Thursday, August 25, 2005


UN says British plan to expel terrorist instigators is illegal

Well, that didn’t take long. Two weeks ago, in commenting on Britain’s intention to deport terrorist instigators and agitators, I wrote this:

What happens when some civilized nation, Britain, France, or Holland, for example, has had enough? What happens when some European nation elects a strongman who promises to “clean up” the “foreigners”? What happens when some European country decides that its only chance to survive as a nation is to prohibit all immigration from Islamic countries? Or that the only way to root out the Islamic terrorists already among them is to shut down all mosques, or outlaw Islam, or expel all muslims?

The UN, which has done and will do nothing to prevent the continued slaughter of Israelis by the palestinians, or the construction of nuclear weapons by the Iranian theocracy, will surely label any such step as “ethnic cleansing” and try to stop it. What will happen when the UN expects the US to send in troops to protect the muslim population of some European country from the European citizens of that country?

They’re not yet asking us to send US troops to Britain to force the British to leave hatemongering Islamist immigrants alone to push their cult of death, but the UN has leapt to the defense of Islamist terrorists and instigators, threatening to cite Britain for human rights violations. Britain’s threatened deportations, according to the UN, violate “international law” and the Geneva Conventions.

Manfred Novak, the UN human rights commission's special investigator on torture, told the Guardian he is seeking permission through the Foreign Office to visit Britain to discuss the issue with the home secretary, Charles Clarke.

In a statement on Tuesday night, Prof Novak said that the government's intention to return radical preachers to their countries of origin, even though some of those countries have a track record of human rights abuses, "reflects a tendency in Europe to circumvent the international obligation not to deport anybody if there is a serious risk that he or she might be subjected to torture".

His intervention came as Mr Clarke, in response to the London bombings, yesterday introduced a list of "unacceptable behaviour" which would allowing him to deport or exclude foreign citizens for glorifying or encouraging terrorism. Mr Clarke said the first exclusions and deportations would take place within the "next few days".

He rejected the UN criticism. He said "the human rights of those people who were blown up on the tube in London on July 7 are, to be quite frank, more important than the human rights of the people who committed those acts."

He added: "I wish the UN would look at human rights in the round, rather than simply focusing all the time on the terrorist."

But Prof Novak refused to accept the rebuke. "The UN is strongly concerned about terrorism and counter-terrorism. But there are certain standards that have to be observed in the context of counter-terrorism," he said last night. "We in the western democratic countries, in the fight against terrorism, should not step over these limits by violating international law."

Prof Novak, whose investigations take him round the world, said he could cite Britain when he reports to the UN general assembly in October but he hoped the issue could be sorted out before then. His main objection is to the government's policy of seeking memoranda of understanding from countries to which people would be deported that they would not be tortured. He said the memoranda were not an appropriate tool to eradicate the risk of torture.

In other words, the UN “human rights commission” says a nation has no right to toss out folks openly advocating violence, mass murder, or even the religious justification for the destruction of the nation itself, if the hatemonger might be “persecuted” in their country of origin. Obtaining the assurance of the government of the country if origin is not sufficient, if the UN deems that country to be prone to use “torture”.

This of course conveniently overlooks the fact that the hatemonger is in the host country in the first place only because that country chose to allow him entry. So now, somehow, “international law” guarantees an immigrant the right to stay in a foreign land, no matter how he abuses that courtesy afforded him by the host. Remember, this is the same UN that paid for the palestinians’ “today Gaza, tomorrow every inch of the land” propaganda barrage, a clear statement of the palestinian intention to eradicate the nation of Israel (a nation recognized, by the way, by the UN) from the face of the earth, and either kill the Israelis or “drive them into the sea.”

But in the view of the UN, the “human rights” of the Islamist hatemongers somehow outweigh the right of the citizens of Britain to not be slaughtered in the streets. The UN takes the position that “international law” and the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees prohibits deporting them back to their home countries “where they could be persecuted”. The British government, however, makes the case that their intent is in keeping with British immigration law.

Mr Clarke's announcement yesterday clarifies his existing powers under the 1971 Immigration Act and requires no new legislation. It comes into effect immediately and sets out the sort of behaviour likely to lead him to exclude foreign citizens.

They include expressing views which "foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence", "seeking to provoke others to terrorist acts", fomenting "other serious criminal activity", or encouraging hatred "which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK".

Mr Clarke argued that the new list of unacceptable behaviour would make it "absolutely clear" where the law stood, but was not intended to "stifle free speech or legitimate debate".

Although the moves mark a toning down of the government's original anti-terror intentions, they have caused unease among international observers. A second UN body last night also condemned the deportation proposals, saying Britain would be in breach of the 1951 Geneva convention on refugees if they were enacted.

The UN high commissioner for refugees said the government had failed to reply to a letter expressing its concerns.

Peter Kessler, spokesman for the UNHCR, said: "An application of these proposals, without access to due process, could amount to sending people back to countries where they could be persecuted. That would be in abrogation of the UK's obligations under the 1951 convention."

This is sheer stupidity, since the reason these nice folks would be persecuted in their home countries is… wait for it … their advocacy of violence and mass murder!

Well, if the Geneva Convention of 1951 prohibits deporting some monster who is trying to wage his jihad in your own back yard, killing as many of your women and children as he can, the solution seems pretty simple: repudiate the Geneva Convention on refugees. If a European agreement is perceived as preventing the deportation of these people, then withdraw from that agreement. And if the UN wants to complain too much about it, the western nations need to shut off the financial spigots and let them fund their own perverse activities.

What the UN fails to understand is that it is not a world governing body, much as it would like to be. It is an increasingly undemocratic and anti-western club for the pushing of the agendas of penny-ante states trying to collect a payoff from economic success of the the western democracies. What authority it has, what legitimacy it has, derives from its reasonably utilitarian availability as a forum, not from any right to dictate to any nation, member or not.

And the more the UN takes stupid positions like this, the less attention any of the nations it really needs for its survival will pay to its ridiculous pronouncements.

Comments: Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]