When we step in dog poo in the street it is normal to scrape it off if you can with a stick and then carry on with the day. But what of the dangerous human turds that come here, not always with good intentions, who we cannot scrape off? Who our judges forbid us as a nation to scrape off?
Such an unwanted Human Turd is the man the Daily Mirror refer to as Mr X. A man who has close associates with Islamic terrorist groups, including Al-Quaida, who has been repeatedly refused asylum in the UK but who we cannot get rid of because of Labour’s Human Rights Act.
The Daily Mirror said:
“An Iraqi suspected of being involved with al-Qaeda by MI5 has used the Human Rights Act to stay in Britain.
The alleged terror plotter was once regarded as a threat to the public and national security and was the subject of a control order, similar to those imposed on hate preachers Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza.
We have called him Mr X because we are banned from revealing his real name and the location of a mosque in the east of England where he allegedly met with six other extremists.
Patrick Mercer MP, a former army intelligence officer, said: “This shows the Human Rights Act needs to be repealed. We can’t claim to be a sovereign country when foreign powers impose these sorts of laws upon our courts. This man could clearly be dangerous to the British public.”
Mr X, a Muslim from Mosul, was monitored by MI5 for a year from July 2006 because it suspected he was an associate of a known terrorist and hate preacher, identified in court as AE, who had links to militant Islamic groups including Ansar Al Islam, Ansar Al Sunnah and al-Qaeda.”
So here we have someone who is pretty obviously not conducive to the public good but we cannot expel him or intern him because the courts are shackled with legislation that too often appears to favour rapists, murderers, scroungers and traitors. Although I believe that the state should not oppress its people, the state also has a duty to protect its people and allowing people like Mr X to stay goes against that duty of protection.
The Daily Mirror added:
“Mr X, who brought his Iraqi wife into the country in 2010, had failed a number of times to claim asylum since 2002, including once when he claimed he had been framed for murder in Iraq.
An immigration judge ruled in November Iraqi authorities knew of his alleged links to al-Qaeda and could torture him if he was sent back. The judge added: “There is also a risk of execution.”
Mr X’s wife was also granted asylum after the judge said she would also “face persecution as the closest family member of her husband who will be suspected as a Sunni terrorist”. Both were granted anonymity.”
Read the rest of the Daily Mirror story here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/al-qaeda-terror-suspect-cant-deported-1771616
Risk of execution, Hmm! It’s hard to express the level of ‘f**k that I do not give’ about that one. So a foreign guilty wrong’un gets executed, big deal. I used to be opposed to the death penalty but lately I’ve seen that it does have a place in punishment, if not for all killings but certainly where it is specifically justified for example after the Nuremberg Trials and for those like the murderers Christie and Haigh and genocidal tyrants like Saddam.
Because of the HRA we now have let stay amongst us, someone who would have no hesitation about killing Britons or harming this country, and who it seems is the subject of credible suspicions about terrorist activity overseas. I would love to know why he has been granted anonymity. If it is for national security reasons and this person is connected with an ongoing investigation then fair enough, but if, as is more than likely, that this anonymity was given for HRA ‘right to a family life’ reasons then that is a disgusting misuse of law.
We need to see who our enemies are, especially when they do not wear uniforms. The arguments and ideologies of such people cannot be countered unless they and their views can be argued with and about.
Labour’s Human Rights Act has given a quick and easy path for entry to and permanant residence in the UK for those people who wish to destroy us. The HRA is a slow-fused time bomb under British people, British culture and British sovereignty. Labour brought in some terrible pieces of legislation, but unless the HRA is replaced by a British Bill of Rights, which doesn’t apply to treasonous aliens like Mr X, then Britain will continue to be swamped by foreign chancers and seditionaires. I cannot accept that such an dire outcome of the HRA was the intent of the original, and British, framers of the European Convention of Human Rights after World War II. The Convention has been extended by idiot politicians and venal and ideologically-driven lawyers into areas that it should never have gone.
We need as a nation to reclaim our rights to remove those who would wish to harm us.
We also require knowledge of who exactly is planning to harm us. Do you know who Mr X is because, apart from the security caveat given above, there seems no legitimate reason why the public should not know who he is?
In Britain there is limited disclosure about the identities of convicted child-sex offenders in order to protect children, should there not be disclosure of men like Mr X who follow alien oppressive ideologies which they wish to impose on the UK?