UK CONFIRMS 'JUDICIAL ACTIVISM' OVER CIVILIAN FREEDOM & JUSTICE IS REGIME’S GREATEST 'FEAR' AS IT BACKTRACKS OVER ECHR & HUMAN RIGHTS LIES (01.06.2015)
Most civilians are not actually ‘influenced’ by what they read in MSM or alternative ‘news’ media but rather by what degree they can act according to what everyone as human beings knows is right and wrong.
The British regime has begun a verbal backtrack over their deluge of recent ECHR human rights lies, while confirming that it is ‘judicial activism’ that is their greatest 'fear'.
to share the peace and beauty of real life
Clearly civilians will no legal 'training' forcing 'repeal' of fraudulent legislation is the most overt 'judicial activism'
It remains of the most serious public concern that civilians properly pursuing civilian freedom and justice from the state for the benefit of everyone, through repeal of all that is not compatible with civilian society's rule of law, which I happily plead guilty to doing, is their greatest ‘fear’.
The regime's latest soundbite is of course not 'news' to our civilian resistance because upholding civilian society's rule of law, is the ‘rasion d’être’ of what we have spent many years practically engaged in a frontline battle over.
I do not think there is any real substance that can be attached to the verbal backtrack articulated below by the Zionist Joshua Rozenberg, not least because the violent British regime have just refused to prosecute an Al-Qaeda terrorist.
In fact civilian resistance to NATO States can only view both the NATO ‘MSM’ and alternative ‘news’ circuit who are fuelled by ‘commentators’ chewing over other people’s lives as a waste of space of no practical use.
A British Bill of Rights is indefinitely delayed – but it hasn’t been shelved.
So the government won’t be scrapping the Human Rights Act in the first session of parliament after all. All we had in the Queen’s Speech last week was a rather cautious promise to ‘bring forward proposals for a British Bill of Rights’. And those proposals will not be brought forward during the government’s ‘first hundred days’, as some reporters had persuaded themselves.
But that doesn’t mean they have gone away. I’m told that Michael Gove, the justice secretary, will consult for as long as he can to find out where the objections lie and to allay people’s fears. What form the consultation will take has not been decided, but the government intends its reform bill to receive detailed consideration on the floor of the Commons rather than in committee.
The idea that Gove had inherited a fully-fledged bill from his predecessor Chris Grayling is one to which I never attached any credence. The 40-page document drafted for the Conservatives by Martin Howe QC was always seen by ministers as a starting point, not a blueprint. And withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights — a threat made by the Conservatives in their policy paper last October — is firmly off the agenda.
As Gove is well aware, that would have been the only way of ensuring that the human rights court in Strasbourg could never find the UK in breach of the convention. How, then, will the government achieve its manifesto promise to ‘reverse the mission creep that has meant human rights law being used for more and more purposes and often with little regard for the rights of wider society’?
First, there is diplomacy. As I noted here two weeks ago, the Strasbourg court seems increasingly reluctant to rule against the UK on anything that can be brought within a state’s ‘margin of appreciation’. The government has noticed [because they extend the margin of appreciation to ignore human rights unless you happen to be one of their terrorists].
Second, there is the [wholly corrupt] judiciary [they rely on]. Paul Mahoney, the British judge at Strasbourg, must retire by September 2016. Next April, members of the Council of Europe’s parliamentary assembly will elect his replacement from three candidates selected by the Ministry of Justice. Those out of sympathy with the government’s objectives need not apply.[ie: political fixing which is errr...illegal]
Third, there is the relationship between Strasbourg and the UK courts. Section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 says our judges ‘must take into account’ judgments of the Strasbourg court. The government is thinking of changing ‘must’ to [theresa ?] ‘may’, allowing UK judges more leeway.
Other clauses now under consideration would follow the example of section 12 of the Human Rights Act – under which courts must have ‘particular regard’ to freedom of expression – and section 13, under which they must have particular regard to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. I have never thought that those sections [on other people's freedom] meant very much, but a similar provision might require the courts to have particular regard to the need for public safety when considering whether terrorists can avoid deportation [err...they just refused to prosecute an al-qaeda terrorist] And there is talk of enhancing press freedom – presumably at the expense of private and family life.
This sort of tinkering poses a problem for the government. The more that UK judges can diverge from past decisions of the European court, the more likely it is that Strasbourg will find the UK in breach of the convention. But it’s a risk that ministers are willing to take. They hope the European judges will be persuaded to follow well-reasoned [novel concept to have 'reasons' let alone that are well-reasoned] decisions by the UK Supreme Court, even if those rulings are out of line with Strasbourg jurisprudence.
In the last resort, though, the government seems prepared to face Strasbourg [ie civilians because they put their 'own' judges in there] down. Last September, the Council of Europe’s committee of ministers, which supervises enforcement of the court’s rulings, noted ‘with profound concern and disappointment’ that the UK had not introduced legislation to lift the blanket ban on prisoners voting [they had run out of any blankets when i was in prison in 2011]. When officials from the 47 signatories to the human rights convention meet this September, they are likely to be told that the UK government simply cannot get such legislation through parliament [all lies and distraction because not even prisoner are interested in voting for the far worse lying, thieving mass murderers in 'government']. No doubt they will be even more profoundly disappointed – but not as much as they would be if the UK were to withdraw from the convention.
A British Bill of Rights cannot remove the government’s obligation under the human rights convention to ‘abide by’ adverse rulings in UK cases. But it can make an impact on the UK [bought and paid for queens illegal] judges themselves. What really concerns the government, I’m told, is its belief that the Human Rights Act has given an impetus to judicial activism in the UK. The message of the British Bill of Rights will be that such activism undermines the supremacy of parliament and is corrosive to the rule of law [ ie: upholds civilian society's rule of common law]
For the judges, then, Gove’s bill will be a shot across the bows. Better than Grayling’s bill, though, which was a shot in the foot.
All the Zionist troll is actually saying is that the regime will keep trying (which is all they have ever been doing) to find a way of trying to smash civilian freedoms and justice, which is just utterly disgusting and unacceptable.
the 'law'(less) society so hate civilian with no legal 'training'/indoctrination
The 'Law'(less) Society trolls are inevitably deaf dumb and blind to civilian resistance to their feathering their filthy dirty nest because they do completely understand that it is the assertion of civilian society's common law that puts them out of business.
A Law 'Degree' sadly only involves indoctrination into what the unelected old crone on the throne has done to hijack courts civilian society pays for, in every way.
They cannot invent intelligence where none existed.
The 'Law'(less) Society only promotes obedience to a paycheck.
That is not to say that there are not very good lawyers doing good work in local communities, but I am saying that 'high profile' London 'human rights' law firms are the lowest form of pondlife.
The unelected 'Lord' Mackay is talking deeply offensive rubbish to camera, which helps people understand how wars happen.
As civilians with no legal training we have proved the British regime will repeal fraudulent legislation rather than go through a Declaration of Incompatibility and/or the inevitable attached legal proceedings against the British government before a High Court jury that can easily include a Declaratory Order that an 'Act' can no longer be used too.
To example. A High Court jury could not reasonably conclude that the British government could illegally seize our shelter on January 16th 2012 in a massive and very public police raid, yet refuse to prosecute us over that and then claim they could still use that same legislation.
Such ‘commentary’ that hides behind many labels has never had any regard for civilians having access with actual facts and evidence to common law juries in courts of law in civil and criminal cases to in practice hold the corporate state legally accountable.
In fact if one takes a look at what the entirety of NATO war propaganda peddled by the MSM and alternative ‘news’ media, all one can really find is a circle of ghouls chewing over other people’s lives, while being either indifferent or opposed to any mechanisms of justice in any court of law for civilians to take back control over life.
What could be more repugnant than human beings wanting to at best 'debate' the most serious crimes known to humanity such as Genocide, as though nothing can, should or will be done, when all civilians actually want is access to a court of law to stop these incredibly horrific state crimes.
There are many crimes the regime commit and it is only access to properly functioning courts of law that is needed to stop them.
While civilian access to courts of law isn't a good business model for gossip mongering ‘journalism’ that essentially feeds off the dead and dying everywhere, most people want to save lives.
The single greatest concern is that while we as civilians can sometimes avoid or work around much ourselves with regard to our NATO regimes, innocent civilians in the Middle East do not have the ability to survive a bomb dropped on them by our criminal and brutal NATO 'governments'.
Civilians in the Middle East are living through a continuation of the Two World Wars by pretty much the same colonial 'royal' and 'political' war mongers that laid waste to civilian life across Europe, without missing a heartbeat.
One example of the way in which controlled opposition tries to downplay what is going on, is the NATO propaganda over spying.
The Conservative Party set up a fake 'NGO' called 'Big Brother Watch' of 'journalists' MP's, 'Lords' and other widely discredited lowlife, to actually try and gate keep their own criminal activities.
The whole controlled opposition spying saga is focused around hypothetical commentary rather than practical challenge and repeal by those civilians who have been illegally spied on.
The sole reason that ‘commentators’ do not want those who have actually been spied on having access to courts of law is because that exposes and ends the purposes of corporate spying on civilian populations by criminal politicians.
The great farce by US ‘libertarians’ who like their British compatriots only want the ‘freedom’ to slaughter whoever they like for money will exchange one spying ‘Act’ for another in what has only been a corporate publicity drive anyway.
01.06.2015 GUARDIAN INSULT PEOPLE'S INTELLIGENCE WITH US 'LIBERTARIANS' LIKE PRESIDENTIAL NO HOPER RAND PAUL WHO STILL WANTS TO SPY ON CIVILIAN RESISTANCE TO NATO
The US will not stop ‘bulk collection’ but instead 're-frame' it as making as many applications as it wants because civilian resistance who is spied on in the bogus NATO War on Terror is illegally denied access to justice in a court of law.
The gatekeepers are trying to protect their bogus NATO War on Terror, where it has never been terrorists but civilian resistance to NATO they have been illegally spying on.
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.