There is one overriding responsibility any democratic government has. Nay, there is just one primary justification for the existence of the same: protecting citizens from violence or the threat of violence from hostile sources. That’s why governments require taxes to fund and train an army and a police force; to build courts and prisons; and to elect or appoint the officials needed to pass and implement the laws citizens must not break. Regarding foreign threats, government as protector requires the ability to meet and treat with other governments as well as to fight them if necessary. As Thomas Hobbes says in ‘Leviathan’, without a world of protective governance, you’re left with one of unrelenting insecurity.
What Britain’s incorporation of the Human Rights Act does is effectively turn the whole of the above principle on its head. It does so because it renders the protective qualities of the state subordinate to the demands of its greatest enemies. That state can no longer afford the maximum safety net needed to keep its citizens as secure as they can be due to the fact the nexus of the HRA is to guarantee the most rights to those who act the least human. The ruling yesterday on Shamima Begum is a quintessential case-in-point.
Let me remind you Begum did not go on holiday to Sunny Beach in Bulgaria, only then to be spirited away across Anatolia to keffiyeh-central in the Syrian Desert. She chose to leave the country that had fed, housed, educated and clothed her for her entire life to become a terrorist dedicated to the maiming and murder of British citizens. Subsequently, having realised being stuck in 46-degree heat and schooled by Islamic psychopaths wasn’t all it was cracked up to be in her Ladybird Book of Insurrectionist Techniques, she puts on her doe-eyed little girl lost routine and has the UK judicial system eating out of her hand.
Try not to gasp when you read the following excerpt from the ruling:
‘Lord Justice Flaux – sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Singh – said: “Fairness and justice must, on the facts of this case, outweigh the national security concerns, so that the leave to enter appeals should be allowed.”‘
There you have it – the entire Hobbesian philosophy of citizenry protection blown to smithereens (pardon the pun). For those judges, our right to be protected from individuals who wanted to do us harm is relegated to something less than an afterthought when compared to the concatenation of supposed indignities this monstrosity has been subjected to. Furthermore, if she does ever arrive back in the UK, does anyone really think we’ll ever get rid of her again? No! Once she’s back here….on child benefit, housing benefit, family tax benefit, Council Tax benefit, food voucher benefit, niqab benefit, gardening benefit, travel benefit and tampon benefit…..she’s here for keeps. And I’ll bet anyone a judge’s wig and gown Messrs Flaux, King and Singh know that all too well.
For years we’ve had successive governments hand-wringing over the latitude the HRA gives to our most implacable foes. My question is a simple one: When the hell are they going to stop the affected regret and actually do something about at least mitigating its most potent clauses?
Reference article here
If you appreciated this article and would like to support us, would you consider a one off small donation?
(any currency can be selected)