This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

Tuesday, 24 January 2012

Eurosnobs at Strasbourg against our tabloids

Blimey! What a patronising snob Sir Nicolas Bratza, the president of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), is. It seems that any criticism he receives from British politicians just has to be a case of ‘pandering to [an] anti-European tabloid agenda’. Elsewhere, Sir Nicolas Bratza simply claims that all criticisms of the ECHR are just like the ‘criticisms more frequently heard in the popular press’.
What’s so bad about the popular press anyway? Why are the tabloids automatically wrong on these and other issues? And to dismiss ‘tabloid criticism’ because the criticisers are, well, tabloids, is a kind of ad hominen aimed at particular institutions rather than an individual. And, to start, Sir Nicolas Bratza,
or his beloved ECHR, is not Europe. Is is not Europe personified or institutionalised. The Europe I know has nothing to do with Brussels or Strasbourg. It is not governmental or institutional. It is Europe’s art, history, landscapes and languages; not a bunch of fat men in suits and wigs basking in their unelected power.

Mr David Cameron, more specifically, is going to give a speech in which he will call for a ‘filtering-system’ which will attempt to limit the power the court in Strasbourg has over our own national courts. And why not? Surely national courts are closer to the people, and perhaps more democratic, that Eurocentric Strasbourg and the like. Is it just that these Euromaniacs don’t trust national courts to do the right - politically correct - thing?

Of course it was the disgusting Abu Qatada case which really shook the British public, and maybe it shook David Cameron too.

The Strasbourg court had the audacity, as I see it, to block the deportation of the Islamonut, Abu Qatada. It seems that Jordan is not as PC - or ‘enlightened’? - as we are here in the UK. Jordan punishes terrorists strongly because it knows, as we should, that Islamoterrorists like Qatada are out to destroy the very state itself. Not that I admire Jordan. But at least Qatada would have tasted some no-nonsense medicine had he been deported to that country.

The problem is that Jordan would convict Qatada. The Strasbourg court, on the other hand, may stop the UK courts from prosecuting him. Yet we need more convictions of terrorists, not less. And we need harsher penalties for these psychos, not more compensation or more benefit payments for them.

So I’m with the Tory backbenchers on this one. I believe that we should withdraw from the ECHR altogether. Did we elect the court in Strasbourg? No. Do we often agree with this court? Very rarely. Do we need this doubling-up of our own national courts anyway? No. Then withdrawal it must be. And, no, I’m not a ‘Little Englander’, or a ‘xenophobe’, or anything else with an ‘ist’ or a ‘phobe’ on the end of it.

No comments:

Post a Comment