well is makes deportations harder.
Article 8 particularly. Too often the judges put the rights of the individual above, the rights of the everyone in the state.
To be clear, you object to this:
“Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
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.“
This article, which provides a clear exception for “the prevention of disorder and crime”, makes it difficult to deport criminals, and therefore warrants being stripped away from everyone?
It begs a broader question too: if a foreigner serves time/ does penance/pays for the crime, should they not be allowed to rehabilitate into the society where they and their family live, just like any other rehabilitated criminal? Or does the fact that they’re “foreigners” override the basic principle of fairness built into the entire western criminal system, namely that prisoners can/should be rehabilitated once they’ve served their punishment. I guess serving the prison sentence isn’t enough; if he/she is a foreigner then his/her entire family should suffer, eh?
Only someone who really hates foreigners would think that is a good outcome. Which lines up nicely with xenophobia.
Too often the judges put the rights of the individual above, the rights of the everyone in the state.
Oh dear. Looks like yet another case of dabbling in concepts that are apparently well above one’s pay grade.
I can go on about this at some length, but I’ll try to keep it brief:
There is no such thing as ”the rights of everyone in the state”. Bills/Charters of Rights and Constitutions around the world focus on, and protect, individual rights. By definition, they put certain individual rights above the rights of the state, insofar as the “state” or “everyone in the state” cannot ride roughshod over except in dire circumstances (e.g. war measures act). If you want to know what these rights look like, consider reading the US Bill of Rights.
There’s a reason an independent judiciary (Or as Brexiteers call it, the “enemy of the people”) Is considered a critical component of a functioning democracy. It is to ensure that the state does not trample individual rights due to majoritarian impulses in the electorate (“the right of everyone”/tyranny of the majority) in elected legislatures.
Don’t they teach this stuff somewhere along the way? Like school/Uni/professional development courses?