Islam is not the only issue. This is a bit long winded, but it partly the reason human rights have gone mad and why citizenâs donât have many rights at all when it comes to their safety, especially when it comes to deporting criminals.
Many blocked deportations hinge on Article 3 of the Human Rights Act.
Article 3: Prohibition of torture. No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Example case - Chahal v United Kingdom [1996]Article 3 prohibited his removal as he faced a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment if removed. An Indian Sikh living in the UK claimed he would be tortured if deported to India because he was a high-profile supporter of Sikh separatism. The UK still sought to deport him on suspicion of being a terrorist. The Court stressed that Article 3 prohibits, in absolute terms, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victimâs conduct (including suspected involvement in terrorism).
Questions that need answering: Is he still a supporter of Sikh Separatism while living in the UK? Is he just a supporter of Sikh separatism for India or does he believe in Sikh separatism for the UK too?
Most importantly, does his presence in the UK place others at risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?
If we apply the last question to convicted rapists fighting deportation, surely rape is considered an act of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. When a person has a proven track record of subjecting victims to such treatment, their presence in the UK surely places UK residents at higher risk than the deported rapist or other violent criminal?
Proposed amendment to the human rights act: The law also has an obligation to protect all UK residents under article 3. If credible evidence exists that a person remaining would risk violating the article 3 rights of another in the UK, they must be removed to their country of origin.
BHRA: The Conservative party appears to believe that amending the act will be sufficient, but as long as this legislation is being interpreted by European courts it leaves too much room for activist judges to sidestep the literal wording of any act. Leaving the ECHR and replacing the European Act with a well worded article 3 in a British Human Rights Act is the best way to prevent this.
An act of Parliament might also be necessary to prevent activist judges from taking it upon themselves to re-interpret law and respect the separation of powers and the sovereignty of Parliament.
Finally: Human rights, human lives: a guide to the Human Rights Act for public authorities
This guide is designed for officials in all public authorities, from central to local governments, the police and armed forces, schools and public hospitals, and other bodies.
This guide was written by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Who are these people? Who elected them to tell public servants how to do their jobs? Are they another group like the Sentencing Council of England and Wales? What gives them the authority to do this and what is their ideology?