Thursday, August 6, 2009

Black Drug Dealer claims to be Lesbian to escape being deported back to her home country.

Dear All

One of the problems with the Human Rights Act 1998 is that it has opened the floodgates to bogus claims to circumvent the law.

A Jamaican drug dealing prisoner is using the act to fight a deportation order by claiming is a lesbian.

Her quest is being funded by the English Legal Aid Board and is now underway to determine whether she is truly a lesbian or merely manipulating the system.

The woman claims that deporting her would be a violation of her human rights.

The woman’s claims centre on the fact that while she was locked up for conspiring to supply class A drugs; she had a string of lesbian affairs.

In the past she has already had two attempts at this and in both cases her claims were rejected.

In order to pad out her claim she has further claimed that she was raped as a child in Jamaica and fled the Caribbean to escape criminal gangs.

This begs the question if she was escaping a life of crime then why was she supplying Class A drugs?

So now, three of the country's most senior judges are giving her a third crack to prove her lesbianism at a third tribunal hearing.

The cost of this nonsense to date is likely to run into tens of thousands of pounds from the public purse.

In November last year, a tribunal found that, on arriving in London as a teenager, the woman began to ‘experiment with different types of sexual identity’.
After she was jailed in 2005, she carried that through to the all-female prison, where there was ‘no alternative except celibacy’ to sex with other prisoners.

As to her current lesbian partner a previous tribunal said she was ‘well able to manipulate’ her current lesbian partner, whose passion she had not reciprocated and who she was ‘using’ as a means of bolstering her campaign to stay in Britain. They declared the relationship was “not genuine”.

Her entire case in my opinion is nothing more than a sham and she should be permanently deported back to Jamaica after her sentence is complete.

The new hearing should look at Article 8.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

She has no case of merit.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

No comments: