Thursday, February 18, 2016
Rochdale child sex grooming gang ringleader Shabir Ahmed convicted of 30 rapes wants to use human rights to avoid being deported back to Pakistan, he says his trial was 'tainted', a 'miscarriage of justice' and 'institutionally racist', this is one case where deportation is required to safeguard all of society
Do you believe in justice?
The obvious answer for most people regardless of religion or race is yes, fundamentally we like to believe that most people are good, and in some ways they hold the same values as us.
There are of course people who aren’t, although no one is born evil, they can become evil over time.
One such character is Shabir Ahmed, he is a paedophile; he is also the ringleader of a Rochdale child sex grooming gang. A judge has described him as a 'violent hypocritical bully', the scale of his criminality is long and sustained; he has been convicted of 30 rapes.
I am a big believer in human rights; it is one of the better aspects of the European Union which has helped Britain become the nation that we recognise today. The problem with human rights is generally not the rights themselves but the wrong judgments applied; this has always been the flaw of human rights, human error.
Paedophile Shabir Ahmed is using European human rights laws in an attempt to avoid being deported out of Britain. Under Article 8.2, the State has the right to remove from society anyone who represents a danger to national security. In other words, if a judge says you are too dangerous to be allowed into society you can be deported back to your country of origin.
How do we know that Article 8.2 works!
We know it works this because if it didn’t then no one would be in prison, think about that for a moment, imprisonment is a legal exception to right to a family life. However, there are safeguards in place in the form of a trial, how it is conducted, access to evidence etc etc, let’s face it you know the script.
So a mechanism to deport people deemed a threat exists, in the case of Shabir Ahmed, he is a clear candidate for the removal of his citizenship and deportation back to Pakistan. Ahmed should do every day of his sentence and when he reaches the end he should be put on a plane back to his home country, after 22 years in jail.
The girls that he and his gang raped were as young as 13 years old.
Ahmed appeared before the First Tier Immigration Tribunal to appeal against the decision by Secretary of State Theresa May to strip him of his British citizenship, the first stage in the deportation process. His case against this deportation has an all too familiar route, play the race. As well as being unhappy about being deported, Ahmed had an issue with Theresa May, the Home Secretary when he uttered:
'She (Theresa May) says all her trouble is coming from Muslims, yet she's the biggest trouble causer in the world.'
Obviously Ahmed should realise that his limited defence is so weak, he should shut up, ‘she's the biggest trouble causer in the world', I personally doubt the First Tier Immigration Tribunal will swallow that line.
He also added, which made this story of interest to me to blog that he was convicted by 'eleven white jurors', adding:
'It's become fashionable to blame everything on Muslims these days.'
Is he seriously suggesting that if 11 Muslims sat on that jury and listened to his catalogue of serial rape that they would let him go free?
Is his claim that it is ‘become fashionable to blame everything on Muslims these days', does that hold any water? If you look at the European migrant crisis, the criminality which has increased drastically isn’t down to the ingenious population; it is down to migrants committing crime like rape, especially in places like Sweden, and of course who can forget the fury of public opinion about the Cologne attacks.
Vinesh Mandalia, representing the Home Office, told the tribunal the Home Sec had exercised her right as the Home Office minister to deprive Ahmed of British citizenship 'if it is conducive to public good'.
And it is right.
What is most telling about Ahmed’s yarn, and that is what it is, is when he rattled off that the conviction is unsafe on the basis it was a conspiracy by everyone involved. Presumably that included the under aged girls who were only 13 years olds, everyone according to him is out to get him, and for good measure, we must chuck in the judge and the jury. According to Ahmed's appeal, he states his trial was 'tainted' and a 'miscarriage of justice' as it was 'institutionally racist' using Muslims as 'scapegoats'.
That defence will hold no water with anyone whether they are involved in the legal process here in Britain or in Europe, he might as well say his trial was unfair because no one has painted yellow lines outside the court so no one could park. You don’t have to know anything about law or human rights to see this as what it is, and that is bollocks, personally I think his lawyer wants shot of him to Pakistan.
Another man also in line for deportation is Qari Abdul Rauf, this guy trafficked a girl, aged 15, in the UK for sex while at the same time acted as a religious studies teacher at a mosque in Rochdale. Apparently, he burst into tears and asked the immigration tribunal for 'mercy' and that he 'wanted a second chance'.
If his case was something minor, unpaid parking tickets, not paying his TV licence, involved in accident or breach of the peace, you could think, punish him, teach him a lesson, and then let him travel on his way, hopefully wiser.
But this is a minor offence, this offence is right up in the most seriousness of criminality, he is a paedophile who represents a danger to children. He was also part of a gang; this cannot be forgotten or indeed forgiven. He should be any stretch of the imagination be stripped of citizenship and deported, and banned from ever setting foot in Britain again. What people like Shabir Ahmed and Qari Abdul Rauf count on is that human rights are away of escaping justice, in fact applied properly human rights are the very mechanism should see them deported.
Article 8.2 is the perfect law for their removal; their presence is a threat to national security, security of the people and social cohesion. Where there is crime in society, there is no justice!
Because of bad decisions on matters relating to human rights, there is a popular feeling that the Human Rights Act 1998 should be repealed, the Conservatives wish to replace it by what they call a ‘Bill of Rights’.
We need as I have always blogged, ‘better’ judges, not ‘better’ legislation. Of course when you make your case and use Pakistani paedophiles and rapists cases, the heavy lifting of argument is removed by emotion, and law isn’t about emotion, it’s about justice.
And to prove my point of needing 'better' judges, read this:
Funny, how I see to be able to call it right time and time again!
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University