HUMAN RIGHTS: FATALLY FLAWED BRIT ‘VOTE’ FOR GENOCIDAL ‘DEMOCRACY’ TO HAVE PRIMACY OVER...THE RULE OF LAW. (03.10.2014)
The Conservatives grand announcement to the uninformed, of their intention to scrap ‘human rights law’, with the inevitable stage managed huffing and puffing from phoney opposition through the heavily filtered ‘news’ media, is very much a fatally flawed exercise, in smoke and mirrors.
It is difficult for both the EU & the UK if people only want/need the EU court to uphold people's right to access to a UK court, with a jury...because then the people are not reliant on 'politics' anywhere.
The beauty of the Brit 'vote' to exit the EU over the rule of law, under the guise of human rights, is that such a 'vote' can be properly overturned by the rule of law, in any incl. an EU court of law, because the rule of law, really does have primacy over the creature called 'democracy'.
Which rock precisely does the Brit State actually propose hiding common law under ?
The premise of the 'Conservatives', is that the ‘Human Rights Act’ does not give the Brit state enough ‘margin of appreciation’ to ignore people’s rights, and brutally slaughter whoever they like, for long enough.
The 'margin of appreciation' argument is of itself a rather disingenuous distraction.
It is the incorporation of the HRA that actually provides the Brit State with a very wide window of opportunity, to try to murder people, during the average of seven years it can take jo public, with even a typically useless ‘lawyer’ in tow, to make their way anywhere near, a distant ECHR.
The truth is, no 'lawyer' in the UK ever goes anywhere near an EU court, unless it fits with the agenda of some government propaganda.
The whole point in the tyrannical Blair signing up to the Human Rights Act, was to try to disguise the fact the Brit State intended to use the HRA to....delay people for a very many years, from going directly to the EU courts -while- the Genocidal Blair et al, invented 3000 + pieces of self-serving violent money grabbing corporate legislation, that is almost entirely incompatible with the rule of law.
The real argument that is being had, is not really about 'human rights law' at all.
It is about the Brit State illegally trying to avoid being held to account in any court of law, over the obvious worst state excess, which is Genocide.
The Brit State are waving around the ‘Human Rights Act’ to actually ridiculously try to spin for public consumption, the idea that any old version of something called ‘democracy’ and it’s accompanying violent money grabbing corporate legislation, has primacy over the people’s rule of law.
This cloak over their daggers, has come about because establishing the International Criminal Court, to try and put the criminal prosecution of war crimes off-shore, is just another confidence trick.
For years, while the British 'monarchy' or 'democracy' was brutally wheeled out around the world, in the far from Common-wealth, the panacea that was always thrown out to the people, was the people's rule of law.
The Brit State, just never intended or thought the rule of law could ever come back to bite them on the backside in the UK, at the belly of their very large beast, over their Genocide.
What is really illuminating, is that the Brit state and all their heavily filtered ’news’ media obviously feel a desperate need, to try and give an appearance that the Brit State cannot be put on trial for Genocide.
It is clearly a spin too far, to try and claim ‘democracy’ can ‘vote’ to make itself above the people’s rule of law, which is what their vicious propaganda really all boils down to.
All ‘political’ systems only obtain any legitimacy through claiming they have respect for and will uphold the very rule of law, the Brit State now openly admit they have always shown utter contempt for, themselves.
It is actually -impossible- to simply ‘vote’, as the Conservatives propose, to eliminate the rule of law, because the proper practice of the people’s rule of law, is not based on political votes.
The rule of law when properly practiced, is entirely separate from a process of entirely arbitrary votes, precisely so that murderous politicians/mob rule, cannot ‘vote’ to put themselves or indeed anyone else above the people’s rule of law.
It is actually very healthy that the argument over what people can really ‘vote’ for is being had, because the corporate state and ’news’ media have for far too long been dishonestly trying to mislead people that ‘democracy’ has primacy over the people's rule of law.
arrest war criminals... subverting the people's rule of law and democracy.
A ‘vote’ over who anyone might want, to at best be what should be an administrator, (which is where the real money grabbing violent state ‘mission creep’ has seriously gone beyond), is very different from the rule of law, which is about a jury trial using facts and evidence in a court of law, over identifiable...harms.
We are correct that when the rule of law is properly practiced (which does not include 666 et al kidnapping us etc when we go to the High Court !) it is entirely do-able/lawful to hold the Brit State to account for Genocide in a British court of law, before a jury, with proceedings recorded and published by the people.
Our own legal argument is very simple.
The Brit State have always tried to violently smash our campaign and murder us -because- they are committing Genocide.
A primary purpose of our own approach is to try and bring a far from legal system back into balance, in the UK, so that it is the norm, that when the state attempts to go to war, it must:
a) provide open and transparent -legal grounds- that
b) can be properly challenged -within- the UK -before-
c) the war spirals out of all control, so it becomes a case of picking up the pieces, legally speaking, as best as anyone can, which is currently the case.
The British State must no longer be able to 'believe' it can just simply go to war, to murder whoever it likes, or indeed anyone who will hold it to account in a British court of law over the -totality- of any war.
The latest faux wailing from the Tory Party, over the HRA, is just another attempt to duck and dive by the Brit State, who have enjoyed all the 'benefits' of all the years of delaying people getting to the EU, through their abuse of the HRA, until there was no more delay to be had.
It is difficult for both the EU & the UK if people only need the EU to uphold people's right to access to a UK court, with a jury...
Neither the British government or the EU can possibly argue -against- universal jurisdiction and Nuremberg, in a British court of law.
"...war did not just happen it was planned and prepared for over a long period of time and with no small skill and cunning....Whatever else we may say of those who were the authors of this war, they did achieve a stupendous work in organization, and our first task is to examine the means by which these defendants and their fellow conspirators prepared and incited.....to go to war.
In general, our case will disclose these defendants all uniting at some time....in a plan which they well knew could be accomplished only by an outbreak of war.....their seizure of the State, their subjugation of the....people, their terrorism and extermination of dissident elements their planning and waging of war, their calculated and planned ruthlessness in the conduct of warfare, their deliberate and planned criminality toward conquered peoples, all these are ends for which they acted in concert; and all these are phases of the conspiracy, a conspiracy which reached one goal only to set out for another and more ambitious one.
.....We will show how the entire structure of offices and officials was dedicated to the criminal purposes and committed to the use of the criminal methods planned by these defendants and their co-conspirators....
it was organized to seize power in defiance of the will of the people.
They terrorized and silenced democratic opposition and were able at length to combine with political opportunists, militarists, industrialists, monarchists, and political reactionaries.
"Sections....of the Constitution are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."
.....always contemplated not merely overcoming current opposition but exterminating elements which could not be reconciled with its philosophy of the state.
We have here the surviving top politicians, militarists, financiers, diplomats, administrators, and propagandists... Who was responsible for these crimes if they were not?
.....this declaration of the law has taken them by surprise.
I cannot, of course, deny that these men are surprised that this is the law; they really are surprised that there is any such thing as law. These defendants did not rely on any law at all. Their program ignored and defied all law. That this is so will appear from many acts and statements, of which I cite but a few...
International law, natural law, any law at all was to these men simply a propaganda device to be invoked when it helped and to be ignored when it would condemn what they wanted to do. That men may be protected in relying upon the law at the time they act is the reason we find laws of retrospective operations unjust. But these men cannot bring themselves within the reason of the rule which in some systems of jurisprudence prohibits ex post facto laws. They cannot show that they ever relied upon international law in any state or paid it the slightest regard.
Of course, it was, under the law of all civilized peoples, a crime one man with his bare knuckles to assault another. How did it come that multiplying this crime by a million, and adding fire arms to bare knuckles, made it a legally innocent act? The doctrine was that one could not be regarded as criminal for committing the usual violent acts in the conduct of legitimate warfare. The age of imperialistic expansion during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries added the foul doctrine, contrary to the teachings of early Christian and international law scholars such as Grotius, that all wars are to be regarded as legitimate wars. The sum of these two doctrines was to give war-making a complete immunity from accountability to law.
This was intolerable for an age that called itself civilized. Plain people with their earthy common sense, revolted at such fictions and legalisms so contrary to ethical principles and demanded checks on war immunities. Statesmen and international lawyers at first cautiously responded by adopting rules of warfare designed to make the conduct of war more civilized. The effort was to set legal limits to the violence that could be done to civilian populations and to combatants as well. [Nuremberg]
In precisely the same way all decent and civilized people agree that it is right and proper, that the Yorkshire Ripper was tried in a court of law, the far more murderous Brit State, do not have a get out of the rule of law clause, called 'democracy'.
Everyone is entitled to peacefully live their life as they wish, without violent and murderous 'interference' from the likes of either the Yorkshire Ripper -or- the far more murderous corporate Brit State.