Rt Hon TonyBlair has left human rights activists gasping with his latest pronouncement that the human rights act needs a 'radical overhaul'. Civil liberties campaigners were also delivered a round house when Blair criticised a judge's ruling as 'barmy'.
Twat
Mr Blair, you are a twat. An extremely dangerous twat, but a twat you remain. Does it not strike you when you propose to harry, hassle and hound the suspects out of the country, when you criticise an independent judiciary and when you call for for a further erosion of human rights that you sound like a tyrannical demagogic twat. And this ain't no MSM conspiracy to poison our minds, even if Flabbodopolos was still around to point that out , because, hurher, you said it.
Urgent
Tell us also why this is now your "most urgent policy task"? I thought that was climate change. It's funny how it's not exactly urgent is it? More pressing is the need to deflect attention from the NHS and the Home Office and, shouldn't we all forget, that bill to abolish parliament.
Blow up (please)
Are you also aware, TB, that while pleasing the decent "law abiding majority" -- that so heartily thanked you for their protection nine days ago -- you are also marginalising an increasingly unsettled minority? And do you see no link between this alienation and the desire for young men to blow themselves up? Being marginalised yourself, why don't you share this inclination?
UPDATE (via Tom Paine): It's not just Tony who's at it:
Mr Cameron said he was deeply concerned that the [Human Rights] Act was preventing the authorities from expelling foreign criminals if the courts believed they might face maltreatment in their home countries.Another word for maltreatment, David, is torture. But then again, they are foreign aren't they?
Disclaimer: Standing up for the right of foreign criminals not to be tortured does not at all diminish my desire to see Tony Blair blow himself up, however hypocritical this may seem.
2 comments:
With respect, it's important not to confuse opposition to - or a desire to amend - a particular Act or international Convention which happens to have "human rights" in its name with opposition to human rights per se. Blair is wrong to attack judges and lawyers for doing their best to interpret the law. If their work produces results he does not like, he is better placed than you or me to do something about it by clarifying the law. I don't think Cameron is saying that it's bad to have human rights legislation. He's just saying that the legislation we currently have is producing such wacky results that we ought to review and - if necessary - amend it. Blair is merely blowing political snow by ranting at the judges, just as Blunkett, Clarke and Reid have done before him. It's all very New Labour - "Only we, the wise custodians of the faith, can protect you. Any lack of protection you may experience is of course due to dark forces we must take ever greater powers to suppress. Trust us, for we are Tony and the Lord is with us."
Mr Paine,
So far as I am aware from the Telegraph article, David Cameron wants to change the Huamn Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights because it does not allow deportation of foreign criminals to countries with records of dubious human rights. As I commented on your blog, Cameron is playing a nationalist card when he should be more concerned by the real prospect of people getting tortured. There is good evidence - from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International - that 'memoranda of understanding' are not worth the paper they are written on.
So you see I'm not just jingoistically rejecting the notion that the Human Rights Act needs changing. However, legislation that protects rights that are rapidly being eroded elsewhere more of a tweak than an overhaul. Remember that it was due to the Human Rights Act that judges ordered the release of the Belmarsh Nine. Do you really trust Blair to do such a thing responsibly? From Cameron's comments, I don't trust him either.
Post a Comment