Latest news with #ECHR
The Sun
2 days ago
- Business
- The Sun
Lord Hermer must accept that he is in Cabinet to serve the interests of his country or his days will be numbered
Lord Harmer HOW much more of the smug and horribly out of touch Attorney General Lord Richard Hermer must we put up with? More than 80 per cent of the country is demanding less immigration. 1 A big chunk want none at all. The only way we can truly wrest back control of our borders — especially to tackle illegal migration — is to fundamentally fix our relationship with the ECHR. Or quit it all together. Breathtakingly, Lord Hermer compares any such suggestion with Nazism. Is he really likening the thoughts of most ordinary Brits to the most evil regime in human history? If so, then he is unfit for his office. Despite his forced apology yesterday, his Lordship still fails to understand that he is now in Government — not performing for his legal echo chamber. The public wants change — which is why Keir Starmer speaks of Britain becoming an ' island of strangers '. Unless Hermer accepts that he is in Cabinet to serve the interests of his country — not his friends in the human rights lobby — his days will be numbered. Soft cell hell THERE will be many who feel Southport monster Axel Rudakubana doesn't deserve to still be alive. So the idea that he continues to receive jail privileges despite launching a brutal attack on guards is sickening. Winston Churchill would be aghast at the creeping power of Euro judges – we must ditch them, Robert Jenrick says Why should prison officers have to face the daily threat of attack while he enjoys his home comforts? The truth is that across the prison service beasts like Rudakubana are being molly-coddled. Just this week, we revealed how the brother of the Manchester Arena suicide bomber was allowed to make a compensation claim for what he said were breaches of his religious rights. Yet officers in the specialist Islamic unit where Hashem Abedi is held at Frankland Prison fear that one day a colleague will be beheaded. Lock up these murdering scum and stop pandering to their demands. Do your duty WERE it not for The Sun's Keep it Down campaign, fuel prices would still be at record levels. As it is, they are now the lowest since 2021 thanks to the cut in fuel duty fought for by this newspaper. Ending that relief for motorists would be highly damaging for growth. Last October, Chancellor Rachel Reeves rightly understood that scrapping the 14-year freeze would hammer working people. She mustn't be tempted — as she grapples with a £150billion deficit — to fleece drivers already clobbered by the highest taxes in 80 years.
The Journal
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Journal
Daughter of Denis Donaldson calls for public inquiry into his killing following Adams case
THE DAUGHTER OF Denis Donaldson, who was shot dead after being revealed to be an IRA informer, has called for an urgent public inquiry into the killing. It comes after former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams's successful defamation action against the BBC. Adams claimed a BBC Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Féin official Denis Donaldson, which he denies any involvement in. The jury today found in his favour and awarded him €100,000 in damages. Donaldson was shot dead in Co Donegal in 2006, months after admitting his role as a police and MI5 agent over 20 years. His daughter, Jane Donaldson, was prevented from giving evidence to the jury during the BBC's defence of the case. Following the verdict, she said the case proves the need for an urgent public inquiry into the killing. In a statement on behalf of the family, Jane Donaldson said: 'By reducing events which damaged our lives to a debate about damage to his reputation, the plaintiff has trivialised our family tragedy. 'Daddy's murder and surrounding circumstances devastated our family. The plaintiff prioritised his own financial and reputational interests over any regard for retraumatising my family. We are still no closer to the truth. No one spoke for my family in court. We supported neither side in this case. Speaking after today's verdict, Adams said: 'I'm very mindful of the Donaldson family in the course of this long trial, and indeed of the victims' families who have had to watch all of this. 'I want to say that the Justice Minister Jim O'Callaghan should meet the family of Denis Donaldson as quickly as possible, and that there's an onus on both governments and everyone else, and I include myself in this, to try and deal with these legacy issues as best that we can.' 'Cross-border dimension' However, Jane Donaldson criticised his legal team's approach to her evidence. Advertisement 'Although the plaintiff claimed sympathy for my family, his legal team objected to me giving evidence to challenge the account of his witnesses,' she said. 'The jury heard sensitive, privileged family information tossed around without our consent, but did not hear my testimony. 'Limitless legal resources and vast expense were invested in this case while there is supposedly a live Garda investigation into my daddy's murder. 'The public interest can only now be fully served by some form of public inquiry, with a cross-border dimension which is ECHR Article 2-compliant, empowered to investigate the whole truth about the conspiracy to expose and murder my daddy.' Ciaran Shiels, a solicitor who represented the family in the past, was called as a witness in the case. Shiels, a solicitor and partner at Madden and Finucane Solicitors, told the court the BBC was not only 'barking up the wrong tree' but was in the 'wrong orchard' over the claims against Adams. Shiels said he represented Denis Donaldson and his family from a period before his death until a period after the broadcast. He said he came to act as a spokesperson for the family after Donaldson's death but said he no longer does so. Shiels told the court the family do not accept or believe in any way that Adams had anything to do with it. However, Jane Donaldson issued a statement after his appearance in court to say the family had not been consulted about him giving evidence in the case. She said she wanted to make clear Shiels no longer acts for the family. In a voir dire hearing without the presence of the jury, Jane Donaldson said she had followed the case 'very closely and very painfully' over a number of weeks and felt compelled to contact the BBC because she felt there were inaccuracies presented as evidence in the case. Father 'thrown to the wolves' She said the family did not accept the claim of responsibility for the killing by the dissident republican group the Real IRA. Jane Donaldson said her father had been 'thrown to the wolves' and there was a conspiracy to deliberately expose him as an agent. Related Reads Gerry Adams defamation trial: Here's what he said in court, and how the BBC fought back Gerry Adams awarded €100,000 in damages after suing BBC for libel She said it was the family's position that it had an 'open mind' in relation to the murder and it was focused on 'pursuing the truth'. Jane Donaldson also said she had no idea that Shiels was going to give evidence and she had not authorised it. She said Madden and Finucane represented her family until February of this year but Shiels was never appointed as a family spokesman. She said the family were not aware of the first meeting between Shiels and BBC Spotlight journalist Jennifer O'Leary about the programme, but were aware of subsequent meetings and other correspondence. When questioned by Tom Hogan, SC, for Adams, she also acknowledged her husband, Ciaran Kearney, was later present at a meeting involving the BBC and Shiels at the firm's office. She said she knew her husband was going to meet them and he told her about the meeting afterwards. However, she stressed the family were not aware of the first meeting between Shiels and O'Leary. Paul Gallagher, SC, for the BBC, said it would be a 'fundamental unfairness' to not allow Jane Donaldson to comment on the evidence put forward by Shiels. Judge Alex Owens told Jane Donaldson he appreciated all of her concerns and the points she made. However, he said his concern was whether her evidence was relevant to the jury making decisions. He said he had listened to counsel and her statements very carefully. Judge Owens said: 'While you do have all of these concerns, I don't think your evidence in relation to the matter is going to assist the jury in arriving at their decision.' 'In no circumstances am I going to permit you to give evidence to the jury,' he added.
The Sun
2 days ago
- General
- The Sun
Hermer and Starmer are drunk on concept of international law…and their blind faith to it is leading us down dark path
THE longer a political argument goes on, US lawyer Mike Godwin wrote back in 1990, the greater the probability that it will end with a comparison with the Nazis. It is inevitable, in other words. If 'Godwin's Law', as it has come to be termed, was true 35 years ago, it is even more so now. 4 4 Attorney General Lord Hermer has become the latest to make the jibe, during a lecture at defence think-tank the Royal United Services Institute. In it, he compared the arguments of those who want to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) — which includes Reform UK and many Conservatives as well as ex-Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption — to those of Nazi lawyers who rejected international law. To be fair to Hermer, he didn't quite call Nigel Farage or Kemi Badenoch 'Nazis', but he did accuse them of naivety, suggesting that they would embolden dictators like Vladimir Putin. Chemical warfare Only human rights treaties, he asserts, stand between us and a return to fascism. I don't know what world Lord Hermer is living in, but Russia's membership of the ECHR didn't exactly stop Putin bumping off his enemies, invading Crimea and waging chemical warfare on the streets of Britain with the Skripal poisonings. It was only when he attempted to annex the rest of Ukraine in 2022 by blasting its cities and sending in the tanks that the Council of Europe, which oversees the ECHR, finally had enough and suspended Russia's membership. At the time there were more than 17,000 cases pending against Russia before the European Court of Human Rights. So much for the effectiveness of international law. Meanwhile, as we have seen over and over again, the ECHR is being used by activist lawyers to frustrate the deportation of illegal migrants — serious criminals and terrorists among them. If your child doesn't like the chicken nuggets available back home in Albania, or if your conviction for sex offences against children will make you unpopular back in Iraq, deporting you is, apparently, a terrible breach of your human rights. Starmer signs deal with Mauritius to hand over Chagos Islands The 'right to a family life' now seems to mean pretty well anything, including the right to run a criminal gang in Britain. This is as far from the original intentions of the ECHR as could be imagined. Those who drafted it in 1950 would be turning in their graves if they knew what it had become. Hermer and Starmer are simply drunk on the concept of international law The convention, as written then, contained relatively few clauses but ones on which most of humanity could agree, such as a prohibition against torture. It didn't even ban the death penalty. Over the years, however, it has been expanded via various protocols, many of them highly political. Activist judges have been able to interpret the convention how they wish, using something called 'living instrument doctrine'. Democracy doesn't seem to count for much. Unlike the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which predates the ECHR by two years and declares that 'the will of the people shall be the basis of government', the ECHR provides no such assurance. That is why it must go. It has become an instrument for an elite band of lawyers to rule over the rest of us, suppressing democratic will. Not that this will cut much ice with the likes of Hermer and Keir Starmer. They won't want to dump the ECHR, or other such structures of international law, because they, of course, are members of that elite — it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. Again, to be fair to Hermer, he did acknowledge that there are some problems with the ECHR, and suggested it might have to be renegotiated. But we have had endless amendments and they have ended the same way — with ever more protocols giving activist judges ever more powers. Hermer and Starmer are simply drunk on the concept of international law. Even when they can see its faults they can't pull themselves away from it, can't bring themselves to ask whether Britain really needs to be a member of every supra-national treaty and body. They end up being suckers for the devious agendas of people who populate those bodies. Lord Hermer's big idea is 'progressive realism', which he defines as 'a rejection of the siren song that can sadly now be heard in the Palace of Westminster, not to mention some sections of the media, that Britain abandon the constraints of international law in favour of raw power'. 4 Perverse ruling But we have already seen where a blind faith in international law leads: for example, to the outrage of the Chagos Islands being given away to Mauritius, a country which has never had ownership of the islands. The Chagos Islands, by the way, were uninhabited before European settlement. But then came the perverse ruling of a body called the International Court of Justice and Starmer, of course, could not bring himself to argue against it. Russia's membership of the ECHR didn't exactly stop Putin bumping off his enemies, invading Crimea and waging chemical warfare on the streets of Britain with the Skripal poisonings The result is not just a multi-billion-pound bill for UK taxpayers to lease back our military base: we have handed sovereignty of a strategic group of islands to a country which is becoming increasingly friendly with China — a nation whose autocratic government doesn't give a damn for human rights. That is where a pedantic following of international law gets you. As Mike Godwin argued, comparing everyone and everything you don't like to the Nazis belittles the Holocaust. But the beneficiaries of Hermer and Starmer's progressive realism aren't exactly lovers of freedom and democracy. On the contrary, a blind faith in international law is leading Britain down a dark path.
Spectator
2 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Did No. 10 clear Lord Hermer's ‘Nazi jibe' speech?
Another day, another bit of bad press for the Labour party. Attorney General Lord Hermer sparked outrage when he compared political threats to leave the ECHR to the Nazis during a speech to the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RUSI) defence think tank on Thursday – and has since acknowledged, rather begrudgingly, that his 'choice of words was clumsy'. You don't say! Mr S is rather curious about who exactly gave the rather controversial phraseology the green light – if it was approved at all. The speech appeared on the official government website after it was delivered, with the Attorney General's baffling comparison retained in black and white. The questionable passage reads:
South Wales Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- South Wales Guardian
Daughter of Denis Donaldson demands public inquiry into killing after Adams case
Mr Adams claimed a BBC Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson, which he denies any involvement in. On Friday, the jury found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euro (£84,000) in damages. Mr Donaldson was shot dead in Co Donegal in 2006, months after admitting his role as a police and MI5 agent over 20 years. His daughter, Jane Donaldson, was prevented from giving evidence to the jury during the BBC's defence of the case. Following the verdict, she said the case proves the need for an urgent public inquiry into the killing. In a statement on behalf of the family, Ms Donaldson said: 'By reducing events which damaged our lives to a debate about damage to his reputation, the plaintiff has trivialised our family tragedy. 'Daddy's murder and surrounding circumstances devastated our family. The plaintiff prioritised his own financial and reputational interests over any regard for retraumatising my family. 'We are still no closer to the truth. No-one spoke for my family in court. We supported neither side in this case.' Speaking after the verdict, Mr Adams said: 'I'm very mindful of the Donaldson family in the course of this long trial, and indeed of the victims' families who have had to watch all of this. 'I want to say that the (Irish) Justice Minister Jim O'Callaghan should meet the family of Denis Donaldson as quickly as possible, and that there's an onus on both governments and everyone else, and I include myself in this, to try and deal with these legacy issues as best that we can.' However, Ms Donaldson criticised his legal team's approach to her evidence. 'Although the plaintiff claimed sympathy for my family, his legal team objected to me giving evidence to challenge the account of his witnesses. 'The jury heard sensitive, privileged family information tossed around without our consent, but did not hear my testimony. 'Limitless legal resources and vast expense were invested in this case while there is supposedly a live Garda investigation into my daddy's murder. 'The public interest can only now be fully served by some form of public inquiry, with a cross-border dimension which is ECHR Article 2-compliant, empowered to investigate the whole truth about the conspiracy to expose and murder my daddy.' Ciaran Shiels, a solicitor who represented the family in the past, was called as a witness in the case. Mr Shiels, a solicitor and partner at Madden and Finucane Solicitors, told the court the BBC was not only 'barking up the wrong tree' but was in the 'wrong orchard' over the claims against Mr Adams. Mr Shiels said he represented Mr Donaldson and his family from a period before his death until a period after the broadcast. He said he came to act as a spokesperson for the family after Mr Donaldson's death but said he no longer does so. Mr Shiels told the court the family do not accept or believe in any way that Mr Adams had anything to do with it. However, Ms Donaldson issued a statement after his appearance in court to say the family had not been consulted about him giving evidence in the case. She said she wanted to make clear Mr Shiels no longer acts for the family. In a voir dire hearing without the presence of the jury, Ms Donaldson said she had followed the case 'very closely and very painfully' over a number of weeks and felt compelled to contact the BBC because she felt there were inaccuracies presented as evidence in the case. She said the family did not accept the claim of responsibility for the killing by the dissident republican group the Real IRA. Ms Donaldson said her father had been 'thrown to the wolves' and there was a conspiracy to deliberately expose him as an agent. She said it was the family's position that it had an 'open mind' in relation to the murder and it was focused on 'pursuing the truth'. Ms Donaldson also said she had no idea that Mr Shiels was going to give evidence and she had not authorised it. She said Madden and Finucane represented her family until February of this year but Mr Shiels was never appointed as a family spokesman. She said the family were not aware of the first meeting between Mr Shiels and BBC Spotlight journalist Jennifer O'Leary about the programme, but were aware of subsequent meetings and other correspondence. When questioned by Tom Hogan, SC, for Mr Adams, she also acknowledged her husband, Ciaran Kearney, was later present at a meeting involving the BBC and Mr Shiels at the firm's office. She said she knew her husband was going to meet them and he told her about the meeting afterwards. However, she stressed the family were not aware of the first meeting between Mr Shiels and Ms O'Leary. Trial judge Alexander Owens intervened to say that was 'water under the bridge' for the second meeting. Mr Hogan asked Ms Donaldson if she was aware of correspondence on behalf of the family responding to allegations about Mr Kearney. Ms Donaldson said Mr Shiels was speaking on behalf of the family at that time in relation to the specifics of the programme. Mr Hogan said Mr Shiels had told the court he no longer represented the family. Ms Donaldson said the statement she had issued on Mr Shiels's relationship to the family was to contradict a newspaper report. She also said she felt there was a narrative that the family were in support of one side over the other when they were not. Judge Owens asked Ms Donaldson if Mr Shiels was speaking for the family on September 23, 2016 when he made representations to the media following a meeting with An Garda Siochana. She said he was at that stage, and acknowledged he was authorised to put out statements for the family over the years. Asked about Mr Shiels's evidence when he said the family would have told the programme they did not believe Mr Adams's authorised the killing, she said she did not recall discussing that in detail or discussing Mr Adams in particular. She said their legal advice had been not to take part in the programme. Judge Owens asked if Mr Shiels had been right in relation to their view at the time, adding it may not be 'either here or there'. Ms Donaldson replied: 'I think it is neither here nor there.' She added she cannot recall a conversation about that at the time, adding the family's position has evolved over the years. Mr Hogan contended Ms Donaldson's comments had not borne out that Mr Shiels had provided a serious inaccuracy to the court. He said he was in fact authorised to act as a spokesperson for the family at the time. Paul Gallagher, SC, for the BBC, said it would be a 'fundamental unfairness' to not allow Ms Donaldson to comment on the evidence put forward by Mr Shiels. Judge Owens said the Donaldsons were aware of Mr Shiels's actions from the second meeting onwards. He told Ms Donaldson he appreciated all of her concerns and the points she made. However, he said his concern was whether her evidence was relevant to the jury making decisions. He said he had listened to counsel and her statements very carefully. Judge Owens said: 'While you do have all of these concerns, I don't think your evidence in relation to the matter is going to assist the jury in arriving at their decision.' He added: 'In no circumstances am I going to permit you to give evidence to the jury.'
