Wednesday, October 09, 2013
Human rights perversion: Dossier reveals taxpayers' bill for European court payouts to murderers, terrorists and traitors
Britain has lost a staggering 202 European human rights cases involving murderers, terrorists, paedophiles and rapists, it emerged yesterday.
Judges in Strasbourg handed the criminals taxpayer-funded payouts of £4.4million – an average of £22,000 a head.
Recipients since 1998 include the traitor George Blake, extremist cleric Abu Qatada and the IRA killer dubbed Mrs Doubtfire.
The House of Commons figures fuelled fresh demands for Britain to pull out of the convention on which the European Court of Human Rights bases its rulings.
Because they are political appointees many of the court’s judges are not even legal experts.
Soviet spy Blake, who was jailed for 42 years, one for each of the MI6 agents he sent to their deaths, was awarded £4,700 in 2006 because Britain stopped him profiting from the memoirs he wrote when he fled to Russia. The court ruled that this breached the double agent’s ‘right to free expression’.
Qatada, who was finally deported this year and was regarded as Al Qaeda’s ambassador in Europe, pocketed £2,000 because the court ruled he was unlawfully detained.
Kirk Dickson kicked to death a man who refused to give him cigarettes. But he won £18,000 from the court, which said he had been denied the right to father a child by artificial insemination.
Rupert Massey was jailed for six years for the abuse of three boys over a 14-year period. But he won £5,496 because he was ‘stressed’ after he waited four years for his case to reach court.
IRA killer Liam Averill was dubbed Mrs Doubtfire after escaping in drag from the Maze prison in 1997. He pocketed £5,000 in 2000 while still on the run because the court said it was wrong he had no lawyer for 24 hours after his arrest.
Somali paedophile Mustafa Abdi was sentenced to eight years behind bars for raping a child. Ministers spent more than a decade trying and failing to deport him, which allowed him to pocket £7,237 for being ‘wrongfully detained’.
The figures were obtained by Tory MP Philip Davies and placed in the House of Commons library.
He said last night: ‘To me, it’s just an absolutely scandalous waste of money. I’m not aware of my decent law-abiding constituents running off to the European Court of Human Rights.
'It is a charter for illegal immigrants and criminals.
‘We’re in a situation where we’ve got pseudo judges who are making decisions about this country. These cases highlight what an absolute racket it has become. The sooner we scrap the Human Rights Act and leave the European Convention on Human Rights the better.’
When claimants fail to get a ruling in their favour in a British court, they go to the ECHR and the UK Government is obliged to defend the case, effectively acting as a representative of the British courts system.
That means that even when cases involve a claimant who is in dispute with a private company, the damages and compensation are still awarded against the Government – meaning taxpayers pay.
But many of the cases, where the Government has had to pay up, have set potentially damaging legal precedents that end up costing taxpayers millions more than the relatively modest compensation payments.
Other cases have overturned aspects of the stop and search powers and rules designed to prevent sham marriages.
The case which has sparked a rethink from ministers was that of rapist Robert Greens, who complained to the European Court that banning British inmates from taking part in elections is illegal.
The Government was ordered to pay Greens costs of £4,230 and to give all convicts the vote. But Parliament has voted to ignore that ruling and Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has made clear that the Tories will make sure a new system they devise means Britain can refuse to obey.
Mr Grayling said: ‘As I’m sure the victims and their families feel, I find it very unpalatable to such sums are being handed over to some very unpleasant individuals.’
The review he has set up will examine whether the Conservatives should ditch the convention and enshrine the Supreme Court in London as the ultimate arbiter of British law in a new Bill of Rights.
Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, who sat on an official review of the humans rights system, warned that unless there is a change the Strasbourg court could dramatically increase the fines in future and Britain would be powerless to resist.
Catholic League President Turns Tables on Gay Critics Over Host-Topped Burger
A writer for The New Civil Rights Movement, a gay website, gleefully predicted that Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, would be “stroking out” over the “Ghost Burger” - a hamburger patty topped by a red wine reduction and an unconsecrated Communion wafer created by a Chicago restaurant.
But Donohue wasn’t biting. In fact, he turned the tables on his critics.
“Five years ago we protested the desecration of a Communion Host by P.Z. Myers, an anti-Catholic atheist professor. Yesterday, I decided not to protest the antics of Kuma's Corner, a Chicago restaurant, for serving a burger with a Communion wafer,” Donohue said in a statement.
“The difference: Myers secured a consecrated Host and drove a nail through it; the sandwich shop played games with an unconsecrated wafer. While Kuma's showed disrespect, what Myers did was despicable.”
“An unconsecrated host does not have the sacred meaning for Catholics as one that is consecrated and contains the Real Presence of Jesus,” Donohue told CNSNews.com. “So this is more edgy humor. P.Z. Myers is a sick man who wanted to wound Catholics. On a scale of 1 to 10, what Myers did was a 10. This would be closer to a 4 or 5.”
In response to the website’s prediction that he would be “stroking out” over the burger, which the restaurant says is named after a heavy metal band from Sweden, Donohue said:
“Sorry to disappoint, boys. In fact, the only angst I feel is toward people like them. They say that what Kuma's Corner did risks the wrath of ‘every Christian born without a tolerance gene or a sense of humor.’ I'll remember that the next time they complain about one of my gay quips.
“By the way, I thought tolerance was a function of nurture, not nature. So what is it? A preference or an orientation? Please advise, as this is very confusing to a straight guy.”
Jeff Young, a New Orleans resident who blogs at “Catholic Foodie,” told the Associated Press that he was offended by the restaurant’s offering even though unconsecrated wafers are “not, for us, the Eucharist.” “This wafer is a symbol. There’s a cross on it. It’s like taking a flag and burning a flag.”
Berkeley’s 8-Year-Old Book-Banner
You may or may not already have read about this. This summer, according to a news story that appeared last week on the website of the Today Show, a woman named Constance Cooper, who identifies herself as a science-fiction writer took her daughter, whose name was given only as KC, to a bookstore, Half Price Books, which is located in Berkeley, California, where Cooper and her daughter live. It was supposed to be a fun expedition, but, as reporter Morgan Brasfield put it, “KC became upset.”
Note to reader: this is a key word here. Upset. Plenty of eight-year-olds, needless to say, get upset all the time. They get upset because they’ve been served baked potatoes instead of French fries. They get upset because they’ve been told to clean up their room, or to turn off the TV or computer, or to go to bed. But no, KC didn’t get upset because of those ordinary kid-type reasons. Because, you see, she’s no ordinary kid. No sirree! She’s a super-kid, of the sort that super parents in super places like Berkeley, California, are raising these days by the truckload. Not to put too fine a point on it, KC got upset because, even at her tender age, she is, doubtless thanks to her mother’s magnificent parenting, possessed of a highly developed sense of justice. Hers, in short, was not an outburst of obnoxious brattiness that should have nipped in the bud with a sharp, disciplinary word, but a worthy display of righteous outrage of the sort modeled by heroes like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks.
“We were browsing around in the bookstore, and suddenly I heard my daughter calling out, ‘Mama! You have to look at this!’” a proud Cooper testified. “So, of course, I thought she’d found something she wanted to buy, but it was completely the opposite. She was looking at two books that had made her so enraged she was actually in tears.” The books were both entitled How To Survive (Almost) Anything. But one was meant for boys and the other for girls. The boys’ book focused on surviving cool stuff like whitewater rapids, frostbite, a shark attack, a polar bear attack, a croc attack, a snake bite, an avalanche, a tornado, and quicksand; the girls’ book was full of entries entitled “How to Survive a Fashion Disaster,” “How to Survive Shyness,” “How to Survive Embarrassment,” “How to Survive a Crush,” and so on. Some of the chapters weren’t even about survival: “How to Pick Perfect Sunglasses.” I will not for a moment challenge the proposition that these books, considered side by side, constitute a pretty open-and-shut case of crude gender stereotyping – although I would hasten to add that if the books did not share a title and pretend to be a matching set, both would sell briskly enough to readers in their target demographics.
KC, if you haven’t guess already, was “upset at the sexist nature of the books.” Why should she, as a girl, be treated as somebody who’s more preoccupied with fashion, shyness, crushes on boys, and other such silliness than with all those big, scary things that might happen to you when you’re out in the wild, living dangerously, the way that both males and females should be allowed to do? So upset was KC about this terrible injustice, in fact, “that a bookstore employee took notice and asked her what was wrong.” KC – who is apparently in no need of instructions about how to survive shyness – readily explained. “After looking through the books,” recounted Cooper, “the employee agreed they were offensive and pulled them from the shelves! She said if she had seen them first they wouldn’t have been there to begin with.” Cooper, in addition to expressing pride in her daughter “for recognizing sexism and for speaking her mind,” gushed with praise for the clerk, who not only for “took action” but “validated my daughter’s feelings.” Cooper also congratulated herself for having raised her daughter “to think critically.”
It doesn’t appear to have occurred to Cooper that KC’s very reaction to the books, and Cooper’s own reaction to her daughter’s reaction, validated – to coin a phrase – the very prejudices they were condemning. Think about it: the book for boys was addressed to hardy tykes who thrill to the idea of venturing far from civilization and facing life-threatening perils; the book for girls was aimed at tender hearts that are crushed by the thought of committing a fashion faux pas. In other words, one book sought to trigger rushes of adrenalin, the other to try to cope with inevitable outbursts of helpless tears over trivial everyday disappointments – thus reinforcing the age-old notion that girls are by nature more emotional than boys, and the corollary proposition that boys should be encouraged to subdue whatever feelings they might have, while girls should be encouraged to embrace, be preoccupied with, and perhaps even cultivate theirs.
And the fact is that despite Cooper’s rhetoric about the evils of sexism, she’s plainly done precisely that. By all indications, she’s trained her daughter, as a chapter in the girls’ book might have put it, “How to Use Your Feelings to Get Your Way.” KC, we’re told, was “upset by the books”; she was “in tears”; the bookstore worker “validated” her “feelings.” KC’s own review of the books, which she posted on Amazon after the traumatic episode, also highlighted her emotional response to this deeply traumatic encounter with views differing from her own: “Do not buy these books for your daughter,” she wrote, “or it may make her cry like I did.” Forget the fearlessness and determination of, say, Harriet Tubman or Amelia Earhart or Aung San Suu Kyi or Ayaan Hirsi Ali; this is twenty-first-century establishment feminism in a nutshell: “You hurt my feelings!” “You offended me!” “You made me cry!”
The story at Today‘s website seemed to imply throughout that both Cooper and her daughter deserve a pat on the back for creating this incident and drawing outside attention to it. “Cooper,” wrote Brasfield with apparent admiration, “describes her 8-year-old as articulate, passionate and a great reader, qualities parents hope their children exhibit as they grow.” (Similarly, a Huffington Post writer, citing Cooper’s pride in KC’s ability to spot sexism and speak her mind, commented: “Perhaps next time, the How To Survive books should have added chapters on those skills, instead.”) Here’s one curious detail, however: the web page on which Brasfield’s piece appeared was in fact part of a subsidiary Today Show site called “Moms.” Not “Moms and Dads.” Not “Parents.” Just “Moms.” Isn’t that sexist? What, don’t fathers care about their kids? Brasfield’s piece actually ran under the heading “Mom Topics.” What could be more offensive, more demeaning, more profoundly distressing to a proud feminist? Is KC going to kick up a ruckus over this, too?
It should be noted, by the way, that the Today website, in an update to its story, informed readers that the Berkeley bookstore’s manager had issued a clarification: contrary to Cooper’s triumphant original report, the two offending books had not been removed entirely from display, but only transferred to a “less prominent area of the children’s section.” The manager explained: “While we certainly understand why the books upset her and commend the girl for speaking out against stereotypical portrayals of gender roles in books, I would like to stress that we are strong advocates of First Amendment rights and do not advocate censorship or removal of ‘objectionable’ books from circulation.”
Interesting. While there’s nothing in the First Amendment, of course, to prohibit a bookstore from banning any book from its shelves, the bookstore manager’s sentiment is commendable. Too bad Cooper couldn’t find time to instruct her daughter in that whole Voltaire thing about tolerating – and even defending – the freedom of expression of people with whom one disagrees, including those with whom one disagrees violently. No, Cooper, like all too many parents nowadays who consider themselves eminently enlightened (and not just parents in Berkeley, either), was too busy raising her kid to be a pint-sized commissar – an officer in the PC Thought Police. Well, such is the Brave New World we’re living in – and, even more so, the one we’re transitioning into. The future of America – and of freedom – could not be in scarier hands.
Australia: No excuses for Aboriginal brutality to women and children
IN 2010, Ernest Munda of Fitzroy Crossing in Western Australia killed his common law wife of 16 years, with whom he had four children. He was sentenced to prison for seven years and nine months, with a non-parole period of three years and three months.
The taxpayer funded an appeal to the High Court that his sentence was too harsh. He claimed that the Court of Appeal of Western Australia failed to have "proper regard" to his personal circumstances as a "traditional" Aboriginal man. In particular, "an environment in which the abuse of alcohol is endemic in indigenous communities", was not taken into account.
The High Court knocked him back. The court reiterated that while a person's background could play a part in mitigation, it needed to be "weighed by the sentencing judge". At present, judges have discretion, but in future, if Aboriginal culture is recognised in the Constitution, do not be surprised if the likes of Ernest Munda get lighter sentences.
The desire among many for Aboriginal recognition in the Constitution is genuine and there is a very real possibility of a "yes" case succeeding. The task ahead for sensible people is to draft a yes case that eliminates the risk that bad behaviour will be excused.
The "experts" who advised the Gillard government, recommended, among other things, "respecting the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples". This inclusion will increase the likelihood of a "Munda appeal" succeeding.
Just so the foolishness of the cultural recognition proposition is understood, here are the facts of the Munda case.
Munda and his common law wife were drunk and Munda had used cannabis. The pair argued. Munda punched his wife, threw her about the bedroom and repeatedly rammed her head into the walls. Munda "caused the deceased to fall on to a bed mattress". He then stood over her and repeatedly punched her in the face. The next morning, Munda had sexual intercourse with his wife. He then left the house to get some tea. When Munda returned, his wife was dead.
She had died from traumatic brain injury. She also had a fracture to her left jaw and broken ribs. In 2009, Munda had been sentenced to 12 months' jail, suspended for 12 months, for "unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm" to his wife. The injuries included a fractured femur, tibia and right radius as well as deep lacerations to her forehead inflicted by a metal shovel. Earlier in 2009, Munda was also sentenced to six months' jail, suspended for 12 months, for common assault upon his 13-year-old niece and the ex-partner of Munda's sister.
This is a sick culture. And it is a weak society that pays for this person to go to the High Court of Australia to attempt to get less than three years and three months in jail for his horrific crime. Politicians and Aboriginal leaders who want you to vote to change the Constitution to make it possible for the likes of Munda to spend less time in jail should be ashamed.
These cases are not rare. In 2005, a "traditional" man who anally raped his 14-year-old promised bride was convicted to 24 months for "assault and unlawful sexual intercourse", which in effect had him released after one month. The Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory heard the appeal and marginally increased the sentence.
Sitting in the old man's settlement of Yarralin for sentencing, Brian Martin, then chief justice of the NT Supreme Court, made the following sentencing remarks to the convicted man. "I accept that these offences occurred because the young child had been promised to you. This is not a case where you simply sought out a young child for sexual gratification ... I have a great deal of sympathy for you and the difficulties attached to transition from traditional Aboriginal culture and laws as you understand them to be, to obeying the Northern Territory law."
An alternative yes case is to recognise the historical truth in a preamble to the Constitution: that an Aboriginal people lived on the continent before its settlement by the British.
The experts also recommended "recognising that the continent and its islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples". This is sensible, as long as it sits in a preamble. The Constitution is not a storybook, it is a rule book, and every Australian should play by the same rules.
Presently, judges have discretion in sentencing. If you want to look after the Ernest Mundas of the world, go ahead and vote yes for "cultural" recognition. If you are for human rights, then vote yes for "historic" recognition.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.