The UN - rights of those who incite terrorism are more important than the rights of those who die at the hands of the terrorists?

[Newbie 0]

This really shows how twisted things are.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1555930,00.html

Does Manfred Novak not realise that, instead of trying to protect the rights of those inciting hatred and violence, by letting them understand they will be subject to whatever goes in their country of origin if they carry on spreading hate, will hopefully be a persuador to stop them spreading hate in the first place?

If it doesn't well they get what they deserve. How can we put their human rights before those of the innocent people who are being killed? This makes zero sense to me.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[mr2mk1g 10]

Hmmm... if you pick through the thick rhetoric you realize that all that has been said is that the UN does not consider the reliance on Memoranda of Understandings to be sufficient to abrogate the UK's duties under the 1951 convention on refugees.

The Foreign Secretary and his legal advisers evidently believe such an Understanding would be adequate. I personally don't know. I suspect the matter has not yet been fully tested and acknowledge the fact that there are certainly arguments is support of both sides of the issue.

I think the UK govt. is going to find far more serious challenges of their decision on these very grounds however than the UN will mount. It's a very real question that will have to be overcome domestically never mind internationally. I wouldn't be surprised if Tony's wife finds herself up against the govt. on this very point some time shortly.

Personally I think reliance on the Memoranda will just about do. Whilst I do have some concerns about the fact that these exclusions do not appear to attract a right of appeal, they are foreigners we are dealing with who remain here by our leave. As they have no right to remain here we can withdraw our leave at any time we wish and indeed for any reasons we wish, however unreasonable those reasons may appear.

The only issue is that if they claim the protection of our country and ask for asylum on the grounds that they will be subjected to torture in their country of origin. We would then have a duty under the 1951 treaty not to return them to their country of origin if we think they might be subjected to the torture they claim. Evidently opinion is divided as to whether or not a Memoranda is sufficient to allay such fears.