Deporting a serial sex offender would breach human rights
Mohammed Kendeh, 20, a serial sex offender from Sierra Leone has been allowed to stay in Britain after a judge ruled that deporting him would breach his human rights. The case echoes the decision in August of Learco Chindamo. It is claimed that it will embarrass Gordon Brown who has pledged to deport foreign nationals who are convicted of crimes in this country. However, I don't think it is a good idea for a politician to get personally involved in judicial cases just to placate the tabloids. Knee-jerkism is not the best way to think out policy. Whilst I have sympathy for this victim, I think her mentality is flawed by this statement: "How is it right that somebody who has offended so seriously against defenceless women is allowed to remain in this country?" she said. "It is a farce". What if the offence had been committed by an Englishman? There would be no calls to deport him. I think it is wrong to seek to deport foreigners as it amounts to an additional punishment reserved for non-British persons. It is the conduct and the person deserving punishment and not nationality.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
5 comments:
And crash we hear another of El Gordon's policys crash an burn. Still you got to love the soundbite politics.
Mind you I am sure that this chaps next victim will be so pleased with the justices decision.
Maybe they could try a control order after all they were so sucessful, aside from the ones who legged it that is....
"Whilst I have sympathy for this victim, I think her mentality is flawed …"
I think it is you who have the flawed mentality Mr. Career criminal who thinks that studying a bit of law and eventually condescending to grasp the olive branch that society has offered you makes you superior to an innocent and decent woman who has never committed any crime. You should be ashamed of yourself for that statement alone.
As I recall it wasn't so long ago that we did deport Englishmen who committed crime to the penal colonies and it was only their independence which prevented the continuation of that policy.
The central issue to this case is not deportation as such, it is that fact that he represents an ongoing threat to British women who's human rights also have to be protected. He committed this last offence following early release which he never should have been granted in the first place.
wolfie: You can huff and puff all you want but you won't blow this house down.
Whilst we agree that he may well pose an ongoing risk to women, it is difficult to see why the judge did not impose an Indeterminate Public Protection sentence. He has quite a track record and would appear to be a ideal candidate for this type of sentence.
I still feel that deportation orders following conviction and sentence amount to racial discrimination.
Seeing as your counterargument includes a nursery rhyme I rest my case.
Sod human rights, there is no such thing. Neither you nor I nor anyone has any "right" to anything at all in this world. I mean, for example, what is the bloody point of enshrining in law the "right" not be tortured? What does that actually mean, at the end of the day?
If you're surrounded by people who are about to torture you, can you wave a bit of paper in front of them and say "er, sorry, chaps, you have no RIGHT to do this"? Oh yeah, that'll work, that will make them think again, yeah RIGHT. What a pile of crud.
The only thing the law needs to ever say is "to do such-and-such is wrong, and if you do it, we will punish you in this way". The whole concept of "rights" doesn't need to enter into it at all.
The law should limit itself to define and punish human wrongs, not rights.
Post a Comment