@GoodLawProject 5 minutes and my ears are already bleeding and brain is sending warnings of deadly levels of bullshit contamination. Just like your posts. https://t.co/H0KQ2WLV2f
Sorry, but once again it is BS to say this is the European Convention on Human Rights, and all the froth-at-the-mouthers need to sit down.
Prior to Brexit, if an EU national committed an offence (in this case, an Italian), it was the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations that decided whether they were to be deported or not. The offence was committed before Brexit. The Regulations applied. The judge found - rightly in the circumstances imo - that what was known as "imperative grounds of public security" was the test that had to be applied.
Rape is a truly horrible offence, and my deepest sympathies go to his victim and her loved ones, but the judge has not decided this on a human rights basis, but on whether the offence was one that meant there were "imperative grounds of public security". The case law says not. Offences committed since Brexit are judged on an entirely different (and much stricter) framework.
This is not a case that has anything to do with the ECHR, and the fools holding it up as an example of why we should leave are the same fools who will take all YOUR rights away as well if we do.
They need to stop lying.
"Legal citizens do not need to be told not to rape or sexually harass people and children. We know that instinctively"
And yet so many of you "legal citizen" men still do it even though you know "instinctively" not to.
You complete frauds.
The recording of our @Macquarie_Uni x @TheRWCHR collaborative event Understanding and Responding to State Hostage-Taking is now available in full 👇🏻
https://t.co/l7WvJKBsXm
Feat. RWCHR Director of Policy and Projects Brandon Silver, Melbourne uni's @daraconduit and the UN's Sophie Hunter