The Abu Hamza deportation thread

[Conrod]

Can you find any evidence that anyone on this forum is defending any of those categories of people you've mentioned?

I very much doubt it but what you will find is that a lot of people defend the law and its application in an even-handed manner. This is the reason that justice is usually depicted as wearing a blindfold in that the law is blind as to who is being judged. The law is the law and if you start cherry picking which laws apply to which people then that way either anarchy or dictatorship lies.

Actually, yes - just do a search for the word 'deportation' and plenty comes up. In many cases, people/families who are proved to be wrongly/illegally in the UK and are being deported because they are thieves/liars/illegal immigrants according to UK law are being sobbed over and defended by the liberal left on this forum.

It does not seem even-handed at all - instead, it seems to be blind and stubborn refusal to accept the official decisions that these people have no right to be here and must go - there are even threads trying to stir up campaign pressure to keep people here whose right to remain has been firmly refused.

 

As to those "law abiding people on the other side of the argument" it is these very same people who want to suspend the law for certain people or, alternatively, take the law into their own hands.

That's not what I've seen - just people wanting the law to be applied, without do-gooders stepping in for the 'rights' of people who deserve punishment.

[HeadingNorth]

That's not what I've seen - just people wanting the law to be applied

 

 

In that case, this entire thread would be redundant. The law has been applied.

[andygardener]

In that case, this entire thread would be redundant. The law has been applied.

 

No, a wooly judgement based on conjecture has been applied.

 

The law should take account of facts, not wooly theories and explicit acceptance of foreign lawbreaking.

[Conrod]

Because that is the law, not just Uk law but international law on citizenship

 

Why should we break and undermine UN laws that protect us all, so we can take out further revenge on an intolerant bigot with a criminal past stirring up hatred? He isn't worth it. When he does wrong try him and sentence him, treating him as a special case, is precisely what an attention seeking hate monger would want. Why give him the satisfaction and attention?

Because he should never have been granted a passport in the first place?

 

Rules are for the obeyance of fools and the guidance of wise men. If we follow rules too blindly, we become narrow-minded and inflexible; better that we use them for guidance, but when difficult situations arise, we empower people to make exceptions - Hamza should be such an exception.

[HeadingNorth]

No, a wooly judgement based on conjecture has been applied.

 

There is nothing woolly about the fact that British law does not permit someone to be left stateless.

[HeadingNorth]

Because he should never have been granted a passport in the first place?

 

Why should a student, living in the UK legally, and going on to take a job here and fulfilling all criteria for nationality, be denied a passport? (Bear in mind that at the time you make the decision whether or not to allow him in, you know nothing about what he's going to turn into. You only know that he's a former student and now a working man.)

[andygardener]

There is nothing woolly about the fact that British law does not permit someone to be left stateless.

 

There is no proof whatsoever that he will be made stateless.

[HeadingNorth]

There is no proof whatsoever that he will be made stateless.

 

Forgive me if the word of an Egyptian law expert and a British court carries more weight with me than some bloke on the internet.

[Wildcat]

Because he should never have been granted a passport in the first place?

 

Rules are for the obeyance of fools and the guidance of wise men. If we follow rules too blindly, we become narrow-minded and inflexible; better that we use them for guidance, but when difficult situations arise, we empower people to make exceptions - Hamza should be such an exception.

 

So you would ban anyone from being naturalised through marriage? or allow naturalisation through marriage but decide 30 years later to take that away and make them stateless because he has made statements not so different from those the likes of the BNP or yourself are making?

[Conrod]

Why should a student, living in the UK legally, and going on to take a job here and fulfilling all criteria for nationality, be denied a passport? (Bear in mind that at the time you make the decision whether or not to allow him in, you know nothing about what he's going to turn into. You only know that he's a former student and now a working man.)

For me, that is not enough to grant somebody UK citizenship.