The human rights framework in Britain has placed migration policy under the control of an increasingly defiant and undemocratic judiciary. The reality raises serious questions about the justice system, as unreasonable decisions have been made regarding individuals with questionable backgrounds. This has resulted in an immigration system where criminal behaviour and affiliations have bizarrely influenced asylum claims, leading to outcomes that starkly oppose public opinion.
Bizarre court rulings have granted refugee status to sex offenders, a Nigerian woman who joined a terrorist group, and a paedophile facing deportation—justified because deportation could harm them. The judges’ application of the Human Rights Act 1998 has led to these absurd decisions, leaving the public both perplexed and frustrated about the rule of law overseeing immigration.
At the heart of these questionable decisions is a misconception that human rights must be absolute, ignoring crucial societal standards. The articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) can sound reasonable, but their implications can be disastrous. Legal interpretations of provisions like the prohibition of torture have somehow morphed into justifications for keeping dangerous individuals in the UK.
Notably, the ‘right to family life’ has resulted in ludicrous cases where deportation is prevented on trivial grounds, such as a child preferring specific food. Meanwhile, recent rulings allowing Gazans to settle in the UK expose the extent of judicial overreach, where judges dismiss the British government’s policies altogether, claiming a moral duty to intervene in immigration matters.
This judicial intervention has raised alarms from the political elite, including Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who condemned a judge’s ruling. Yet, his moderation faced backlash from judicial leaders, illustrating their disdain for public scrutiny. Current judicial attitudes reflect an entrenched belief that judges should operate beyond political challenge, showcasing the inherent arrogance within this framework.
Returning to the roots of human rights, the ECHR was established not only to prevent totalitarianism but also to constrain democratic expression—an elitist reaction against mass governance. Critics argue that contemporary human rights interpretations often misalign with public sentiment, creating a rift between actual needs and judicial outcomes.
Today’s migration landscape cries out for sanity and accountability. Achieving this necessitates a realignment of the human rights paradigm so that it focuses on serving democracy rather than evading it. If we hope to re-engage with rational policymaking, we must challenge the unassailable power of an ever-activist judiciary, marking the first step in restoring a sensible immigration policy.
Britain’s migration policy has become unreasonably influenced by an overreaching judiciary interpreting the Human Rights Act in ways that contradict public sentiments. Notable rulings grant asylum to sex offenders and terrorists, while petty family preferences hinder deportations. This growing judicial power reflects an elitist fear of democracy and necessitates a reconsideration of human rights that aligns more closely with public opinion.
The entrenched human rights regime in Britain threatens democracy by enabling activist judges to impose absurd rulings that defy public opinion. Decisions undermining the integrity of migration policy demonstrate a disconnect between the judiciary and the electorate’s expectations. To regain control over immigration and restore accountability, a reassessment of the current human rights framework is crucial, ensuring it prioritises democratic values rather than judicial hubris.
Original Source: www.spiked-online.com
