-Rights of Refugees Vs Natives Nationals-

seanaway

I'd like to ask where others stand on the EU Human Rights issue.

The recent case of Bereket Mekonnen and the fact that the Minister of Justice cannot deport him back to Eritrea is a bit of an insult, in my opinion, to the term 'Human Rights'.

Seemingly, article 3 means Ireland cannot send this rapist back to where he came from because he would be in danger of being tortured.

Now, agreed that that shouldn't happen to someone.

However, his abuse of the asylum he has sought and gained in Ireland should negate his right to protection here, in my opinion.

Just like to hear other opinions on this, especially given his alleged threats against everyone involved in his trial and his description of Ireland as a 'banana republic' and it's being 'worse than the congo'.

Not trying to raise racial issue shere but I think Ireland needs to shout at this sort of abuse before it becomes a football for a new far right breed of people.

Yes or no.
Should Ireland tell the European Human Rights Charter that the rights of law abiding civilians rates higher in our system than the rights of an abuser of the asylum system?

View

seanaway wrote: »

I'd like to ask where others stand on the EU Human Rights issue.

The recent case of Bereket Mekonnen and the fact that the Minister of Justice cannot deport him back to Eritrea is a bit of an insult, in my opinion, to the term 'Human Rights'.

Seemingly, article 3 means Ireland cannot send this rapist back to where he came from because he would be in danger of being tortured.

Now, agreed that that shouldn't happen to someone.

However, his abuse of the asylum he has sought and gained in Ireland should negate his right to protection here, in my opinion.

Just like to hear other opinions on this, especially given his alleged threats against everyone involved in his trial and his description of Ireland as a 'banana republic' and it's being 'worse than the congo'.

Not trying to raise racial issue shere but I think Ireland needs to shout at this sort of abuse before it becomes a football for a new far right breed of people.

Yes or no.
Should Ireland tell the European Human Rights Charter that the rights of law abiding civilians rates higher in our system than the rights of an abuser of the asylum system?

It isn't an EU issue at all.

You are confusing the EU with the (non-EU) Council of Europe.

Its Convention on Human Rights does indeed prohibit torture but so also does the UN equivalent. As such, I'd guess any attempt to short circuit one convention would fall foul of the other convention.

As for "telling the Human rights charter", there is a court there to decide precedence in such cases and they have already made their ruling clear.

seanaway

View wrote: »

It isn't an EU issue at all.

You are confusing the EU with the (non-EU) Council of Europe.

Its Convention on Human Rights does indeed prohibit torture but so also does the UN equivalent. As such, I'd guess any attempt to short circuit one convention would fall foul of the other convention.

As for "telling the Human rights charter", there is a court there to decide precedence in such cases and they have already made their ruling clear.

Thanks for the clarification.
The question still stands.

What do people out there think about this?

After all, we are still a soveriegn state.

If the UK can take away people's passports surely we can deport people who are a threat to the security of Irish and other law abiding citizens who live in the country.

paul71

They are 2 separate issues, 1. the leniency of sentencing and parole laws for serious criminals and 2. refugee status. The fact is that the man has a valid fear of torture in his own country, separately he is a serious criminal who must be dealt with as other serious Irish criminals are. We do after all have our very own monster rapist wandering around from one European country to another.

Manach

Just a note on the ECHR/EU dynamic. The former has been signed by Ireland separate from the EU but my understanding is because of the embrace of the EU of the ECHR as a legal framework upholding provisions of the ECHR is also part of Ireland's membership of the EU.
Thus under EU law, there is a principle called proportionality. This implies that suchrights have to exercised in a reasonable manner. So that would imply the refugee law should be implemented in a fair manner, but one where (I'm not familiar with the details of the OP's example) if the person does prove a menace to the general society to that extent, then their rights for societal good might be abrogated.

seanaway

Manach wrote: »

Just a note on the ECHR/EU dynamic. The former has been signed by Ireland separate from the EU but my understanding is because of the embrace of the EU of the ECHR as a legal framework upholding provisions of the ECHR is also part of Ireland's membership of the EU.
Thus under EU law, there is a principle called proportionality. This implies that suchrights have to exercised in a reasonable manner. So that would imply the refugee law should be implemented in a fair manner, but one where (I'm not familiar with the details of the OP's example) if the person does prove a menace to the general society to that extent, then their rights for societal good might be abrogated.

Well posted. Now, if this is accurate - and I have no doubt it is - why did the Dept of Justice advise the Minister that this individual could not be deported?

Who is running this country? Certainly not the elected politicians. So it leaves the pen pushers in the golden circle of the civil service who seem to be above the laws they appear to undermine.

Peregrinus

The whole point of human rights is not that you get them because you are nice, or because you are law-abiding, or because poeple like you. You get them because you are human.

The right not to be tortured is a basic human right. We cannot sent this may home to be tortured. The fact that he has committed rape does not change this.

We can treat him as we can treat any other rapist. But we can't torture him, or send him elsewhere to be tortured.

If you can't accept this, then you don't believe in fundamental human rights. Just in rights for people that you like.

seanaway

Peregrinus wrote: »

The whole point of human rights is not that you get them because you are nice, or because you are law-abiding, or because poeple like you. You get them because you are human.

The right not to be tortured is a basic human right. We cannot sent this may home to be tortured. The fact that he has committed rape does not change this.

We can treat him as we can treat any other rapist. But we can't torture him, or send him elsewhere to be tortured.

If you can't accept this, then you don't believe in fundamental human rights. Just in rights for people that you like.

I believen that the human rights of society need to be remembered when dealing with an individual who has clearly ststed that he intends to infringe the human rights of the society which has offered him shelter.

The rights of his victims, as usual, appear to take a back seat to the rights of an individual who has no respect for the rights of others.

Peregrinus

Oh, nonsense. He is exposed to the same sanctions as every other rapist - arrest, trial, conviction, sentence, imprisonment. The notion that he needs to be sent off to be tortured as well, to punish him for the dreadful crime of not being Irish, is offensive.

seanaway

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, nonsense. He is exposed to the same sanctions as every other rapist - arrest, trial, conviction, sentence, imprisonment. The notion that he needs to be sent off to be tortured as well, to punish him for the dreadful crime of not being Irish, is offensive.

Nonsense indeed. He is the one claiming he will be tortured. He is the one who applied for refuge. He is now denying that refuge to his victims.

He has clearly stated he will take revenge on his victims. He is still free. What sanctions do you refer to then?

Peregrinus

The fact that he has stated that he will take revenge on his victims may be dreadful, but it is not made any more dreadful by the fact that he is not Irish, and I struggle to see that we need special punishments for non-Irish people who offend in this (or any other) way that we do not apply to Irish people. That wouldn't be a punishment for threatening revenge (or whatever); it would be a punishment for not being Irish. And the notion that it's acceptable to send someone off to be tortured because he isn't Irish is offensive.

Godge

Peregrinus wrote: »

The fact that he has stated that he will take revenge on his victims may be dreadful, but it is not made any more dreadful by the fact that he is not Irish, and I struggle to see that we need special punishments for non-Irish people who offend in this (or any other) way that we do not apply to Irish people. That wouldn't be a punishment for threatening revenge (or whatever); it would be a punishment for not being Irish. And the notion that it's acceptable to send someone off to be tortured because he isn't Irish is offensive.

I agree that he should get the same punishment as everyone else (Irish or not) for the rape.

The question then arise about what happens after his time is served in terms of his right to remain in Ireland. That is a separate issue.

Do we have to take in every refugee regardless of what they have done in the past, whether that was in Ireland or some other country? What if we have a man, wanted for various violent crimes in another country, can we take that into account? What if we have a man, convicted of several serious violent crimes against women, a refugee from a country with which we have no extradition treaty, who escaped from custody while awaiting sentence. Do we have to admit him because he might be sent to prison if he is sent back? We have no powers to imprison him for his crimes abroad, so do we just let him loose to repeat his offences on Irish women? It is not as simple as saying "Just let him stay".

Peregrinus

If he's a genuine refugee, yes, we keep him. We may need to amend our own laws to deal with the situation of people in Ireland - whether Irish citizens or not - who have committed crimes in other countries to which we cannot send them for trial. If sombody has committed rape in a country which is so terrible that we cannot send him there for trial that's a problem, but I don't see that it's any less of a problem if he happens to be an Irish citizen.

walshb

If we cannot deport him then lock him up for a very long time. Take the hit (financial). It is clear that he is a menace to society. As mentioned, there are two issues. Deporting option and sentencing here option.

conorh91

Manach wrote: »

under EU law, there is a principle called proportionality.

I agree with your conclusion but a few points are worth observing.

*TL;DR: scroll to the final two sentences

Proportionality has in fact become central to the interpretation of the European Convention by the European Court of Human Rights and national courts in a manner identical to, but independent of, the CJEU.

However, the Irish courts are not obliged, by default, to follow ECt.HR procedures, including proportionality. In fact, the Irish courts are under no obligation to exercise their functions in compliance with the European Convention of Human Rights *at all*. That would appear to be the most obvious 'escape' from the Convention, although this is unlikely ever to arise in reality.

I don't believe that EU law demands the Irish courts to apply proportionality in their Convention judgments. The European Convention does not have direct effect in Ireland, and it effectively ranks subordinate to domestic legislation. In fact, if there is a conflict between national law and the Convention, the Irish courts may be entitled to prefer the national law.

In any event, proportionality is a feature of the Irish courts' treatment of the European Convention, but only because they voluntarily apply it. Presumably, they have sought to avoid a protracted embarrassing conflict with the European Court of Human Rights, which would invariably undermine the authority of the Irish courts. Hobson's Choice.

*In any event, the prohibition on refoulement also arises out of Article 19 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and s.5 of the Refugee Act 1996, rendering argument regarding the proportionality of the Convention provision moot.

Nevertheless, the primacy that the prohibition on refoulement enjoys in EU law (arguably one of the closest things we have to an absolute right) means that the proportionality test would be grossly inadequate to advance any competing interest.

seanaway

Given the seeming difference of interpretation, why do people here believe the government chose to accept advice that Ireland could not deport this person despite this being the minister's preference?

Peregrinus

Because they feel safer in relying on advice formally obtained from identified professional lawyers with experience and expertise in the field than on thumbnail opinions pseudonymously contributed to an internet discussion board?

seanaway

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because they feel safer in relying on advice formally obtained from identified professional lawyers with experience and expertise in the field than on thumbnail opinions pseudonymously contributed to an internet discussion board?

AKA public oiion which they may well be better to heed than the opionons of those removed from reality behind desks in far off locations and in overpaid jobs

marienbad

seanaway wrote: »

AKA public oiion which they may well be better to heed than the opionons of those removed from reality behind desks in far off locations and in overpaid jobs

Irrelevant , as the people making the decisions are also behind desks in far off locations and in overpaid jobs . So we listen to the most appropriate advice

seanaway

marienbad wrote: »

Irrelevant , as the people making the decisions are also behind desks in far off locations and in overpaid jobs . So we listen to the most appropriate advice

That's a contradiction if ever there was one which agrees with my opint paradoxically enough.

More reason to listen to the public.

Peregrinus

seanaway wrote: »

AKA public oiion which they may well be better to heed than the opionons of those removed from reality behind desks in far off locations and in overpaid jobs

If they want to act in accordance with the law, they are plainy wise to take legal advice. If they want short-term popularity and don't mind running up massive legal liabilities which the taxpayers will have to bear (but not until after the next election) then they can ignore legal advice and simply comply with whichever expression of public opinion is the most strident. They can't do both.

marienbad

seanaway wrote: »

That's a contradiction if ever there was one which agrees with my opint paradoxically enough.

More reason to listen to the public.

Not at all, just a restatement of the principal that you set a thief to catch a thief .

seanaway

Peregrinus wrote: »

If they want to act in accordance with the law, they are plainy wise to take legal advice. If they want short-term popularity and don't mind running up massive legal liabilities which the taxpayers will have to bear (but not until after the next election) then they can ignore legal advice and simply comply with whichever expression of public opinion is the most strident. They can't do both.

My point is that they can take public opinion to the far flung pen pushers and tell them we are still a sovereign state and will make decisions in the best interests of Irish citizens.

Last time I looked that was what we elected governments to do.

seanaway

marienbad wrote: »

Not at all, just a restatement of the principal that you set a thief to catch a thief .

If that is an example of the sort of legal mind which gives birth to the type of legislation we are talking about then I rest my case.

marienbad

seanaway wrote: »

If that is an example of the sort of legal mind which gives birth to the type of legislation we are talking about then I rest my case.

Well you really don't have a case , the fact is we wish to see ourselves as a modern civilised democracy that we have to accept the Human Rights agreements we signed up to . That is part of what being a sovereign state is all about .

seanaway

marienbad wrote: »

Well you really don't have a case , the fact is we wish to see ourselves as a modern civilised democracy that we have to accept the Human Rights agreements we signed up to . That is part of what being a sovereign state is all about .

Interesting you should say 'we wish to see ourselves as...' and '...that we have to accept...'

rather than 'we are a modern...' and 'we choose to accept....'.

The lack of self determination and expression of subservience expressed in those statements say much that support my point.

Thank you.

Mongfinder General

marienbad wrote: »

Well you really don't have a case , the fact is we wish to see ourselves as a modern civilised democracy that we have to accept the Human Rights agreements we signed up to . That is part of what being a sovereign state is all about .

Well we should secede from any agreement and promulgate our own policy. We're a Republic, not a democracy at the mercy of a mob. Cage this beast and send him back to where he committed this terrible crime.

View

seanaway wrote: »

AKA public oiion

And the evidence that your opinions are widely shared amongst the public, much less constitue "public opinion" is what exactly?

marienbad

seanaway wrote: »

Interesting you should say 'we wish to see ourselves as...' and '...that we have to accept...'

rather than 'we are a modern...' and 'we choose to accept....'.

The lack of self determination and expression of subservience expressed in those statements say much that support my point.

Thank you.

Rubbish, but people see what they want to see I suppose, it is easier than addressing the point.

marienbad

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Well we should secede from any agreement and promulgate our own policy. We're a Republic, not a democracy at the mercy of a mob. Cage this beast and send him back to where he committed this terrible crime.

Yeah lets become a banana republic .

Mongfinder General

marienbad wrote: »

Yeah lets become a banana republic .

You can't take this, how can you take the abuse you get on a sit? You don't like it, leave.

marienbad

Mongfinder General wrote: »

You can't take this, how can you take the abuse you get on a sit? You don't like it, leave.

Sorry I can't decipher this post , I haven't a clue what you are saying.

Bootros Bootros

Sovereign nations need the rights of deportation or they fail to be sovereign.

The idea that democracy's are duty bound to all refugees or political asylum seekers would make us duty bound to allow in ISIS terrorists fleeing from Assad. Of course that's sucidal.

marienbad

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

Sovereign nations need the rights of deportation or they fail to be sovereign.

The idea that democracy's are duty bound to all refugees or political asylum seekers would make us duty bound to allow in ISIS terrorists fleeing from Assad. Of course that's sucidal.

We have those rights , the problem is it is never black and white . As another poster has already pointed out there is an Irish criminal wandering the European Union and there is nothing those nations can do about it , that is just the way it goes ,horrendous though it my seem .

cerastes

marienbad wrote: »

We have those rights , the problem is it is never black and white . As another poster has already pointed out there is an Irish criminal wandering the European Union and there is nothing those nations can do about it , that is just the way it goes ,horrendous though it my seem .

How does that make this ok? just because an Irish criminal is wandering the EU, something should be done about that, who is this criminal? I didnt read that, maybe its because its late? that doesnt seem ok to me anyway, neither is this example.

marienbad

cerastes wrote: »

How does that make this ok? just because an Irish criminal is wandering the EU, something should be done about that, who is this criminal? I didnt read that, maybe its because its late? that doesnt seem ok to me anyway, neither is this example.

There are lots of Irish criminal wandering the EU. There isn't much that can be done about those cases or this case unless we abrogate our treaty responsibilities .

His visa is not permanent and I presume if the political situation changes in Eritrea he will be deported in a flash.

cerastes

marienbad wrote: »

There are lots of Irish criminal wandering the EU. There isn't much that can be done about those cases or this case unless we abrogate our treaty responsibilities .

His visa is not permanent and I presume if the political situation changes in Eritrea he will be deported in a flash.

Thats not much any better, there isnt much that can be done, ahh shure they have rights too kind of an attitude, bloody hell.
Are we a sovereign nation or not? this guy is a criminal. Did I misread it? it was mentioned earlier in the thread we do have autonomy in making decisions on this kind of thing? but dont.

His visa is not permanent! and in the meantime? did he serve his full sentence? he's a free man it seems from what I can find.

I dont see how comparing him to Irish criminals roaming free across the EU is comparable, I dont know who you are referring to but this guy seems particularly dangerous, similarly Id be concerned about Irish criminals roaming free here or anywhere after early (or normal)release.
There is not very much we can do other than lock up violent and dangerous persons for a long time, Irish people the same, but we take in criminals and keep them too it seems. He should have thought of the situation in Eritrea before he committed a violent assault and we should be able to send him back there.

marienbad

cerastes wrote: »

Thats not much any better, there isnt much that can be done, ahh shure they have rights too kind of an attitude, bloody hell.
Are we a sovereign nation or not? this guy is a criminal. Did I misread it? it was mentioned earlier in the thread we do have autonomy in making decisions on this kind of thing? but dont.

His visa is not permanent! and in the meantime? did he serve his full sentence? he's a free man it seems from what I can find.

I dont see how comparing him to Irish criminals roaming free across the EU is comparable, I dont know who you are referring to but this guy seems particularly dangerous, similarly Id be concerned about Irish criminals roaming free here or anywhere after early (or normal)release.
There is not very much we can do other than lock up violent and dangerous persons for a long time, Irish people the same, but we take in criminals and keep them too it seems. He should have thought of the situation in Eritrea before he committed a violent assault and we should be able to send him back there.

We are a sovereign nation ,but like most things it is not absolute.

conorh91

cerastes wrote: »

Are we a sovereign nation or not?

We voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, thus giving legal effect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

We chose to sign the European Convention of Human Rights.

We chose to sign the UN Convention Against Torture and gave it legal effect by passing the The Criminal Justice (UNCAT) Act 2000

And we chose to insert into s.6 of the refugee Act 1996 a ban on refoulement. That one was all ours.

Being a "sovereign nation" does not mean we should act like some sort of rogue state and renege on our international treaty obligations and usurp the rule of law at home. We're not that kind of banana republic.

seanaway

marienbad wrote: »

Rubbish, but people see what they want to see I suppose, it is easier than addressing the point.

If rubbish is your answer to an intelligent reponse then perhaps you might be better to re-assess your own position.

This is not only a negative for your own view but also for anyone who holds simliar views to yours.

marienbad

seanaway wrote: »

If rubbish is your answer to an intelligent reponse then perhaps you might be better to re-assess your own position.

This is not only a negative for your own view but also for anyone who holds simliar views to yours.

No thanks, my position is fine , we don't live in a black and white world either/or world and I am happy I recognise that.

seanaway

marienbad wrote: »

No thanks, my position is fine , we don't live in a black and white world either/or world and I am happy I recognise that.

? What?

cerastes

conorh91 wrote: »

We voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, thus giving legal effect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

We chose to sign the European Convention of Human Rights.

We chose to sign the UN Convention Against Torture and gave it legal effect by passing the The Criminal Justice (UNCAT) Act 2000

And we chose to insert into s.6 of the refugee Act 1996 a ban on refoulement. That one was all ours.

Being a "sovereign nation" does not mean we should act like some sort of rogue state and renege on our international treaty obligations and usurp the rule of law at home. We're not that kind of banana republic.

This was the treaty where the Irish people voted and made their intent clear and a second vote was orchestrated!

marienbad

cerastes wrote: »

This was the treaty where the Irish people voted and made their intent clear and a second vote was orchestrated!

so what ?

marienbad

seanaway wrote: »

? What?

Ditto

conorh91

cerastes wrote: »

This was the treaty where the Irish people voted and made their intent clear and a second vote was orchestrated!

And your point is?

Ignore Lisbon if you like. We've signed two other international treaties prohibiting refoulement and legislated for its prohibition in two separate Acts of the Oireachtas.

seanaway

marienbad wrote: »

Ditto

Up to here you have been showing decency and an ability to argue with respect for the views of others.

I leave the discussion/differing views between us to others from here on in.

Please don't take this personally or as a slight on your stand. It isn't.

Jim2007

cerastes wrote: »

This was the treaty where the Irish people voted and made their intent clear and a second vote was orchestrated!

So lets see, the Irish constitution requires that the citizenry be consulted on all EU treaty changes negotiated by the government on their behalf. And that is exactly what happened. The government negotiated a treaty which was rejected and they then went back and renegotiated the treaty, which was accepted. There is nothing in the constitution to prevent this and I would suggest this is because the drafters of those provisions foresaw this type of situation and allowed for it, because it is exactly what happens during negotiations.

There is nothing undemocratic about the out come, the Irish people are well capable of make up their minds on the issues put before them and in this case the anti-treaty side failed to make their case and that is democracy, deal with it!

marienbad

seanaway wrote: »

Up to here you have been showing decency and an ability to argue with respect for the views of others.

I leave the discussion/differing views between us to others from here on in.

Please don't take this personally or as a slight on your stand. It isn't.

No problem, I don't.

seanaway

'.... the anti-treaty side failed to make their case and that is democracy, deal with it! '

The poster is dealing with it .. he/ she is posting their opinion on here. Your tone however seems to indictate that had the vote gone the other way you may not have approved and been in the poster's position.

marienbad

Jim2007 wrote: »

So lets see, the Irish constitution requires that the citizenry be consulted on all EU treaty changes negotiated by the government on their behalf. And that is exactly what happened. The government negotiated a treaty which was rejected and they then went back and renegotiated the treaty, which was accepted. There is nothing in the constitution to prevent this and I would suggest this is because the drafters of those provisions foresaw this type of situation and allowed for it, because it is exactly what happens during negotiations.

There is nothing undemocratic about the out come, the Irish people are well capable of make up their minds on the issues put before them and in this case the anti-treaty side failed to make their case and that is democracy, deal with it!

Indeed, and it is not as if it was the first time , Dev in the height of his popularity tried twice to have PR removed and the electorate foreseeing permanent one part rule rejected it. And of course we had the two divorce referenda. But I suppose we liked those results .