Research Paper on:
British High Court Case of Farrakhan v. Secretary of State for the Home Dept.

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
ban was lifted only last year. On July 31, 2001, Justice Michael Turner ruled in the case of Farrakhan v. Home Secretary that the controversial black  leader could enter the UK (Moseley, 2001). This decision was met with dissention and protest from a variety of groups, which included disappointment expressed by a representative of the Home  Office. The reaction to the decision, in short, was one of astonishment that Justice Turner would allow such a disreputable character into the country, and one can easily see  why. Farrakhan is not the sort of person with whom the vast majority of British citizens would wish to associate. Farrakhan, age 67, has denounced whites, saying that they belong  to a "devil race." He has typically referred to Jews as bloodsuckers," who have grown rich by oppressing blacks. He has spoken out against homosexuals and lesbians, and has  fascist sympathies. Nevertheless, as distasteful and despicable as these attitudes are to the average British citizen, the ruling of the High Court in favor of allowing Farrakhan to enter the  UK constitutes a good example of judicial review. Under British law as it now exists, this was a good ruling that adhered to the letter of the law. The  following analysis will demonstrate the support for this contention The 2001 ruling Although Justice Turner made the ruling in July of 2001, he wanted until the court session of held  in October of that year to state his reasons for reversing the ban, which allowed the government time to consider an appeal (Moseley, 2001). This ruling marked the first  time that a British court has overturned a government exclusionary order since the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights became domestic law in the UK (Moseley, 2001). Home