The media bias of the Telegraph

The media bias of the Telegraph

Under a section headed Immigration the Telegraph reports

Foreign criminals win 'family life' cases

A killer and a rapist have used human rights laws to avoid being deported from Britain for their crimes, it can be disclosed.

On the left is a photo of a family man holding a baby as he bottle feeds it. On the right is a photo, giving the impression of a monster, of the man who killed the man on the left in a car crash, his family are not shown in the photo. It would appear that the impression is meant to portray family man killed by man without a family. To be sure the family life of those who have lost their loved one will suffer. But is it right to make the family of the criminal suffer as a consequence of his crime? Are they not just as innocent as the bereaved family?

Back to the killer and the rapist.

"Both claimed that their “right to family life” trumped the decision of Theresa May, the Home Secretary, that their crimes meant they should be removed from the country".

In both cases the men appealed against their deportation orders issued by the Home Office, and the Immigration tribunal ruled in their favour. This appears to have upset the Telegraph.

"In the cases revealed today, both men should have automatically been deported from Britain because of the severity of their crimes".

That's the view of the Telegraph based upon Home Office delegated legislation. However the UK signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, and the men invoked Article 8(1) which has been incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998. Both of these are intended to prevent abuse of power by the State. In these two cases, it is clear that both men should not have automatically been deported simply because of the severity of their crimes because to do so would have breached their human right to a family life. Therefore, not only is the Home office wrong but also the Telegraph is wrong. We know that two wrongs do not make a right.

The Telegraph reports

"The cases are the latest - and among the most serious - examples of how the courts have used human rights legislation’s contentious Article Eight, which says that everyone has the “right to a family life”, to overrule attempts to deport serious criminals and illegal immigrants".

It would appear that the Telegraph is upset that the courts are applying the law. When I studied law I got the impression that it is the role of the courts to apply the law, once Parliament had passed the law. The Telegraph's attack upon the courts is unjustified. The men have used Article 8 as is their right to do so, and Article 8 does fall under human rights legislation. The courts have rightly applied it. I see nothing contentious in Article 8. I suspect that the Telegraph has a hidden agenda. Attempts to deport serious criminals and illegal immigrants would not be thwarted by the courts if the Home Office rules and policies and practices fully complied with the law.

According to the Telegraph

"Critics said the nature of the family life which they used to stay in the country raised questions over the judgments".

The Telegraph wheels out its pet parrot sat on his perch

"Dominic Raab, a Tory MP who is campaigning to change the law on Article 8, said: “The public interest in deporting a rapist and someone who killed an innocent man by driving whilst on heroin is overwhelming.

“Cases like these highlight the need for reform, both to protect the public and to re-assert democratic control over the ever-expanding judicial inflation of human rights.”

Full details of the Winfield rape cannot be reported for legal reasons, but Mr Raab said the grounds of the rapist’s family life claim “made a mockery” of human rights laws".

Who appointed Dominic Raab as the judge of what is in the public interest? Nobody but himself. As a campaigner this self-appointed judge of what is in the public interest has his own agenda. According to his model public protection is arrived at by controlling the courts. This is advocating a totalitarian or authoritarian regime. I would contend that this extremism is not in the public interest and would offer no public protection. Raab grew up in Buckinghamshire, to a Czech father, who came to Britain in 1938 as a Jewish refugee. Given that Raab's own father fled to this country to escape Hitler's totalitarian or authoritarian regime, it beggars belief that he now wants to see this country embrace what the Convention was set up to prevent ever happening again.

The Telegraph wheels out it's other pet parrot

"David Davis MP, the former shadow home secretary, said: “The case for reform is incontestable. Yet again these cases demonstrate the clear need to re-think Article 8 and therefore the Human Rights Act itself.”".

Yet another right wing extremist. David Davis has not made any argument that there is a case for reform. It would appear that just because he says there should be reform this becomes incontestable. I would contest it. The cases do not demonstrate the clear need to re-think Article 8 and therefore the Human Rights Act itself. The cases show that Article 8 is serving its purpose. If David Davis wants a clear case for amending the Human Rights Act, he only has to look at Hirst v UK (No2) and Alex Bailin QC's view that the case shows the Act to be toothless.

All Dominic Raab and David Davis have demonstrated is that they are both dishonest and that they cannot be trusted in power.

Phil Woolas makes a fool of himself. According to the Telegraph he "warned that the way the judges used the human rights act prevented the operation of a proper immigration policy". On the contrary, it shows that it is an improper immigration policy.

According to Woolas “The root of the problem is that the original human rights rules gave protection against persecution to citizens of Europe,” he said.

“Yet over the years, judges’ decisions have extended these rights to people who are simply in Europe.”

Under EU law the killer and rapist are citizens in the UK, and by extension citizens of Europe. Because the UK joined Europe, the killer and rapist are simply in Europe.

Once time for the crime is served, as in these cases, it is persecution to attempt to send them into exile.

The Telegraph then solicits stupid comments from Yvonne Traynor, of the National Sexual Violence Helpline, which are then printed. She said: “Is this what our immigration laws are for, to give sanctuary to perpetrators of sexual violence and allow them the freedom to rape again?

“What happened to the rights for women to be safe in their own country?”

She added: “Surely someone has to see the danger in this ruling - that it sets a precedent. We will have scores of rapists, murderers and paedophiles queuing up to stay here.”

I don't believe that is the purpose of our immigration laws at all. There is no evidence to suggest that the rapist will commit another rape. And if he does, no doubt the law will deal with him.

Women also have human rights which can used against the State if the State abuses them. Neither the Convention nor HRA is designed to protect citizen against citizen, this is a matter for public and private law. Murders, rapists and paedophiles born in this country cannot face deportation. Therefore, the policy is only aimed at foreigners. It is arguably xenophobic and racist.

The Telegraph gives the Home Office the final say

A Home Office spokesman said: “It is unacceptable that the Human Rights Act is being used to prevent removal of foreign criminals and immigration offenders.

“This is why we will change the immigration rules to prevent those abuses and ensure a better balance with human rights in the wider public interest.”

I would contend that it is unacceptable for someone employed in the Home Office to criticise the Human Rights Act and the judges using the legislation in their decisions. Any changes to the immigration rules must be compatible with the HRA. I would contend that the Home Office should concentrate on its own abuses. Human rights are not some kind of balancing act. All human beings are entitled to them. Surely it is in the wider public interest that human rights are protected and not abolished?

It is clear from the article that the Telegraph is guilty of displaying media bias. Some sections of the media are opposed to Article 8 because of their desire to invade some people's right to privacy. I am a firm believer of the freedom of the press. I also believe that the media has a responsibility to report accurately and without bias.