In an astonishing week that beggars belief, Britain’s immigration system has once again been exposed as a playground for judicial activism, leaving the public bewildered and furious.
From granting visas to the deceased to protecting terrorists in our midst, the nation’s courts seem determined to prioritise dubious claims over the safety and integrity of the UK.
Consider the jaw-dropping case of a Cuban woman granted a visa to join her British boyfriend — despite the unfortunate fact that he had already died. Yes, you read that correctly. While hardworking British families navigate labyrinthine bureaucracy for legitimate visas, this absurdity passed through the system unchallenged.
Then there’s the case of an Albanian man whose deportation was blocked because his young son objected to the taste of chicken nuggets in his homeland. This, apparently, constitutes “undue hardship” in the eyes of our courts. One might ask: when did children’s fast-food preferences become a pillar of British immigration law?
Meanwhile, a Nigerian woman who voluntarily joined a separatist terrorist group has been allowed to stay in the UK. The reasoning? She might face persecution back home for her membership in that same group — despite the fact she only joined to claim asylum. The system, it seems, rewards deception over decency.
If that weren’t enough, we’ve witnessed Gazan refugees exploiting a scheme designed for Ukrainians. A judge invoked the sacrosanct Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) — the right to family life — to allow them entry, despite their tenuous connection to any Ukrainian refugee status. The decision sets a dangerous precedent, opening the floodgates to anyone claiming “family ties” without meaningful proof.
And in a final twist of what many are calling “judicial insanity”, a review recently ruled that SAS operatives acted wrongly when they eliminated IRA terrorists. The same terrorists who were plotting carnage on British soil. Our soldiers risk their lives for Queen and country, only to be second-guessed by those who sit safely behind courtroom benches.
What connects these maddening decisions? A judiciary empowered by the Human Rights Act (HRA) and tethered to the ECHR — an outdated, foreign-influenced legal framework that repeatedly hampers Britain’s ability to protect itself.
The Great British PAC, a new political action group led by Ben Habib, has warned that the current system is no longer fit for purpose. They’re preparing an iron-clad Ultimate Repeal Act, spearheaded by Martin Howe KC, Britain’s foremost legal authority in this area to dismantle Labour’s damaging policies, overreach and diktats on Day 1 of the next government. The groundwork is already being laid, ensuring that a future centre-right administration — whether Tory, Reform, or a coalition — can swiftly reverse the damaging policies that have been hampering Britain’s progress.
“We need to reclaim judicial sanity,” said a PAC spokesperson. “The HCA and ECHR have been contorted beyond recognition, undermining our sovereignty and security. We need to take back control.”
Australia and New Zealand have demonstrated that you can uphold human rights without succumbing to international judicial overreach. It’s time for Britain to follow suit. Scrap the HRA. Leave the ECHR. Restore the primacy of Parliament and the will of the British people.
The public has had enough of this farce. It’s time to take back control — before our courts render national borders meaningless and public safety an afterthought.
Join the Great British PAC here.
