I've been watching the BBC news on this issue and the same thing baffled me to start with. I wondered, what have human rights to do with deportations?
In a later edition of the BBC news, they drifted into the answer.
Basically, if a country wants to deport someone who faces torture in his own country, then they cannot deport him, by the HR law.
But I'm not sure what Blair wants to do exactly. Does he want to deport people regardless? If so, he should make it clear.
Normally, if the country that an "undesireable" is to be deported to undertakes not to torture or kill him, then the deportation will take place. However, when Sweden once deported someone to Egypt under these conditions, the Egyptian authorities still went ahead to torture the individual concerned.

This has complicated the issue and it doesnt need a razzmatazz reaction just like Hazel Bliars is doing on NEWSNIGHT NOW

discuss

you make an interesting point.

in the uk if you are white and go abroad and kill a child aka louise woodward he gov will get you out of jail free

uk gove is confused


its not good what blair is saying or hazelblairs...the uk and many european countries hate anything that is different to their form of givernement ...surely british people should not get fish and chips abroad, surely brits should stay here and not go mixing in people's affairs. its in the language. uk need to apply what they say to themselves.

these laws will only mean certain uk brits have no real freedomconfused3

@LADYDAY

EU Human Rights Law is not the problem as countries like France, Germany, Holland, Italy and others have no trouble doing the things that Blair is proposing. The problem is with the UK's Judges who take a totally different view of what is allowed under EU Human Rights Law from the rest of the EU's Judges.
Blair was warned of this when he signed the 1998 Human Rights Act but as usual he knew best and as usual he turned out to be totally wrong. When he signed the 1998 act he was told once signed there is no way to opt out of certain parts once signed and there is no way of leaving that HRA short of leaving the EU.
Blair is talking tough because he knows the only way he can do the things he is proposing is if UK Judges change their tune and fall in line with the rest of the EU's interpretation of the Act. If they as I expect don't play ball then expect long and tedious huffing and puffing from Parliament with in the end the increasing realisation that on this issue it is unelected Judges not Parliament elected by the people who decide things like this.
There is of course one way of bypassing Judges which as I said before means leaving the EU but I don't think Blair or any politician would suggest that.

CATCH 22 SITUATION UUH?

current legislations has provsions for dealing with people who incite violence or illegal acts. Deporting foreign nationals who are convicted of those acts and have served sentences is uncontroversial. But merely expressing or propagating views that don't pass that threshold, especially if the criteria for deportation is devised by the Home Secretary rather than by the judiciary or an independent body, is a criminalisation of opinion that infringes liberty. It's very easy to defend the rights of "goodthinkers"

: real liberty is always tested by the difficult cases.