Scottish Tories "for nothing if you don't have freedom"*

What now for the Scottish Tories?

Yesterday they David McLetchie took a stance which flew in the face of common sense or fairness, when they opposed the right for a suspect to have a lawyer present for the first six hours while the police were able to question. The Tories are probably opposing the ruling solely on the grounds that it comes from a decision taken in the European Court for Human Rights in 2008. The fact that there are some sensible decisions taken in Europe seems to be a point that deludes them. Hopefully the Scottish people will remember how inhuman the Scottish Tories are on the subjects of rights for the citizens next May.

The preamble to the Liberal Democrats constitution says that "no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity" and the presence of the six hour rule could well have let to some innocents being imprisoned due to these. So I suspect that this ruling may cause ructions in Westminster with the Tories trying to limit or remove the European Convention on Human Rights from UK law and the rulings of the European Court, even where they are beneficial, being countermanded. Also unlike the Tories the Liberal Democrats believe "our responsibility for justice and liberty cannot be confined by national boundaries"[from the preamble]

I trust that the Lib Dems in Westminster, having secured our Freedom Bill in the coalition agreement will remember that the party exists "to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community"[from the preamble].

The Scottish Tories may moan "but they'll never take OUR FREEDOM"**.

Or else we'll set the Comptroller of HM Household (pictured) on them.

* Yeah a little bit of Braveheart in the title.
** And a little bit more Braveheart at the end.

Pride in Our Supreme Court

Yesterday I posted abouthow the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had condemned Britain's return with discretion policy to sexuality refugees which were followed under Labour. Today the UK Supreme Court has stood up for sexuality refugees as well. They ruled in favour of two men one from Iran and the other from Cameroon.

They had been asked to consider if a gay applicant could be refused asylum on the grounds that he could avoid ill treatment if he concealed his sexuality. (I could use a gender neutral term here but the applicants were both male on this occasion and the Supreme Court was considering that specific case to set precedent). The Court of appeal had previously thrown out the cases as they stated that by concealing their identity their situation could be regarded as "reasonably tolerable".

The applicants had gone to the Supreme Court to challenge the tolerability test, saying it was contrary to the Refugee Convention Act of which the UK is a signatory.The Supreme Court Agreed Lord Hope read out their findings saying:

"To compel a homosexual person to pretend that his sexuality does not exist or suppress the behaviour by which to manifest itself is to deny his fundamental right to be who he is.

"Homosexuals are as much entitled to freedom of association with others who are of the same sexual orientation as people who are straight."

Now don't forget that Labour were saying that they were the champions of LGBT rights, yet under them the 'tolerability test' and 'discretion precedent' where the preferred way of dealing with people fleeing persecution because of their sexuality. Both could easily have been overturned by legislation or guidance from the Minister.

I suppose we should thank Labour for setting up the independent Supreme Court who have now ruled that their guidance was actually incorrect. Good to see the independent judicial body standing up for human rights in our country.

In the case of Iran and other countries the people who come to our country seeking asylum because of their sexuality are facing a death penalty if they return. It is a subject I have blogged about too often in the past and expect to sadly have to return to again in the future.