Sack the judges
The population of the United Kingdom was increased this week by the arrival of two Albanian lesbians who have been given the right to remain here by an deputy Upper Tribunal judge called Rebecca Chapman. The women insisted that they would face persecution in Albania for their sexual preferences. This is despite the fact that Albania decriminalised homosexuality 30 years ago and in 2010 adopted a law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
...
Anyway, the case of these two devotees of Sapphic love is only the latest in a bizarre series of decisions by the tribunals of late. You may have heard of some of them, such as the Nigerian woman who tried and failed eight times to secure asylum. She was only successful on her ninth appeal after joining a terrorist organisation back home – despite a judge finding she had done so purely ‘to create a claim for asylum’. Or there was the convicted Albanian criminal Klevis Disha (a two-year stretch for possessing money from criminal activities, since you asked), who successfully argued against deportation back to Albania on the grounds that his young son was sensitive and very picky about food and did not like the chicken nuggets they served in the Balkans. Then there’s the Pakistani who served 18 months for grooming young girls and who was allowed to remain because the judge said the man’s family would ‘take a dim view’ of his behaviour and possibly make life difficult for him. Or the wife–beating Pakistani paedophile who was allowed to remain because the courts agreed that he might face ‘degrading’ treatment at home. It is of course beyond the pale that a paedophile might face degrading treatment.
Or how about the convicted Syrian terrorist who was given leave to remain here at least partly because the court heard that he had no plans to do any more terrorising and that his house was ‘always clean, tidy and homely’. Or one of my favourites, the Iran-ian allowed to have his case reheard because he had a lot of Facebook friends. Oh yes.
...
Judge Rebecca Chapman is the problem and she is as British as they come, I believe. I do not mean just Rebecca Chapman, but the whole lot of them – all the judges who are appointed to adjudicate in the Upper Tribunal (and First-Tier Tribunal, come to that) and who subvert both the spirit and the intention of the ECHR. I do not believe that when the convention was drawn up, its signatories believed that convicted criminals should not be deported because their sons preferred a domestic brand of chicken nuggets.
It is our judges who make those decisions. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) clearly did not intend for it to be taken as read that there are virtually no countries, worldwide, to whom someone might be deported because all of them are in some way, uh, patriarchal or ‘conservative’. And then you look at the other job enjoyed by Rebecca – yes, she is a barrister representing, in the main, asylum-seekers. It seems to me outrageous that those two jobs could be held simultaneously, but there we are.
I would begin by sacking whoever appoints the judges and then work through the list of them, sacking each one in turn. It is they who make us a laughing stock (to ourselves). They have taken liberties with what was once a noble convention. Get rid of them.
Rod Liddle
Forum
Pages: 
