ECHR: rotten from branch to root

I’m pleased to report that my ailment is abating and I’ve recovered some use of my arm. The bad news is I’ve got a lot of writing to catch up on. I’m still gathering material for a comprehensive report on why we must quit the ECHR, and now I have to put it all together.

It’s just as well, though, since there have been a few zingers just in the last couple of weeks. Just yesterday, The Telegraph reported that a paedophile convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter has been allowed to remain in the UK as deporting him would breach his right to a “family life”. The man in his early 50s, from the Democratic Republic of Congo, was jailed for just three years in 2020 for appalling offences including sexual penetration and sexual assault against his stepdaughter and two other young girls in the family.

Then, at the end of October, a Zimbabwean jailed for killing a man in a car crash was allowed to live in the UK under the ECHR after it was discovered he had an illicit love child. The Zimbabwean, who has been granted anonymity, has fought off an attempt to deport him by the Home Office after claiming his removal would breach his Article Eight rights to a family life.

Just days earlier, a foreign armed bank robber won the right to live in Britain after claiming that deportation would breach his human rights. The Syrian man, 55, who was granted anonymity by the court, was jailed for 12 years for trying to rob the bank and for possession of a firearm in 2006. He claimed that he would be persecuted if he was deported to Syria, which would be a breach of ECHR Article 3 and of EU rules granting asylum seekers protection from the threats of war in their home countries.

In that week the Manchester Evening News recorded that a Belgian man jailed for his role in a gang killing in Moss Side has avoided deportation following a High Court ruling. William George, 27, was convicted of manslaughter and jailed for 12 years for his part in what the Court of Appeal described as the 'horrifying gang murder' of Abdul Hafidah in 2016.

In November 2018 then Home Secretary Sajid Javid ruled that on his release from prison George, who moved to the UK with his family aged eight, should be deported on 'imperative grounds of public security'. But George managed to overturn that decision and now the Court of Appeal has rejected efforts by the Home Office to go ahead with the deportation. In a ruling, three judges criticised the Home Office for mistakes in dealing with the case, describing their actions as 'unimpressive'.

There’s a steady drumbeat of these depressingly familiar stories, and I’m sure somebody somewhere has a full list of them. They’re all much of a muchness - and we really need to be asking questions about the state of British judges. In more than a few of these cases, though, The Telegraph points the finger squarely at the ECHR, when these stories tend to be domestic appeals under the Human Rights Act - which implements the ECHR directly. As such, there is no resolving this without repealing the HRA and rebooting the entire system.

At the same time, one can’t help but notice a certain perversity to the rulings where the severity of a crime has no bearing on the right to remain. The judges are there to assess the case exclusively against universal rights. As such, these universal rights are a fundamental attack on the right of British people to be safe in their own homelands. It should also be noted that in almost every case, we’re talking about individuals who should never have been here in the first place.

As I noted in my recent manifesto project, the concept of refuge is predicated on the idea that wars end and refugees will and should return. It is better if refugees stay in neighbouring countries to hasten return and expedite rebuilding. Western nations do not have a "moral obligation" to accept refugees. We should not facilitate the brain drain of other countries.

Since none of our near neighbours are at war, there is no reason to even have an asylum system. If we have one at all, its numbers should be capped to fewer than 1,000 annually as a means to offer safe harbour to political dissidents, journalists, informants and intelligence assets. It is not meant to be a free for all.

The asylum system, as presently constituted in the UK, is little more than a loophole for economic migrants. It should be closed. The asylum system is one of the leading routes for garbage immigration which is not wanted or needed. They are immigration cheats who hope to exploit family reunion rules to bring in more welfare dependents. It places an intolerable drain on state resources and contributes to the rise in violent crime.

If we’re going to address all this, as much as we must leave the ECHR and repeal the HRA, we must also abandon the Refugee Convention, dismantle the asylum system, and rescind any non-European asylum. If a system puts the rights of foreign paedophiles ahead of our own, we should not be the remotest bit squeamish about, figuratively speaking, burning it all to the ground.

The thought occurs, though, that those who want this reform to happen must be leading the field in what replaces it, lest we be lumbered with something as bad or worse. Can we even still make a case for universal human rights in the context of immigration? A system based on universal rights will always trump national borders. The very nature of the universal human rights system is the inherent loophole that will always be exploited to undermine any normal person’s sense of justice.

If we are to reassert nation state as the proper basis for the protection of rights, we need a codified national constitution with an embedded Bill of Rights that includes a specific caveat that overrides any international law and specifically excludes non-UK citizens. Anything else is more of the same.