week that the British Government cannot deport a failed Iraqi Kurdish
asylum seeker, Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, who killed a 12-year-old girl, Amy
Houston, in a brutal hit-and-run accident in 2003.

WIN A LUXURY CRUISE TRIP FOR TWO WORTH £2,500!

Despite his appalling crime two judges at an Immigration Tribunal claimed
that any attempt to throw Ibrahim out of this country would be a breach of
his human rights because he has fathered two children in Britain since the
incident. According to the perverted morality of European law, therefore,
his right to family life has to be protected.

This ruling is an affront. It is an outrage that the rights of a foreign
killer should be given more priority than those of a loving British family
who have been denied any form of justice over their child’s death.

Ibrahim was already serving a nine-month ban for driving without a licence
or insurance when he ran down Amy and did not even stop.
   
Yet Ibrahim spent just four months in jail for her death, a shockingly
lenient sentence that again exposes the cowardice of our legal system. Since
his release he has committed drug possession, burglary, theft and
harassment. What makes this low-life’s case even more sickening is that he
has absolutely no right to reside in Britain.

He arrived here from Iraq in the back of a lorry in 2001 and immediately
applied for asylum. His claim was rejected but, with characteristic
feebleness, the immigration authorities failed to kick him out.

When action was finally taken to deport him he and his lawyers began to
bleat about his so-called human rights. But by his vile behaviour, Ibrahim
had forfeited any such rights. He showed savage disdain towards the family
life of the Houstons.

The same attitude should have been shown towards him by the courts. The idea
that he could not go back to Iraq is absurd.

Hundreds of British soldiers died in liberating the Kurds from Saddam
Hussein’s tyranny. They did not shed their blood so foreign killers such as
Ibrahim could remain in our midst. And if he is really so concerned about
his family there is nothing to stop him taking his partner and children back
to Iraq.

Tragically, this case is part of a wider pattern judicial activism that is
threatening the foundations of our civilisation.

Only last Friday two High Court judges ruled that the temporary immigration
cap introduced by the Government is illegal and has to be scrapped, yet
another instance of the unaccountable judiciary interfering with our
democracy. After all, the immigration cap was one of the few specific
measures promised by the Tories and all surveys show that it is supported by
the overwhelming majority of the public.

Yet now our elected politicians find that they are thwarted by an unelected
elite.

It is telling that one of the judges in last week’s immigration case was Sir
Jeremy Sullivan who in 2006 ruled that the nine Afghans who hijacked a plane
at Stansted airport should be allowed discretionary leave to stay in the UK.
In their embrace of the human rights culture, the judges have turned
morality on its head.

It is estimated 350 foreign criminals escape deportation every year because
of the Human Rights Act.

The immigration system has descended into chaos with the concepts of border
controls and British citizenship rendered meaningless. Last month, for
instance, a court decided that the Islamic extremist Abu Hamza should be
awarded a British passport despite his lethal hatred of us.

The self-righteous judges are part of a vast human rights industry,
including lawyers and Left-wing activists, who undermine the traditional
values that once made this country great.

They know they cannot change Britain through the ballot box, since their
posts are unelected, so instead they use judicial intervention to change our
society.

The late jurist Lord Bingham once said that the European Human Rights
Convention existed to protect vulnerable
minorities but the Convention was never meant to be used in such a political
way. Drawn up in the wake of the Second World War, it aimed to prevent
genocide and real political oppression.

It was never designed as a charter for criminals, terrorists and illegal
immigrants. Cocooned in their ivory towers, the elitists do not have to live
with the disastrous consequences of their decisions. In contrast, the decent
Britons who pay for the whole judicial process have to put up with violent
crime, the breakdown in neighbourhood trust and the loss of national
identity.

The only way we will rebuild the independence of our legal system is by
ending our subservience to the European Human Rights Convention. Opponents
of such a move say such a move is impossible without leaving the European
Union. In truth, that is the best argument ever made for EU withdrawal.