Paws for Thought
The Tory party conference has finally come to life - not because of the world economic crisis or because we're all going to hell in a handcart - but all because of a cat.
The cat in question was referred to in a speech by the Home Secretary - Theresa May - who argued that human rights legislation is being abused by foreign 'criminals' in the UK - people who are non-UK citizens.
The argument goes that said foreign criminals - supported by legal aid - use section 8 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) to resist deportation back to their country of origin - on the grounds that this would infringe their own human rights - to a family life in the UK.
Even if they entered or reside in the country unlawfully - because once they're here - they use the HRA to argue that they should be allowed to stay permanently.
And the cat was apparently used by one such person - successfully as it turned out - as part of an argument to persuade the courts that he should not be forced to leave the UK - even though he was here without permission.
Because he had built a 'family life' for himself - evidenced by not just the cat but a live-in girlfriend as well - so he should be allowed to stay - since throwing him out would infringe his own rights under the HRA.
Now to most people this sounds bonkers - and that suits the Tories just fine.
Ken Clarke - the UK Justice Secretary - waded into the row by saying that no court in the land would have allowed someone to stay in the country - just because of a cat.
Ken of course was right - but being right often has little to do with winning a political argument - it's public perception that counts.
To my mind there undoubtedly is a problem - and the by now famous cat is just a distraction - even though it has caught the public's imagination.
A much better example was the father who appeared on TV yesterday - whose 12-year old daughter was killed in a hit and run car incident - by an Iraqi asylum seeker who had entered the UK unlawfully - and then pursued a life of petty crime.
The Iraqi chap used the UK court system to frustrate his deportion for years - by which time he had acquired a girlfriend and two children - and used this new 'found family' life to argue that he should not be expelled from the country.
To most people that sounds as if someone is making a mockery of the system - and that the law is defending a career criminal who effectively murdered a young girl - he just ended her life with a speeding car - rather than a knife or a gun.
So I would say - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The HRA is essentially a good thing - the UK is arguing that other countries should respect universal human rights, democracy - and freedom of speech.
But that doesn't mean we should put up with people who abuse the system - and other people's human rights - who can and should be thrown out of the country on their ear.
The real solution is not to abandon the legislation - but to make it work properly - and that's a challenge for the government which will have the public's full support.
The cat in question was referred to in a speech by the Home Secretary - Theresa May - who argued that human rights legislation is being abused by foreign 'criminals' in the UK - people who are non-UK citizens.
The argument goes that said foreign criminals - supported by legal aid - use section 8 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) to resist deportation back to their country of origin - on the grounds that this would infringe their own human rights - to a family life in the UK.
Even if they entered or reside in the country unlawfully - because once they're here - they use the HRA to argue that they should be allowed to stay permanently.
And the cat was apparently used by one such person - successfully as it turned out - as part of an argument to persuade the courts that he should not be forced to leave the UK - even though he was here without permission.
Because he had built a 'family life' for himself - evidenced by not just the cat but a live-in girlfriend as well - so he should be allowed to stay - since throwing him out would infringe his own rights under the HRA.
Now to most people this sounds bonkers - and that suits the Tories just fine.
Ken Clarke - the UK Justice Secretary - waded into the row by saying that no court in the land would have allowed someone to stay in the country - just because of a cat.
Ken of course was right - but being right often has little to do with winning a political argument - it's public perception that counts.
To my mind there undoubtedly is a problem - and the by now famous cat is just a distraction - even though it has caught the public's imagination.
A much better example was the father who appeared on TV yesterday - whose 12-year old daughter was killed in a hit and run car incident - by an Iraqi asylum seeker who had entered the UK unlawfully - and then pursued a life of petty crime.
The Iraqi chap used the UK court system to frustrate his deportion for years - by which time he had acquired a girlfriend and two children - and used this new 'found family' life to argue that he should not be expelled from the country.
To most people that sounds as if someone is making a mockery of the system - and that the law is defending a career criminal who effectively murdered a young girl - he just ended her life with a speeding car - rather than a knife or a gun.
So I would say - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The HRA is essentially a good thing - the UK is arguing that other countries should respect universal human rights, democracy - and freedom of speech.
But that doesn't mean we should put up with people who abuse the system - and other people's human rights - who can and should be thrown out of the country on their ear.
The real solution is not to abandon the legislation - but to make it work properly - and that's a challenge for the government which will have the public's full support.
