The serious issue with Neil O'Brien's argument is this. Even people who have committed vile crimes have basic human rights - this is why we don't use torture or capital punishment in the UK justice system. And if we have good reason to believe that will happen to someone if we deport them, we shouldn't deport them, because those basic human rights are universal and inalienable; someone's citizenship should not be a relevant consideration. That's why it is safe to deport a US couple, who are not at risk of torture or extra-judicial killing if deported.*
Mr O'Brien also implicitly suggests that the "19,000 foreign national offenders living in the country, released from prison but not deported" are a threat to the safety of everyone else. Personally, I believe that once someone has served a criminal sentence, they should be able to move on with their lives - the state has metered out appropriate punishment, so that should be that. Mr O'Brien appears to disagree, which suggests that he has zero faith in the potential of the justice system to prevent re-offending. If that's the case, I would politely ask why his party, which spent the last 14 years in government, at no point made substantial efforts to invest in rehabilitative justice.
*I note also that Neil O'Brien doesn't mention why the couple were deported - perhaps they had overstayed a visa, making them illegal immigrants, or perhaps they had committed some violent crime - either way, Mr O'Brien implies that, because they are white and providing a service in a remote community, they should get to stay.
Rights are not universal, eternal nor inalienable. They are contractual relationships between members of a society. Every right for A is effectively a claim against B. Robinson Crusoe, alone on his desert island, can have no rights; only the possibilities which nature affords him or not. If rights were truly universal, eternal and inalienable, they would apply in all polities at all times, even on Crusoe Island. In which case, there would be nowhere to which deportation would ever be wrong, because all polities would always agree about everything.
Many of the countries which have laws you don’t like base their legal principles on the Word of God as revealed in the Holy Quran. They think that’s pretty timeless, universal and incorrigible. Do you want to argue with them? Personally I don’t find the Quran persuasive. But I have no wish to be a cultural imperialist and impose my parochial western preferences on other societies which don’t find them persuasive; just as long as they don’t impose theirs on mine. Insisting on the planetary supremacy of Lord Hermer’s legal preferences means putting us in a permanent state of hostile, aggressive revisionism against half the planet.
There is a well-known principle in the USA: that “The Constitution is not a suicide pact”. It has been cited in Supreme Court judgements. It requires the court to temper its judgements so as not to endanger the general wellbeing of Americans. The Constitution specifically states that it is for “ourselves and our posterity”, not humanity in general. You may see that as disgusting legal favouritism. I see it as common sense.
Regarding torture and the death penalty: I’m opposed to both, though not absolutely. No doubt you know the tragic case of 11-year old Jakob von Metzler in Germany. Magnus Gäfgen abducted Jakob, intending to ransom him. The police caught Gäfgen and threatened to torture him if he didn’t reveal the child’s whereabouts. The threat worked. Gäfgen had already killed Jakob and he agreed to take the police to the site where he had buried the body. Nobody actually tortured Gäfgen, they merely threatened to do so. The ECtHR ruled that the German police had violated the human rights of Gäfgen the child killer by using strong language.
If someone plants a dirty nuke under St Paul’s Cathedral, and the only chance of preventing it killing millions is to torture the bomb-maker to divulge the codes, I’m sure that Lord Hermer would forbid such an action, though he’ll probably issue his ruling from well outside the blast radius.
I’m opposed to us having capital punishment in the UK in 2025. But when I hear Peter Hitchens argue for it, he makes a sober and sane case. He’s not making some hysterical screed. It’s possible he’s right and I’m wrong.
Could you arrange some sort of deal whereby you would get to write a regular column for the Guardian, and in return Owen Jones gets to write a column for the Telegraph? I think it would be good for readers of both papers to be exposed to ideas outside their filter bubble.
This is so true, but I hold no hope that it will change. Some of us write things like this, others like me read them and agree, but the caravan moves on.
And apt diagnosis of the problem - we await to hear the package of policy solutions that will fix it.
The serious issue with Neil O'Brien's argument is this. Even people who have committed vile crimes have basic human rights - this is why we don't use torture or capital punishment in the UK justice system. And if we have good reason to believe that will happen to someone if we deport them, we shouldn't deport them, because those basic human rights are universal and inalienable; someone's citizenship should not be a relevant consideration. That's why it is safe to deport a US couple, who are not at risk of torture or extra-judicial killing if deported.*
Mr O'Brien also implicitly suggests that the "19,000 foreign national offenders living in the country, released from prison but not deported" are a threat to the safety of everyone else. Personally, I believe that once someone has served a criminal sentence, they should be able to move on with their lives - the state has metered out appropriate punishment, so that should be that. Mr O'Brien appears to disagree, which suggests that he has zero faith in the potential of the justice system to prevent re-offending. If that's the case, I would politely ask why his party, which spent the last 14 years in government, at no point made substantial efforts to invest in rehabilitative justice.
*I note also that Neil O'Brien doesn't mention why the couple were deported - perhaps they had overstayed a visa, making them illegal immigrants, or perhaps they had committed some violent crime - either way, Mr O'Brien implies that, because they are white and providing a service in a remote community, they should get to stay.
Rights are not universal, eternal nor inalienable. They are contractual relationships between members of a society. Every right for A is effectively a claim against B. Robinson Crusoe, alone on his desert island, can have no rights; only the possibilities which nature affords him or not. If rights were truly universal, eternal and inalienable, they would apply in all polities at all times, even on Crusoe Island. In which case, there would be nowhere to which deportation would ever be wrong, because all polities would always agree about everything.
Many of the countries which have laws you don’t like base their legal principles on the Word of God as revealed in the Holy Quran. They think that’s pretty timeless, universal and incorrigible. Do you want to argue with them? Personally I don’t find the Quran persuasive. But I have no wish to be a cultural imperialist and impose my parochial western preferences on other societies which don’t find them persuasive; just as long as they don’t impose theirs on mine. Insisting on the planetary supremacy of Lord Hermer’s legal preferences means putting us in a permanent state of hostile, aggressive revisionism against half the planet.
There is a well-known principle in the USA: that “The Constitution is not a suicide pact”. It has been cited in Supreme Court judgements. It requires the court to temper its judgements so as not to endanger the general wellbeing of Americans. The Constitution specifically states that it is for “ourselves and our posterity”, not humanity in general. You may see that as disgusting legal favouritism. I see it as common sense.
Regarding torture and the death penalty: I’m opposed to both, though not absolutely. No doubt you know the tragic case of 11-year old Jakob von Metzler in Germany. Magnus Gäfgen abducted Jakob, intending to ransom him. The police caught Gäfgen and threatened to torture him if he didn’t reveal the child’s whereabouts. The threat worked. Gäfgen had already killed Jakob and he agreed to take the police to the site where he had buried the body. Nobody actually tortured Gäfgen, they merely threatened to do so. The ECtHR ruled that the German police had violated the human rights of Gäfgen the child killer by using strong language.
If someone plants a dirty nuke under St Paul’s Cathedral, and the only chance of preventing it killing millions is to torture the bomb-maker to divulge the codes, I’m sure that Lord Hermer would forbid such an action, though he’ll probably issue his ruling from well outside the blast radius.
I’m opposed to us having capital punishment in the UK in 2025. But when I hear Peter Hitchens argue for it, he makes a sober and sane case. He’s not making some hysterical screed. It’s possible he’s right and I’m wrong.
Could you arrange some sort of deal whereby you would get to write a regular column for the Guardian, and in return Owen Jones gets to write a column for the Telegraph? I think it would be good for readers of both papers to be exposed to ideas outside their filter bubble.
Depressing stuff (especially as I live in Essex!)
The douleur of the PAYEpig.
This is so true, but I hold no hope that it will change. Some of us write things like this, others like me read them and agree, but the caravan moves on.
What puzzles me is; why?