Latest news with #HumanRightsConvention
Daily Mirror
2 days ago
- Daily Mirror
Josef Fritzl lawyer wants him freed from jail for 'social training' and coffee
The Lawyer for the twisted rapist father who imprisoned his own daughter for more than two decades has asked Austrian authorities for the fiend to be allowed out Horrific cellar rape monster Josef Fritzl's lawyer has applied for him to be allowed out of jail for special 'social training' to enjoy coffees in local cafes. The 90-year-old who caged his own daughter for 24 years, fathering seven children through years of abuse, has already requested early release from prison. But in an exclusive interview his lawyer Astrid Wagner now reveals she has just also formally petitioned for Fritzl to get out on a special "social training" scheme. This means he could very soon be enjoying day visits to Vienna, and coffees in local cafes, despite not having even been officially released from prison. Fritzl has already been transferred from a secure psychiatric facility to a regular prison. Recently the Mirror revealed how a man brutally kills a woman on first date and leave her body parts around town. Dr Wagner said: 'I've also filed a contingent application, so that he'll now be allowed out, you know, to drink coffee, get outside a bit, so he'll soon be seen in a café near Krems, perhaps in just a few weeks even. It's a kind of social training, which means he now has to learn how a mobile phone works and how to order coffee in a café, and things like that. 'And simply do things independently again, like opening and closing doors and locking them. They all forget how to do that in prison. So it could well be that in a few weeks she'll be sitting in a café." 'And yes, he'll be in a café with a psychologist. There's a very nice café near the correctional facility, and he'll be going there for coffee soon. In terms of how he is doing now, I can say that he seems very fit again, it's just his mind, unfortunately, but he doesn't need a Zimmer frame, he has one, but he can walk without it, he always comes without it, and he can tolerate the heat very well.' 'So it could very, very well be that in a few weeks she'll be sitting in a café. And that, for example, he first gets 12 hours of leave and then goes on a day trip to Vienna. ' She added: 'What is important now is that Fritzl is failing to take his dementia medication, that is one reason why further detention is unconstitutional Itviolates the Human Rights Convention because he no longer understands the purpose of his detention. So, that's quite clear.' It will now be up to a panel of judges in Krems to decide whether the man convicted of murder, rape, incest, slavery and severe coercion should be allowed back into society. As Fritzl is the only person in Austrian history ever convicted of slavery, critics are horrified. Veteran crime reporter Michael Koch slammed the bid, pointing out that Fritzl is not behind bars 'just' for locking his daughter in a cellar – but for a catalogue of crimes so vile they shook the world. Wagner insists even Fritzl 'deserves a chance,' but the thought of him walking free is sparking outrage across Austria. The case will reignite the debate over whether people like Fritzl should ever taste freedom again. In a recent interview Tory party leader Kemi Badenoch, revealed that she found the Fritzl case so disturbing that she lost all faith in God, and it 'blew out a candle' on her faith.
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
No court can erase the genocidal evil of Hamas
The application by Hamas to have its name taken off the UK's list of banned terrorist organisations is the latest example of lawfare, defined as the use of law as a weapon of war. This is not a legal challenge, at least not at this stage: there is no application before the courts. Instead, lawyers representing what the government describes as a militant Islamist group have simply asked the Home Secretary to de-proscribe – un-ban – Hamas. Under regulations made in 2006, Yvette Cooper has 90 days in which to reach a decision. If, as expected, she refuses the application, Hamas can appeal to a special tribunal called the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. The commission will allow an appeal only if it considers, applying judicial review principles, that the decision to refuse de-proscription was flawed. Hamas is represented by Fahad Mustafa Ansari, a solicitor who practises as Riverway Law from Streatham, south London. His submission to the Home Office, published on Tuesday, claims that banning Hamas is incompatible with article 10 of the Human Rights Convention, which protects freedom of expression, as well as article 11, which supports peaceful assembly and association. Ansari's submission is not only offensive to those who have had to fight for these fundamental rights. It glosses over the fact that states are allowed to restrict freedom of expression and assembly if those restrictions 'are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety'. And the submission explicitly admits that Hamas is a 'threat' to any British nationals 'taking part in genocide, apartheid and illegal belligerent occupation' – as defined, of course, by Hamas. The UK's ban on Hamas goes back to March 2001. At that time, the government maintained that only the movement's military wing was involved in terrorism. In November 2021, ministers accepted that distinguishing between the military and official wings was artificial. 'Hamas is a complex but single terrorist organisation,' the Home Office said when it extended the ban. That was nearly two years before Hamas terrorists and their supporters in Gaza launched a horrifying attack on southern Israel, raping women, killing babies and murdering some 1,200 Israelis or foreign nationals. More than 250 people were taken hostage, some of whom still remain in captivity 18 months later. Such inhumanity is inimical to the concept of human rights. According to the warped logic expressed in this submission, Israelis are not entitled to human rights – or even human life – because they have been in 'illegal belligerent occupation' of their homeland since 1948. How, then, do Hamas leaders justify intimidating, torturing and murdering any Gazans who stand up against them? Do they not have human rights either? And why has Hamas waited 24 years to challenge its ban? Nobody could possibly believe that its chances are better now than they were before it invaded Israel on October 7 2023. The group knows it has no support from the Arab world and that other Palestinian groups are turning against it. It must also know that two defendants awaiting trial on charges of recklessly expressing support for Hamas lost legal challenges in the Court of Appeal just before Christmas. If Hamas was not trying to win over a gullible public, why did it go public with its submission? If this was nothing more than a publicity stunt, there would have been no need for a professionally produced social media video, showing Ansari flanked by the two barristers acting with him. These lawyers are well aware of the risks they face. To read their submission online, you must first 'acknowledge that none of the contents can be understood as supporting or expressing support for proscribed terrorist organisations'. That's because anyone who expresses support for Hamas while being reckless as to whether their audience will be encouraged to support the terrorist organisation faces a prison sentence of up to 14 years. But is this disclaimer really enough to protect the lawyers from facing charges themselves? Their public submission is devoted to exonerating a terrorist organisation that asserts its own human rights while denying the most important human right of all – the right to life. Or do Hamas leaders think the publicity they may gain by losing in the courts will make up for the deaths they caused by starting a war that they could never win? Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
No court can erase the genocidal evil of Hamas
The application by Hamas to have its name taken off the UK's list of banned terrorist organisations is the latest example of lawfare, defined as the use of law as a weapon of war. This is not a legal challenge, at least not at this stage: there is no application before the courts. Instead, lawyers representing what the government describes as a militant Islamist group have simply asked the Home Secretary to de-proscribe – un-ban – Hamas. Under regulations made in 2006, Yvette Cooper has 90 days in which to reach a decision. If, as expected, she refuses the application, Hamas can appeal to a special tribunal called the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. The commission will allow an appeal only if it considers, applying judicial review principles, that the decision to refuse de-proscription was flawed. Hamas is represented by Fahad Mustafa Ansari, a solicitor who practises as Riverway Law from Streatham, south London. His submission to the Home Office, published on Tuesday, claims that banning Hamas is incompatible with article 10 of the Human Rights Convention, which protects freedom of expression, as well as article 11, which supports peaceful assembly and association. Ansari's submission is not only offensive to those who have had to fight for these fundamental rights. It glosses over the fact that states are allowed to restrict freedom of expression and assembly if those restrictions 'are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety'. And the submission explicitly admits that Hamas is a 'threat' to any British nationals 'taking part in genocide, apartheid and illegal belligerent occupation' – as defined, of course, by Hamas. The UK's ban on Hamas goes back to March 2001. At that time, the government maintained that only the movement's military wing was involved in terrorism. In November 2021, ministers accepted that distinguishing between the military and official wings was artificial. 'Hamas is a complex but single terrorist organisation,' the Home Office said when it extended the ban. That was nearly two years before Hamas terrorists and their supporters in Gaza launched a horrifying attack on southern Israel, raping women, killing babies and murdering some 1,200 Israelis or foreign nationals. More than 250 people were taken hostage, some of whom still remain in captivity 18 months later. Such inhumanity is inimical to the concept of human rights. According to the warped logic expressed in this submission, Israelis are not entitled to human rights – or even human life – because they have been in 'illegal belligerent occupation' of their homeland since 1948. How, then, do Hamas leaders justify intimidating, torturing and murdering any Gazans who stand up against them? Do they not have human rights either? And why has Hamas waited 24 years to challenge its ban? Nobody could possibly believe that its chances are better now than they were before it invaded Israel on October 7 2023. The group knows it has no support from the Arab world and that other Palestinian groups are turning against it. It must also know that two defendants awaiting trial on charges of recklessly expressing support for Hamas lost legal challenges in the Court of Appeal just before Christmas. If Hamas was not trying to win over a gullible public, why did it go public with its submission? If this was nothing more than a publicity stunt, there would have been no need for a professionally produced social media video, showing Ansari flanked by the two barristers acting with him. These lawyers are well aware of the risks they face. To read their submission online, you must first 'acknowledge that none of the contents can be understood as supporting or expressing support for proscribed terrorist organisations'. That's because anyone who expresses support for Hamas while being reckless as to whether their audience will be encouraged to support the terrorist organisation faces a prison sentence of up to 14 years. But is this disclaimer really enough to protect the lawyers from facing charges themselves? Their public submission is devoted to exonerating a terrorist organisation that asserts its own human rights while denying the most important human right of all – the right to life. Or do Hamas leaders think the publicity they may gain by losing in the courts will make up for the deaths they caused by starting a war that they could never win?
