'Human rights laws put lives at risk': Cameron tells Euro court it harms fight against terror
- Prime Minister tells Euro court it harms fight against terror
- Backlog of 160,000 cases - just 45,000 presented to court in its first 40 years
Last updated at 4:25 AM on 26th January 2012
European human rights laws undermine the fight against terrorism and put British lives at risk, David Cameron warned yesterday.
He said a string of bizarre rulings on terror and immigration cases had ‘distorted’ the ‘discredited’ concept of human rights.
In a thinly veiled reference to the decision by the European Court of Human Rights to block the deportation of hate preacher Abu Qatada last week, the Prime Minister accused it of tying the hands of governments trying to deal with terror suspects.
David Cameron addressing the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. The Prime Minister rebuked the European Court of Human Rights for 'undermining its own reputation' by 'going over national decisions where it does not have to'
Mr Cameron also raised concerns over the growing backlog of more than 160,000 cases awaiting consideration at the Strasbourg court
Mr Cameron's initiative comes amid anger in the UK over rulings which blocked the deportation of extremist cleric Abu Qatada and required the extension of voting rights to prison inmates
He said: ‘The problem today is you can end up with someone who has no right to live in your country, who you are convinced – and have good reason to be convinced – means to do your country harm.
‘And yet there are circumstances in which you cannot try them, you cannot detain them and you cannot deport them.
‘So having put in place every possible safeguard to ensure that ECHR rights are not violated, we still cannot fulfil our duty to our law-abiding citizens to protect them. Together, we have to find a solution to this.’
Qatada, once described as Osama Bin Laden’s ambassador in Europe, won the right to stay in Britain after the court ruled he might not get a ‘fair trial’ in Jordan, where he is wanted for conspiring to carry out bombings.
If the judgment is upheld he will be freed from jail to live on benefits with his wife and five children.
The Prime Minister said there was now ‘credible democratic anxiety’ about the impact of the court on issues such as the Government’s ability to fight terrorism and control Britain’s borders.
Mr Cameron was heard in stony silence as he delivered his call for sweeping reforms at the Strasbourg headquarters of the Council of Europe – just yards from the court.
JUDGE'S SNUB
Europe's top judge refused to meet David Cameron yesterday in an apparent snub to the Prime Minister’s call for reform of the human rights court.
Sir Nicolas Bratza attacked the Prime Minister in the Independent this week over his criticism of the European Court of Human Rights.
Sir Nicolas, who heads the Strasbourg court, said it was ‘disappointing’ to hear ministers make criticisms that were ‘not borne out by the facts’.
But last night it emerged that the British-born judge had refused to meet the Prime Minister to discuss his concerns in person yesterday when Mr Cameron visited Strasbourg to deliver his speech on the court.
Instead, Sir Nicolas chose to spend the day hearing cases.
Afterwards he faced a 30-minute barrage of mainly hostile questions from European MPs and MEPs about Britain’s commitment to human rights and the European ‘dream’ of closer union.
The Prime Minister stressed Britain ‘never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust’.
But he accused the court of expanding its remit far too widely, to the point where it is interfering in legitimate democratic decisions, such as Britain’s ban on prisoner voting.
Despite some recent reforms, he warned the ECHR was also still acting too often as an international appeal court, allowing ‘an extra bite of the cherry to anyone who is dissatisfied with a domestic ruling’
He warned the court against becoming an ‘immigration tribunal’ that allowed people to avoid legitimate deportation for years.
And he said the court was taking on far too many cases, leaving it with a backlog of more than 150,000. In the first 40 years of the court’s existence, 45,000 cases were brought. In 2010, there were more than 61,000.
Many are frivolous. In a lighter moment, Mr Cameron cited a case in which a bus passenger came to Strasbourg seeking 90 euros in compensation because a coach from Bucharest to Madrid did not have reclining seats.
Britain wants to introduce a ‘filter’ system to weed out vexatious and frivolous cases. The Government also wants a ‘sunset clause’ that would see cases kicked out if they had not been decided within a certain time limit, possibly two years.
And the Prime Minister wants the court to back off from its policy of interfering in the legitimate decisions of democratic governments.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2091672/Cut-meddling-national-affairs-Cameron-tells-human-rights-judges-Europe.html#ixzz1kZaXyDuF
Law blog Klik op +1 als u dit een interessant artikel vindt en Google zal het dan beter zichtbaar maken in de zoekresultaten.
Abdul was in Afghanistan sinds 1977 lid van de socialistische Democratische Volkspartij van Afghanistan (DVPA), welke een jaar later de macht zou grijpen en grootscheepse hervormingen doorvoerde op economisch en sociaal-cultureel vlak. Tussen 1980 en 1992 werkte Abdul voor het Ministerie van Defensie en de Staatsveiligheidsdienst (KhAD/WAD), naar eigen zeggen in ondersteunende diensten. Zijn werkzaamheden bestonden uit administratieve taken, het verspreiden van interne post en het begeleiden van bezoekers. In die periode is Abdul met enige regelmaat bevorderd, uiteindelijk tot luitenant-kolonel bij de Presidentiële Garde onder het Ministerie van Defensie en later het Ministerie van Staatsveiligheid.
In 2004 verkregen zijn vrouw en kinderen de Nederlandse nationaliteit. Abdul kreeg deze echter niet en bleef de verblijfsvergunning houden. Twee jaar later overleed zijn vrouw, een zware klap voor Abdul en zijn kinderen, voor wie hij vanaf dat moment alleen moest zorgen. De IND liet een jaar later, in 2007, aan Abdul weten dat ze van plan waren zijn verblijfsvergunning in te trekken, wat definitief werd besloten op 29 september 2008. De reden hiervoor was dat Abdul had gewerkt voor de KhAD/WAD, instanties waarvan aan (onder)officieren Artikel 1F Vluchtelingenverdrag (kortweg Art 1F Vlvgenoemd) tegengeworpen kon worden. Op basis van dit specifieke artikel kan een land asiel weigeren wegens vermeende misdaden en mensenrechtenschendingen.
Tot januari 2012.
Een verontwaardigde moeder van een leerling verwoordt het gevoel dat in het Zuidhollandse dorp heerst: “Mauro-moeheid? Twee Nederlandse kinderen die net hun moeder verloren hebben mogen kiezen tussen de Afghaanse woestijn of hun vader ook verliezen. En het lokale suffertje van hun woonplaats schreeuwt op de voorpagina ‘Trendie Wendie bestaat 7 jaar’. Goddammit.”
