Once again, the British government's draconian interpretation of law regarding the rights of individuals appears to be driving it into falling foul of the European Court of Justice.
It's something that is happening increasingly and shows up Britain as a serial offender and one of the most illiberal countries in Europe, at least in its treatment of residents of any colour except white.
It has got to the point where Britain is developing a reputation for institutionalised racism and oppression under cover of populist attitudes to immigration and the ludicrous so-called war on terror.
That so-called war has developed into a catch-all excuse for ever-increasing attacks on liberty.
And the fixation on immigration is turning into a witch-hunt on anyone whose antecedents or residence status give officialdom the chance to classify them as less than 100 per cent true Brit - as if such a creature could, or ever has, existed.
One doesn't have to look far into the records of the court to find examples of this propensity of Britain's officialdom to go several bridges too far.
On Tuesday, the court found that using anti-terror laws to stop and search people without grounds for suspicion was illegal.
Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton were stopped outside the Defence Systems and Equipment exhibition in London. There was no suggestion that either of them were, are or even might become terrorists.
And yet it was under section 44 of the anti-terror laws that they were stopped. Even Lord Carlile, the government's independent reviewer of anti-terrorist legislation, said: "In my view, section 44 is being used far too often on a random basis."
That was on Tuesday. The court ruled that the pair's rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated.
And it was back to business as usual on Thursday. This time it was over the case of Abdul Waheed Khan, a 34-year-old man who has lived in Britain since the age of three. In 2003 he was convicted of drug smuggling and served three years of a seven-year sentence. On release, the government attempted to have him deported from Bradford, where he lives with his girlfriend and baby daughter, to Pakistan.
Mr Khan appealed to the European court, which ruled that, since to all intents and purposes he had no links with Pakistan, deportation would be a violation of Article 8. Once again, illiberal Britain got it wrong
And so to yesterday, when the court's advocate-general warned that Britain's Treasury is wrong to apply a sanctions regime to "the provision by the state of social security and social assistance benefits."
This arose from an action by the wives of three men on a UN sanctions committee list of terror suspects.
Our ever-generous Treasury has ruled that the families of these three men must face tough restrictions on access to social security, including income support, child benefit and housing assistance. Under Treasury rules, such benefits must be paid into a bank account and the spouse can draw only up to £10 in cash for each member of her household.
The spouses, all living with their husbands and children, must also submit a monthly account to the Treasury detailing all spending, with receipts for any goods bought and copies of bank statements.
The advocate-general pointed out that, since such assistance was set to provide families "with only the means necessary to sustain their members," the ludicrously harsh Treasury rules were unjustified.
Such an opinion is not binding, but is upheld in the vast majority of cases heard by the court.
It is to the shame of Britain that this litany of injustice continues to be brought before the court.
Societies that oppress their minorities, political or racial, form an unpleasant club, one that we cannot allow this country to maintain its membership of.
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/85618
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário