mj.scuba Posted May 18, 2010 Author Share Posted May 18, 2010 Ours are not breached by him being in the country. Why's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Why's that? Which human rights of yours and mine is this guy breaching? If you claim he's breaching our rights you must have some idea which ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Why's that? Apart from anything else, because he's an innocent man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted May 18, 2010 Author Share Posted May 18, 2010 Which human rights of yours and mine is this guy breaching? If you claim he's breaching our rights you must have some idea which ones. Which Human Rights are being breached by sending him back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel666 Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 I think it is almost a given that although he was not charged, this is probably more the case that a conviction could not be secured rather than he is harmless. As he is not a British Citizen is it not possible for us to remove him from the country without sending him home to Pakistan? Surely if he is believed a threat and has no real reason to stay in the UK apart from seeking protection there must be somewhere else he could go? I ask the question seriously as I do not know if we can just ban him from the country without sending him home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Which Human Rights are being breached by sending him back? I think the court probably had article three in mind - Article 3: Inhuman treatment No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted May 18, 2010 Author Share Posted May 18, 2010 I think the court probably had article three in mind - Article 3: Inhuman treatment No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. But having your limbs blown off by a terrorist bomb is not inhumane treatment then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tab1 Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 They intercepted phone calls where one of these guys was discussing a prospective bride in his arranged marriage and her propensity to spend money. The security services claim her to be an Al-Quieda operative and arrested and harassed innocent men for months. Now having not found a shred of evidence against them of terrorism they make face saving statements of the men being a danger but can't send them back etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 But having your limbs blown off by a terrorist bomb is not inhumane treatment then? Is that really the best you can come up with? I must have been overestimating you...... The man in question hasn't been found guilty of any offences. The court ruled that if he was sent to pakistan he'd be likely to be tortured. Are you in favour of torturing innocent people? How do you think sending him back would be in any way way just? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 I just want some clarification, do the Pakistan government allow torture? I've always thought Pakistan was a relatively safe and stable country. I know people who go there all the time, to visit their grandparents and other family. If he is just a student, why would he be in danger of being tortured? Who would be torturing him even if he isn't? This seems rather a calumny against Pakistan, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.