As I noted here earlier, Ugandan lesbian Brenda Namigadde — who fled to the U.K. in 2002 to escape persecution in her home country where homosexuality is outlawed with those who break that law subject to up to 14 years in prison — was scheduled to be sent back to Uganda at 9 p.m. tonight (London time). But word now is that a High Court judge has granted a temporary injunction preventing her deportation, according to reports by BBC.
Namigadde’s earlier pleas for asylum in the U.K. had been denied after a judge said there was no evidence she is a lesbian.
Efforts to halt Namigadde’s deportation took on added urgency on Wednesdays after news broke of the murder of Uganda’s most prominent gay rights activist, David Kato.
2 Comments
The court change is a massive democratic advance in the nature of legal decisions, ending judges’ power to make biased or partial decisions ignoring parts of a case’s evidence and to call it final. This it holds the judge answerable, open endedly, to every detail of the evidence put to him, before he can sustain denying Brenda Namigadde’s sexuality.
It applies to most of the world if folks in each country want to lay claim to it, actually including Uganda. It must now be publicised and used by all supporters of Brenda Namigadde and the folks suffering in Uganda, to help to empower their human rights claims.
Peter Tatchell is quoted as saying “It’s outrageous the government should be considering deporting Brenda…” On the same grounds, it would be outrageous to ignore the court change when it is a massive-impact tool available to fight against her deportation.
COURT CHANGE : Since 7 July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are open-endedly faultable on their logic, instead of final. “Open to open-ended fault finding by any party”. Its shifting of power in favour of ordinary people ensures it has been kept under a media silence. Still, it is on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments.
This follows from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98 on a scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels. This case referred to violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR has made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries’ laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence.
Hence, the original ECHR is now, and since then, an illegal entity, because it broke all preexisting precedent that courts recognise the correct order of time, and it claimed a power of finality to issue decisions whose content is a factual impossibility. But for the original ECHR to lapse in this way, also breaches the European Convention’s section on requiring an ECHR to exist. Hence, this section requires the member countries to create a new ECHR that removes the original’s illegality. The source of the illegality being left standing was in the claimed power of final decision. Hence, the only way the new court can remove the illegality is by being constituted such that its decisions are not final. If decisions are not final, the only other thing they can be is open-endedly faultable.
This requires the courts in the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries’ courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in all the Council of Europe countries.
The concept of “leave to appeal” is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further faultable in return, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.
World trade irreversibly means jurisdictions are not cocooned but have overlapping cases. When a case overlaps an affected and unaffected country, the unaffected country becomes affected, through having to deal with open ended case content open-endedly, that can affect any number of other cases open-endedly. Open-endedness is created in its system.
So the court change is of far-reaching international interest. Anyone can add to the list of court change countries outside the Council of Europe, showing autocracies, pending their freer futures, as well as democracies.
Including:
America through many transatlantic cases, pick any, e.g. Natwest 3, Enron, Gary Mackinnon, or the CJD ban on British source blood donations in 2000. Or, to get America into the court change right from the start date, I can offer my still stalled ethical dispute about brain research with Arizona university in that period.
Sudan through Al Shafi pharmaceutical factory suing America for bombing it.
Uganda through the Acholiland child slave crisis and Sudan’s agreement to return children.
I still cannot believe the judge wanted “evidence” of her being a lesbian. What, did he want her to have sex with another woman on the bench with everyone watching?
Absurd.