The best ally of the nationalist right in Europe is the European Court of Human Rights. It is almost as if it were determined on some kind of final showdown which it supposes that it will win. Given Europe’s history, this is a very hazardous bet.
The case of Ardit Binaj, a 32-year-old Albanian who won the right to stay in Britain thanks to the ECHR, is emblematic, though exactly how emblematic is difficult to estimate. He was a man who arrived illegally in Britain in 2014 and promptly demonstrated his relief and gratitude by at least two burglaries.
He was released and deported back to Albania six months into his sentence (in the passing of which, of course, the judge would have lied, as all British judges passing prison sentences are now obliged to do, knowing full well as they do that the sentence that they have passed will have little relation with the sentence actually served).
Mr Binaj, to secure his even earlier release, claimed that he wanted to see his dying grandmother, but whatever the reason for his return to Albania, he returned to Britian illegally. Apparently, he has committed other crimes since, but he married his Lithuanian girlfriend living in Britain, and waited until a child was born to take his case to the ECHR for the right to stay in Britain (one might wonder who paid for the case). The court held that his right to family life outweighed all other considerations whatsoever.
The absurdity, or malignity, of this hardly needs elucidation, so apparent is it. The court, in effect, imposes upon the British people the duty to put up with and pay for this man’s behaviour, whatever it might be. The fact that he has twice entered the country illegally, and is known to have committed several crimes (and probably many more), does not weigh as a feather in the balance with his family unity which could, of course, be maintained elsewhere anyway, though perhaps not in accord with what it would like. Ther court is thus not a court of human rights, but of criminals’ wishes.
It might be said that this is an isolated case, and that one swallow doesn’t make a summer. But in fact what this ruling does is to give a weapon into the hand of every illegal immigrant into Britain, or any other European country that recognises the jurisdiction of the court. All such an immigrant has to do is make pregnant a woman with the right of residence, and he is home and dry. It will not be worthwhile for the government of whatever country he has entered illegally even to try to deport him.
This kind of malign absurdity, in which a group of judges claim sovereignty over all national governments, and who practise generosity and broadmindedness at other people’s expense, is likely to provoke a simmering anger that might one day explode in a very unpleasant fashion. No one can predict the future: it may be that the population, anaesthetised or least tranquillised by the infinitude of distractions available to them on the internet and social media, will meekly accept what the ECHR imposes upon it. But this is by no means certain, and a spark might ignite an explosion.
One Response
As usual from Theodore Dalrymple, the combination of eloquence and dyspeptic temper offers a far more penetrating and persuasive case for the moral absurdities of this and so many other cases. Well done and thank you!
I just wish that more British politicians will listen to such arguments, and get this nation out from under the malign judgements of this transnational equivalent of a kangeroo court. But I won’t be holding my breath!