Post B7SI5olo2BEB3LdKXw by HebrideanHecate@spinster.xyz
 (DIR) More posts by HebrideanHecate@spinster.xyz
 (DIR) Post #B7SI55jnSnslO5LafQ by HebrideanHecate@spinster.xyz
       0 likes, 1 repeats
       
       https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15907203/Judge-granted-Jamaican-paedophile-right-enter-Britain-barring-breach-human-rights.htmlImmigration judges granted a convicted child sex offender the right to enter Britain after ruling that barring him would breach his human rights. The latest shocking example of a ‘deeply perverse’ ruling from the immigration courts involves Jamaican paedophile Oniel Spence, who was jailed in the United States for a sexual offence against a 15-year-old girl. Details of the case are revealed by the Daily Mail for the first time today after shadow home secretary Chris Philp this week blasted judges’ ‘tyranny’ over the immigration system. Spence, now 43, applied to come to the UK in 2023 to join his wife and child - who are both British nationals - but was blocked by the Home Office.Officials barred his application on the grounds his exclusion was ‘conducive to the public good’. The paedophile then lodged an appeal at the lower immigration tribunal and won permission to come here from immigration judge Jonathan Greer. His lawyers argued preventing him from entering Britain had breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which covers the right to ‘private and family life’. The Home Secretary at the time, Yvette Cooper, appealed to the upper immigration tribunal against the decision. But judges Madeleine Reeds and Nathan Moxon refused her arguments. Current Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood then brought a further case at the Court of Appeal. Earlier this month senior judges overturned the original decision, describing it as ‘perverse’, and ordered the case to be re-heard by the first-tier tribunal. It means Spence could still win his case in a future re-hearing.
       
 (DIR) Post #B7SI5oZ2nd1GPlf8ee by Gnomeshatecheese@spinster.xyz
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @HebrideanHecate the right to ‘private and family life’.  Question.  Why does this mean the right to this particular private and family life, rather than right to it in general? It seems to me one could well argue that the same principle is not applied evenly, seeing as the convention allows the prohibition of incest by law. So clearly, the protection does not necessarily apply to any specific form of "family life".  Also, articles 9 and 10 (conscience and religion, and expression, respectively) allow for restrictions, so clearly any particular belief or expression doesn't automatically fall under the protection of the articles.  This man would not be prevented from having a family life if he had to stay in the U.S. He could either have his family join him there, or he could divorce his wife and start another family* (personally, I side-eye his wife if she's willing to be reunited with him, given his conviction and them having a child). Not being allowed in the U.K. doesn't prevent him from taking either option, thus it doesn't prevent him from having a "private and family life". *Whether him starting another family would be desirable is irrelevant to the point I'm attempting to make here. My personal opinion is that it is very much not desirable.
       
 (DIR) Post #B7SI5olo2BEB3LdKXw by HebrideanHecate@spinster.xyz
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Gnomeshatecheese Why would any woman want that near her or her child!