warrenm2

I usually follow this type of Government abuse of power story avidly, but this one came out of nowhere for me. Not content with the Civil Contingencies Bill (which means the Home Secetary can effectively declare an emergency and make himself a dictator), but he can now revoke a citizenship on his whim and say-so with no recourse to the courts. This power was used recently in the following case. Not saying this guy concerned is a saint, but I AM saying the process and powers used were wrong, and should be revoked. Shocking stuff if you can be bothered to give s**t and read it Apparently this case has not appearred in the British media AT ALL (at least the Home Secetary bit anyway).

http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/09/...ame-of-it-all/

r32

Any one actually read 'Animal Farm' its where we are with New Labour.

KiwiGTI

Who cares, no normal person will ever bed affected.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

So an Australian is being held as a terrorist and his own country accepts that this is his fate. So, not being satisfied with this he forces another country where there is a thin legal thread to confer him citizenship which is granted and then revoked as the most significant ally of that country is holding him as a terrorist. And you think this is a bad thing.

I think your ire should be pointed at the country of his birth for abandoning him.



In terms of revoking citizenship I don't think you will find such emergency powers unique to this country. Indeed I would suspect the ability to 'exile' an individual or group has existed pretty much as long as social and territorial structures have existed over the last six or seven thousand years.

I am damn sure that if the tables were turned and it was a story about some known Muslim terrorist asserting protectorate of the United Kingdom that you would be up in arms about that too.

That is why this country may not be going to the dogs but has a lot of dogs in it.

Rannoch

DCI Gene Hunt

Wish I could be exiled to St Lucia........... "It's tooootaaaall gridlock, ma'n"

Paul3446

So have I got this right? An Australian, who is being detained in Guantanamo Bay on suspicion of terrorism is trying to gain British citizenship on a technicality? We are not allowing him to do so, where's the problem?

KiwiGTI

Why? I believe people who are involved in that sort of activity lose any human rights full stop.

Leslie

Since he is entitled to British Citizenship, I find it hard to believe the the Home Secretary can do this. This is yet another nasty part of the secret agenda.

It a short step from Animal Farm to 1984!

Les

DCI Gene Hunt

Isn't this the plot from Star Wars 'Attack of the Clones' & 'Revenge of the Sith'

stilover

Agreed.

I don't want my Tax money spent trying to get this guy out of jail. If released he would then come to live in Britain, no doubt claiming a free house. Either Austrailia fights his case and allows him back in, or if he is a terrorist, let him rot in jail.

Leslie

But we don't know if he is a terrorist do we. No chance to prove anything in Guatanamo!

Les

Paul3446

But what's it got to do with Britain, the guy is an Australian citizen!

Are we expected to get everyone out of Guantanamo, no matter what country they come from?

GaryK

Exactly Paul!

We're only involved because we're the lamest country on the planet, the only ones who listen and worse still using tax payers money getting involved in $hit that we dont need to!

Who gives a f**k what the guy has/hasnt done he's in GB for a *reason* and
the aussies dont pi$$ around which is why they dont want him.

warrenm2

I clearly need to reiterate my original comment.
"Not saying this guy concerned is a saint, but I AM saying the process and powers used were wrong, and should be revoked"

I am saying the ability of the Home Secetary to arbitarily decide - WITHOUT USING THE COURTS - that someone should be stripped of their citizenship, is wrong and this power should be revoked.

I am making no comments as to the particular merits of the case, I am saying the Home Secetary has too much uncontested power.

Is that clearer?

Paul3446

No that's not clearer!

We give far too many people citizenship IMO, this bloke has only applied for it because he's in deep sh*t and reckons we're a soft touch.

I would like it if more people were denied citizenship, not less.

Paul3446

If the Home Secretary had to go to the courts, some do gooder lefty civil rights person would take pity on this bloke and he'd be sponging off British tax payers for the rest of his life!

warrenm2

OK to make it EVEN CLEARER - I agree that had I had any influence in the matter I would not give the guy citizenship. However to remove the checks of balances of the courts (whatever you think of them) on the Governments power is a one way ticket to totalitarianism. Do you want that? I say again, regardless of the particular case, it is wrong that the HS can arbitarily decide on citizenship and this power should be revoked.

warrenm2

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Carefull, with that sort of agenda UncleBuck will be along telling you how politically correct you have become.

Which would indeed be true if your energy was not so obviously focused in a discriminatory way.

Rannoch

SJ_Skyline

Spot on warrenm2

stilover

One of the problems in this country is the court system. How many times has the Government tried to bring in law's to stop imigrants/Asylum seekers coming into the country, only for some Judge to rule it would be against an imigrants human rights to refuse him access?
If Citizenship was down to the courts, then as said above, the Human rights brigade would cause uproar. As we know, the minority get listened to more than the majority.
The home Secratary should have more powers. Certain things just need to be done/said that is for the best of the UK and it's law abiding citizens, rather than spending time and tax payers money stringing thing like this along.

One of the reasons these thing end up in UK courts, is Solicitors are earning a fortune representing Imigrants/Asylum seekers/Terrorists, as they get the money (legal aid) straight off the Government. Bit like that Woman Muslim Lawyer, who until a few years ago dressed and behaved just like you and me. When she saw a opening to earn lots of cash representing Muslims in the courts, she suddenly dressed like a Ninja and preached all that Muslim cr@p. She's representing most of the arrested terrorist suspects.


She's now a Millionaire from legal fee's that you and me pay for.

warrenm2

Actaully the courts were doing a good job of impleting **** legislation (which by the way is EU inspired). Simple answer repeal the badly drafted HR act. Not the courts fault (in this case)

Bubba po

It's about time they came for the ****-stirrers. I'm not going to speak up.