How 'human rights' gets a bad name...

This is a helpful email from Steve Crowther, Interim Leader of UKIP. It's worth reading as the subject will not be mentioned in the mainstream media as we know.

Europe’s ‘human rights’ responsible for Barcelona massacre

So… the ‘imam’ who planned the destruction of the Sagrada Familia and built a 12-strong terrorist cell of indoctrinated youths who murdered 15 people and injured 150 others, was a convicted drug smuggler with properties in both Morocco and Spain; who Spanish judges refused to deport after his prison sentence on the grounds of his ‘human rights’; then successfully claimed asylum, gaining access to free movement around Europe, which he used to liaise with terror cells in Belgium and elsewhere before he accidentally blew himself up and his death-eaters went on their final rampage.



Apparently he was ‘unfailingly courteous’ and so ‘evaded scrutiny’ – though how one evades scrutiny while being a convicted drug smuggler and applying for asylum while regularly visiting the country one is supposed to be escaping from, is hard to fathom. Let alone when one has been recorded as having links to jihadi bombers both inside and outside prison. But hey, he was clearly a reformed character, having renounced his previous life of crime and become an ‘imam’. Nothing to worry about there.



The Muslim community in the town he visited in Belgium actually flagged him to the Belgian authorities, and one mosque refused to employ him; but he was not regarded as a risk. Small wonder that the Chief Rabbi in Barcelona is advising Jews to leave 
Europe.



Most of the story above is of authorities struggling and failing in the unequal task of trying to detect every needle in every haystack. We should not condemn them for it.



The thing that stands out most starkly is that a convicted drug smuggler from a country which is not at war, can claim asylum in Europe and escape deportation back to a country he visits regularly, on the grounds that it would breach the EU’s idea of his ‘human rights’. 


This is the fault of stupid people in Europe – politicians, activists, lawyers and judges – who are bent on destroying us all in the name of ‘progressive’ politics.


John Bickley highlighted the continued dangers posed by illegal immigration into Spain only this week

http://www.ukip.org/spain_picks_up_600_migrants_in_24_hrs_off_gibraltar_it_will_only_end_when_we_stop_the_boats



Our Brexit mission is clear: We Must Have Border Controls




Meanwhile, the Home Office has embarrassed itself by sending out 100 letters to EU citizens in the UK incorrectly ordering them to clear out within a month.



Not just an embarrassment, though. Last week George Osborne’s Evening Standard – increasingly the snidest voice of the Remain saboteur class – stated that it was ‘common knowledge’ that the Government would not have the new computers, processes and staff to implement proper immigration and border controls upon Brexit in March 2019. 



‘Common knowledge’ in Westminster and Whitehall, perhaps; the rest of us had assumed they were making some sort of significant effort to do this, since it is the main thing we voted for last year.



Suddenly the idea mooted last week, of keeping the borders open to EU citizens but requiring employees to self-regulate and employers to act as unofficial (but liable) border guards, makes sense – if you are an incompetent government that has forgotten to make any plans for upgrading your border controls, despite three years’ notice.



This is the primary campaign for UKIP now. While the EU demonstrates that not only is it incapable of policing its external borders, it is actively using its own institutions to ensure that terrorists stay within them, we cannot possibly allow government incompetence to leave our borders open.

Meanwhile this week…

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, has announced a crackdown on online ‘hate crime’. 



‘Hate crime’ is defined by the CPS as a criminal offence . . . “perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.” 



In order to treat a crime as a hate crime for the purposes of investigation, there is no need for evidence to prove the aggravating element. CPS



Ms Saunders said: “Left unchallenged, even low-level offending can subsequently fuel the kind of dangerous hostility that has been plastered across our media in recent days. That is why countering it is a priority for the CPS.”



“I have made tackling hate crime one of my priorities… We need to make sure people are able to recognise when they’ve been a victim of hate crime.” Robert Buckland, Solicitor General (Conservative)



CPS guidance says hate crimes must be motivated by hostility such as “ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike”.



Please be aware that, from now on, you may be criminally liable for writing online something which is unfriendly to someone who perceives that you have been unfriendly to them because you perceive them to be a Christian, even if they are not.



NOTE: This is a very successful area of our legal system, with a reported 83% rate of successful prosecution. The rate of successful prosecution for Female Genital Mutilation is 0%.



The end of the world is nigh.