All three of the main parties in Britain are now committed to a new bill of rights, but the current “debate” on the issue (amongst Labour and the Conservatives, at least) is characterised by ignorance and confusion, much of it harmful. That is why it is helpful to have Francesca Klug’s essay, “Solidity or Wind?” What’s on the menu in the bill of rights debate?, which has just been published on openDemocracy. It does a great job of dispelling some of the popular misunderstandings of the Human Rights Act encouraged by the media and politicians. As Klug says, we are now in a quite remarkable position of being offered a new bill of rights on the basis that the state should have more power and not less, largely due to hostitility towards the HRA in the popular press exploited by the Tories, successive Labour Home Secretaries and now Jack Straw. We need to re-assert the principle that human rights are fundamental and universal entitlements, not to be diluted with talk of “responsiblities” or limited to citizens alone.
When we are told that we need “a clear articulation of citizen’s rights that British people can use in British courts” this suggests, even if unfairly, that eligibility for this new bill of rights might depend on ‘citizenship’ rather than ‘humanity’ – that individuals who live here might be subject to the power of the state but not the fundamental rights of its citizens. Above all it suggests that the global discourse on human rights, which has become the lingua franca of liberty struggles throughout the world, does not sit comfortably in these islands. Where have we heard this before; this argument for “exceptionalism” from universal human rights norms? In America after 9/11? In Zimbabwe following a sham election? In Israel in response to rocket attacks? If we were to become the first country in the democratic world to contemplate introducing a national bill of rights on the back of repealing a bill of rights which enshrines universal human rights norms, what does this say to the rest of the world?
Read the full article here. Francesca Klug will be discussing exactly this issue at the Convention on Modern Liberty on the session, Protecting rights.
We already have the following rights, the police and the courts need to prosecute those who do not comply with them.
What is interesting is that we are allow the Fabian Jack Straw to mess with our constitution. The Fabian Society acknowledges the principal tenet of Marxism and the abolition of private property etc. (Of course, this does not apply to the elect oligarchy at the top, who end up owning the lot.)
Appropriately, the defiant Coat of Arms of the Fabian Society (commissioned by the Author/Playwright and co-founder) George Bernard Shaw, today, now archived, is a “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.”
Today, the Fabian Society is, among other things, the intellectual wing of the British Labour Party. Before Tony Blair became British Prime Minister in May 1997, he was Chairman of the Fabian Society.
Since the 1997 British General Election, there have been around 200 Fabian MP’s in the House of Commons, some of whom have formed almost entire Labour Cabinets including Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, Jack Straw, David Plunkett, Peter Hain, Patricia Hewitt, John Reid, Ruth Kelly, Alan Milburn and Clare Short. Headed by Tony Blair, Fabians now dominate entire British Governments.
To find out more about the Fabian Society,click here http://www.nickmaine.info/Documents/communism-Fabianism.htm
Magna Carta 15 June 1215
The right to trial by jury – (therefore private family courts are illegal)
The right to not be fined unless tried by a jury (all fines are illegal)
English Bill of Rights
The English Bill of Rights was the result of the English Civil War and was the result of efforts by many groups including the Levellers. The reason this was required was because
“Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; “
We are again in a position where subversion is being used against us and the English Bill of Rights provides the following protections:
“and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties”
Note:Therefore attempts to deny people the right to freely express their Christian faith is illegal.Thisis also backed up in Article 18 of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights.
It also states:
“And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God. “
Note: Therefore subversion of England is illegal and the people who do this are guilty of treason.
It also states:
“That our ancient rights and liberties should be respected by those in power “
And
..”that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration..”
Note: Therefore the removal of our ancient rights and liberties is illegal.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Provides us with the following rights which the British government are abusing
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Note: So the Police often act illegaly by arbitrarily arresting people
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any
Note: So the family courts operate illegally.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) Note: (English Habeous corpus instead of EU Juris xxxx which is illegal)
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. (Therefore the holding of emails by the British Government is illegal and CCTV is illegal as it invades our privacy).
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to
change his nationality.
Note:Therefore the destruction of England is illegal.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Note: Therefore governments and their agencies which try to subvert or break up families are acting illegally.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Note: Therefore the downgrading of Christianity and the dismissal of people who profess their faith in public or private is illegal.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Note: Therefore holding emails, telephone calls and internet messages and links is illegal.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Note:Therefore the breaking up of peacefull assemblies by the police is illegal.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
Note: Therefore the differing health,university fee and school systems between Scotland and England are illegal.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Note: Therefore the disgraceful treatment of our elderly is illegal.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Note: Therefore abusing the educaton system for political ends and not encouraging the full development of our children’s potential through political dogma and interference is illegal.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Note: Therefore the hounding of home schoolers is illegal.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community/
Note: Therefore arbitrary arrest and fining of people for participating in English/ British cultural events is illegal.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Note: Therefore any subversive attempt by this government to deny us our rights under this and other charters including the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights is illegal and they are guilty of malfeasance.
English law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.English law is the legal system of England and Wales,[1] and is the basis of common law[2] legal systems used in most Commonwealth countries[3]and the United States (as opposed to civil law or pluralist systems in other countries, such as Scots law). It was exported to Commonwealth countries while the British Empire was established and maintained, and it forms the basis of the jurisprudence of most of those countries. English law prior to the American revolution is still part of the law of the United States, except in Louisiana, and provides the basis for many American legal traditions and policies, though it has no superseding jurisdiction.
English law in its strictest sense applies within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Whilst Wales now has a devolved Assembly, any legislation which that Assembly enacts is enacted in particular circumscribed policy areas defined by the Government of Wales Act 2006, other legislation of the U.K. Parliament, or by orders in council given under the authority of the 2006 Act. Furthermore that legislation is, as with any by-law made by any other body within England and Wales, interpreted by the undivided judiciary of England and Wales. [4] Also see below
The essence of English common law is that it is made by judges sitting in courts, applying their common sense and knowledge of legal precedent (stare decisis) to the facts before them. A decision of the highest appeal court in England and Wales, the House of Lords*, is binding on every other court in the hierarchy, and they will follow its directions.
* Therefore the fact that members of the House of Lords is totally corrupt.
For example, there is no statute making murder illegal. It is a common law crime – so although there is no written Act of Parliament making murder illegal, it is illegal by virtue of the constitutional authority of the courts and their previous decisions. Common law can be amended or repealed by Parliament; murder, by way of example, carries a mandatory life sentence today, but had previously allowed the death penalty.
England and Wales are constituent countries of the United Kingdom, which is a member of the European Union. Hence, EU law is a part of English law. The European Union consists mainly of countries which use civil law and so the civil law system is also in England in this form. The European Court of Justice can direct English and Welsh courts on the meaning of areas of law in which the EU has passed legislation.
The oldest law currently in force is the Distress Act 1267, part of the Statute of Marlborough, (52 Hen. 3).[5] Three sections of Magna Carta, originally signed in 1215 and a landmark in the development of English law, are extant, but they date to the reissuing of the law in 1297.
As pointed out above, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was introduced after the war to prevent a return totalitarism by enshrining the rights of people against the state.
have noticed that the European Human Rights Acts is in fact a badly rehashed version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) with some key pieces removed or watered down.
I shall do a comparison later on and send it to you, so that everyone can see how our rights have been diminished by sleight of hand.
Clearly the intention is to do the same to the
English Bill of Rights 1689 so we need to protect it in earnest.