Thursday, 21 November 2013

These invaders were on their way to Melilla, one of the Spanish exclaves in Africa, two nights ago. They were stopped before they got the chance to rush the fence.

Recently, the Spanish government set razor blades on these fences to deter fence-jump attempts. The Director of Public Prosecutions has ordered an investigation into this, however, saying it may be illegal. All opposition parties have also demanded the removal of the razor blades.


Anonymous said...

John Anthony Dyson, Lord Dyson[n 1] MR (born 31 July 1943) is the Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice, the second most senior judge in England and Wales.

Dyson married Jacqueline Levy in 1970, with whom he has a son and daughter.

In 2011, the organization had wanted to place ads on the radio stating: “Surveys have shown that over 60 percent of active Christians are being increasingly marginalized in the workplace. We are concerned to get the most accurate data to inform the public debate. We will then use this data to help a fairer society. Please visit and report your experiences.”

Broadcast regulators, called the Radio Advertising Clearance Center, claimed the ad “had a political objective” and banned it.

The court now has affirmed that censorship.

“We are saddened to report today’s Court of Appeal decision to uphold a ban on an advertisement which asked Christians to report their experiences of marginalization in the workplace, and see it is an attack on freedom of speech,” the company said.

CEO Peter Kerridge noted, “This is not only a bad day for freedom of speech for Christians, it is also a bad day for democracy in general, and a very bad day at the office for the Master of the Rolls” (a high-ranking judge in the UK).

In banning the ad, Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson found it was “directed to the political end of making a fairer society by reducing or eliminating the marginalization of Christians in the workplace.”

“This would suggest that any radio advertisement calling for data to inform public debate to help a fairer society would also be banned,” said Kerridge. “But we have to ask ourselves, did parliament really intend a blanket ban on radio adverts for surveys?”

Judge L.J. Elias, in a dissent, said any ad whose purpose was to facilitate debate was not directed toward a political end and concluded, “If an advertisement does not itself constitute a partial political message, why should it be banned?”

“The wording of the advert did not seek to achieve a political end, it had no political message and there was no attempt to influence the listener to a particular viewpoint, so there appears to be no good reason to ban it. The public interest cannot be best served by preventing people from gaining information and we believe that such a ban represents an attack on freedom of speech for everyone,” Kerridge said.

“Naturally we are disappointed with the judgment but will now consider further options which may be available to us with our legal representatives.”

Anonymous said...

More on Dyson

Migration Museum project - Distinguished Friends - The Right Honourable Lord Dyson

The Right Honourable Lord Dyson

Justice of The Supreme Court

Lord Dyson was called to the Bar in 1968, took silk in 1982 and in 1986 became Head of Chambers at 39 Essex Street. He became a Recorder in 1986 and was appointed to the High Court Bench in 1993 (Queen’s Bench Division) and was knighted the same year. From 1998- 2001, Lord Dyson was the Presiding Judge in the Technology and Construction Court. Sir John became a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2001.
Lord Dyson has held the following notable positions:
Member of Council of Legal Education (1992- 1996);
Member of Judicial Studies Board (1994- 1998) (Chairman of Ethnic Minorities Advisory Committee);
Deputy Head of Civil Justice Council 2003-2006; and
Member of Civil Procedure Rule Committee 2002-2006.
Lord Dyson also became an Honorary Fellow of the Society of Advanced Legal Studies in 1998 and of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2004.
Lord Dyson married Jacqueline Carmel Levy in 1970 and has one daughter (Michelle) and one son (Steven). His interests (according to Debrett’s) are music, walking, skiing and tennis.

Anonymous said...

>The Director of Public Prosecutions has ordered an investigation into this, however, saying it may be illegal. All opposition parties have also demanded the removal of the razor blades.

How on earth can it be illegal? It's a fence. It's supposed to act as a barrier and deterrent. Hell, it's freakin' international border!

I can image some left wingnuts feel the fence poses as a danger to illegal migrants and needs to be made safer. God, if they had their way, the wingnuts would tear down the fence and allow any migrant to walk in freely, and give them free housing and welfare checks, too.

Anonymous said...

Whats illegal is the idiot who wants to make it easy for illegal immigrants, should be fired immediately. He would be if I was running that government.

Reality Check said...

How about some land mines? Wouldn't that be an effective deterrent?

Dr Bazooka said...

Looks like a column of equatorial ants.

Roni said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roni said...

The world famous Belgian professor of Economics, Paul Collier, suggests that the time is ripe to build a wall around Europe. The reason he gives is: the so called refugees are wealthy people who can afford themselves the service of criminals for the cross over. Collier is in the right direction. But there is more to the matter that he perhaps doesn’t dare to tell. The so-called " boat people” are not just wealthy Negroes who try to escape war. The majority of them are war criminals of the worst kind . The real victims find their death along the way and their carcasses are rotting in the sun; without anyone taking the trouble to bury them. Others slowly languish in refugee camps. "The poor boat people " that reach Lampedoesa, Malta etc., are assassins with gallons of innocent blood under their fingernails. The money they use, comes from raids associated with burning of entire villages and their crimes differ in nothing from the massacres in Rwanda and Congo . Raping women and children is their daily fare. .Thus, one can explain their behavior in Scandinavia. They see the people who are helping them as weaklings and idiots. So why shouldn’t they treat the women of the weak hosts different than women and little girls in Africa? In the Netherlands, they are searching, immediately after arrival, for partners in crime . If they don’t find a gang that suits them, they form a new gang of their own. All summed up, a wall around Europe is justified . Governments have the duty to protect their subjects. The duty of every army, navy, gendarmerie or military police is to keep harmful elements already at the border and to keep territorial waters ‘clean’ . A boat with hostile cargo should be taken under fire. In our time, we don’t need for that job even navy vessels. Drones can do it as well.

Anonymous said...

Europe actually NEEDS to be fenced. There is no other solution. Think of it as a street with a row of houses. The better looking houses have been managed well by their owners. The house will have a fence and gates - and of course a lockable door and windows.

Why does the door have to have a lock?

And why does anbody have locks on their doors - and even security systems?

For the same reason that Europe should have a fence.

sheik yer'mami said...

I suppose you mean razor wire, (not razor blades) which goes back to before the Vietnam war.

As for Europe protecting itself, it seems no longer permitted:

European Union spokesturd reminds nation states that they no longer have rights to determine their own immigration policies

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews