HUMAN RIGHTS HOAX: NATO PROPAGANDA ATTEMPTS TO CONFLATE HUMAN RIGHTS & ACCESS TO ECHR WITH UK 'ACT' (31.05.2015)
It is now clear that both NATO 'government' and their 'news' media dishonestly purport that civilians human rights and access to the ECHR are contingent on the whim of administrative 'politics', which while simply untrue does expose their own criminal intent.
For evidential purposes we shall make a file to keep examples of the deliberate lies they are publishing over civilians human rights in their great ‘Human Rights Hoax’ which is entirely unacceptable.
life is and should be so beautiful for everyone
The widely despised Noddy (Gove) lives in the fantasy world of Westminster's Cinnamon Club.
It is impossible to just arbitrarily 'scrap' something like human rights that belong to errr...someone else, which they did not hand over to you.
Prior to the Human Rights 'Act' in 1998 people still had access to the ECHR (which arguably became harder with the HRA because of delays) so their whole act over repeal is about trying to find the impossible way of knocking out access to the ECHR.
Less than 100 years ago it was the fact there was no ECHR that laid waste to civilian life across Europe in Two World Wars.
People will have the opportunity to (for example) make written submissions that will have to be recorded and published on the Parliamentary record because whatever proposal the war criminals come up with, will have to go out to consultation.
Scotland could be allowed to retain the Human Rights Act even if Westminster sidelined the European Court in favour of an “English” Bill of Rights, according to new plans being considered by Michael Gove.
A pledge to challenge the authority of the European Court by abolishing the Human Rights Act (HRA) and replacing it with a “British” Bill of Rights, had been widely expected to be included in last week’s Queen’s Speech. Although plans to scrap the HRA were put on hold, the Justice Secretary has told advisers he remains determined to break the formal link between British courts and Strasbourg.
With the UK’s devolved administrations opposed to any substitution of the HRA by a British Bill of Rights, and the Scottish government on record as stating it would not give the legislative consent required to implement the change, Mr Gove is considering by-passing such legal difficulties with a radical solution.
Justice Department sources have told The Independent on Sunday that the HRA could be allowed to remain part of Scotland’s distinct legal system if an “English” – rather than a British – Bill of Rights were brought in. Pressure is growing on Chris Grayling to abandon the Government bid to advise Saudi Arabia on running its prisons (Getty) Gove's predecessor Chris Grayling
The England-only solution would, according to some Justice Department advisers, also address the problems of Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement. Any watering-down of the influence of the European Convention could breach the terms of the international agreement and treaty seen as critical to continuing peace in Northern Ireland. The Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams has described the plan to scrap the HRA as a “scandalous attack” on the 1998 peace agreement.
Failure to secure adequate numbers of MPs in the Commons to push through a British Bill of Rights to replace the HRA was seen last week as a key reason for the unexpected climb-down.
The level of unease in senior ranks of Conservative legal circles that the HRA issue has not been kicked into the long grass, is made clear by Sajjad Karim, the Tory legal affairs spokesman in the European Parliament.
Writing in the Independent on Sunday, Mr Karim, the MEP for North West England, warns that “much of the international community is perplexed that the UK, of all countries, should be contemplating leaving the European Court of Human Rights” (ECHR).
Although accepting that the ECHR and the Human Rights Act are seen by many as a “charter for abuse by terrorists and criminals”, he advocates that “withdrawal from the [European] convention would be a retrograde step for the steady improvement of our laws that independent, international co-operation with the ECHR provides”. Shami Chakrabarti Shami Chakrabarti, director of the legal rights pressure group, Liberty.
Mr Karim said the UK should be “committed to reforming the court from within, rather than withdrawing from it completely.”
There is also internal concern among some Justice Department lawyers that Mr Gove’s predecessor, Chris Grayling, produced a “legal dog’s breakfast” that misunderstood and misinterpreted the positions of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Addressing these barriers is behind the move to examine an “English” Bill.
If Scotland is allowed to retain the HRA, and David Cameron acknowledges SNP concerns over devolution and delivers an enhanced devo-max for Holyrood, the impression that the UK is heading towards an inevitable federalist system will be difficult to dismiss.
Although Scotland retained its own legal system in the 1707 Union treaty which formed Great Britain, the two legal territories have largely mirrored each other for 300 years. However if the HRA held force in the devolved UK governments, but not at Westminster, that would be a marked departure. Dr Cormac Mac Amhlaigh, who teaches EU constitutional and human rights law at the University of Edinburgh Law School, said: “I don’t think there would be a problem with an English Bill of Rights. It could get messy, but the legal problems would not be insurmountable.”
Although the HRA is a reserved matter, with Westminster retaining authority, Dr Mac Amhlaigh said there were areas of human rights which have been devolved to Scotland. He added: “If the proposal is to introduce a Bill of Rights which replaces the HRA, that touches on an area which is devolved. While an English Bill of Rights may have no constitutional problems, this is not an attractive solution.”
For critics of the Government’s assault on Strasbourg, the possibility of Scotland being allowed to retain the HRA, but an English Bill of Rights being forced on the rest of Britain, is seen as part of a “divide and rule” strategy by Mr Gove.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of the legal rights pressure group, Liberty [who are actually foul collaborators with and gatekeepers for the UK regime], said: “Any delay in the government plans to scrap the Human Rights Act is welcome, but this fight is far from over.
Contempt for the rule of law is so visceral in some elite circles that we can expect a drawn-out attempt to perfume the Grayling plan, to pick off Conservative rebel MPs and for a strategy of ‘divide and rule’ among the peoples of the United Kingdom to take place. There are more myths and scaremongering to come.”
Previously, Liberty described the early proposals on scrapping the HRA drawn up by Mr Grayling as showing “breathtaking disregard” for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Even if devolved administrations in Edinburgh or Cardiff were not covered by an English Bill of Rights, Liberty have argued that they too would be affected and suffer from “diminished protections” in relation to action which originated at Westminster.
Before the general election, Scotland’s Social Justice Secretary, Alex Neil, told the Scottish Parliament that the Tory manifesto promise to scrap the HRA would be opposed. He said: “The Scottish government’s position is that these proposals will require legislative consent, and this parliament should make clear that such consent will not be given.”
However the prospect of an English Bill of Rights could leave Nicola Sturgeon’s Holyrood administration facing a dilemma. Does it continue to oppose scrapping the HRA throughout the UK, or does it accept retaining the HRA in Scotland as sufficient?
A Scottish government source told the IoS that no one from Mr Gove’s department or from the UK government had suggested Scotland could be exempt from a Bill of Rights. The source said : We have made our opposition to the Tories’ plans to repeal the Human Rights Act very clear, and we expect the Scottish Parliament to refuse legislative consent should it come to that.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said that the Government would be considering the implications of a British Bill of Rights on devolution as it developed its proposals and added that it would “fully engage with the devolved administrations”.
Mr Gove’s department appeared to be on course to eventually displace the HRA. In its statement it noted: “This Government was elected with a mandate to reform and modernise the UK human rights framework. A British Bill of Rights will protect fundamental human rights, but also prevent their abuse and restore some common sense to the system". [ie: the regime want to replace civilian society's rule of law with 'politics']
On any analysis the article above is vile propaganda involving the typical contrived 'conversation' between government and their gatekeepers about how they would all like to assume complete control over civilian lives.
In fact Hitler was an acolyte of the British regime who invented segregation, eugenics, concentration camps for use through their still colonial occupations.
It is true however that the ECHR was created to try and stop the worst excesses of colonial regimes, that did lead to Two World Wars that involved the mass slaughter of civilians across Europe itself.
It is clear that as per Lord Hoffmann's fraudulent 'opinion' the British regime want to try and do the impossible by re-defining civilians as the state to try and place human rights within the framework of politics, instead of civilian society's rule of law.
What 'politics' does not want is civilians like us who have no legal training whatsoever taking a sledgehammer to much of their violent fraudulent legislation, as we proved can be done, to begin the process to repeal 'politics' back to it's administrative core.
I did the time to prove there was no 'crime':
a snapshot of 'doing the time' to prove there was no 'crime'
Their far from 'legal' system actually only consists of a series of procedural duck and dives they employ ('officially' called serious procedural 'irregularities') to try and get themselves off the hook, all of which has nothing whatsoever to do with civilian society's rule of law.
The human rights frauds at Liberty claimed they were going to the High Court to argue that legislation was incompatible with human rights.
What Liberty et al actually did was go to the High Court to concede the Act we nevertheless got repealed was compatible.
The 'government', 'news' media & 'judges' then used that fake ruling to dishonestly claim human rights had been argued, when they quite clearly had not.
There was obviously no point in their going to the High Court to 'concede' before the hearing, because then it was all just for appearances that were intended to deceive.
When I did not concede the court simply failed to notify me of my own hearing, which illegally went on in my absence, because I was the one bringing the appeal that could not fail.
Clearly the legislation did not comply with Article 11 of the HRA (Freedom of Assembly) when the regime was saying it was illegal for one of two people (me) to campaign with anyone else (for reasons that we have previously made clear)
unlike liberty, i did not concede so they illegally refused me legal representation and failed to notify me of the hearing, in what would be a slam dunk win, because they could not say it was illegal for me to campaign with anyone else
In fact by the court listing when by their own admission they had not notified me of the hearing (despite having been able to notify me of the other hearing they refer to) the appeal actually remained live until the eventual repeal)
The stage managed proceedings they refer to of Blum and others involving Liberty et al is here:
the 'important concession' to concede, that to be fair some appellants had no knowledge their dirty and corrupt lawyers were going to make
It was Bindmans Solicitors who illegally refused to include me in the Blum et al 'test' case above because mine was such a slam dunk in that it was obviously illegal under Article 11 (Freedom of Assembly) to say it was a crime for me to campaign with anyone else.
So there are lots of procedural dirty tricks the regime play.
The nature of the brutal UK regime highlights why it is so very important that civilians must not come within the ambit of their whole sausage machine, which will violently throw civilians into pillars and posts, for spurious 'reasons' of 'politics'.
The two 'court' cases are just overt examples of state corruption, which do not include all the violent dirty tricks that go on behind the scenes so to speak.
It was when the Mayor of London and WCC took us to the High Court in 2010 & 2011 that I learned to slap them down big time with a counterclaim through a 50p secondhand law book, I happened across at a book fair in Russell Square (because they were just illegally preventing our bringing our own claims)
Not a single law firm actually helped us at all. The London 'Human Rights' brigade like Liberty & Bindmans are all gatekeepers for the state, and in particular over Genocide.
I would never 'vote' for any one of the lying, thieving mass murdering criminals in the British 'Parliament' but I will try to force the repeal of as much of the power they have illegally gift themselves as possible.
It is their mountains of fraudulent legislation that they use to gift themselves any illegitimate 'power' they like.
Politicians are not law-makers, they are legislators and mostly they are legislating to do away with civilian society's rule of law, which actually makes them law breakers.
People must never assume that just because they choose to 'believe' what government and 'news' media claim and 'vote' to be controlled by that kind of 'politics' that means anyone has any 'power' over those of us who are not co-opted into what is the most massive criminal lie.
If anything should be 'legislated' for the starting point should be to re-introduce the death penalty, exclusively for politicians who have the 'opportunity' to illegally use the entire apparatus of the state to arbitrarily and violently murder whoever they like.
It remains that it is properly civilian society's rule of law, that has primacy over this beast called 'politics'.
Please note: Our long-standing civilian resistance that began on June 2nd 2001 is not a 'news' media outlet. We only publish information to help save civilian lives.