The Independent has branded the Coroners and Justice Bill the “greatest threat to civil rights for decades”. They went on to detail the nastier aspects of the bill quoting Shami Chakrabarti. They had this to say about the Convention:
Senior figures in British public life are launching a “call to arms” to highlight the erosion of historic civil liberties.
These campaigners, who include the former director of public prosecutions Sir Ken MacDonald, the former attorney general Lord Goldsmith, as well as the musician Brian Eno and the author Philip Pullman, are backing a series of events to coincide with a major civil rights convention in London next month, at which they will speak. Organisers expect 1,000 people to attend the Convention on Modern Liberty, at which other speakers will include Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, Dominic Grieve, the shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, the campaigning Tory MP, and Lord Bingham, the former law lord.
Organisers of the event, at the Institute of Education, including the TUC and the rights group Liberty, said Britain could become “a new kind of police state”. And yesterday, the journalist Henry Porter, one of the organisers, said: “This is a call to arms,” and he warned of “the constant moves to a database state and threats to an individual”. He added: “This is thoroughly dangerous.” Baroness Helena Kennedy, the human rights lawyer, said: “We are seeing ways in which our system of law and the protections we have as citizens are slowly but surely being undermined. Liberty is being eroded for all of us.”
I’m in Scotland. Here is something I had already sent to Helena Kennedy when she was in the Power Enquiry in 2006. She is only to be trusted to protect anything, if she automatically responds to it and does not claim to have even in theory the discretion to ignore it. After all, this is about stopping a cover-up that has lasted 10 years, that even predates 911 and all the attacks on liberties during the 0’s.
The COURT CHANGE is a massive advance in participative democracy concerning the nature of all legal decisions, and empowering oprdinary people to use logical reasoning alone to block all wifully warped judgments that are made to hurt us, and all breaches of the notionally globally established basics of human rights.
Naturally, this means it has been kept under a deliberate media silence for 10 years. Morally disgustingly it has also been ignored by 1. all the major organisations dealing with asylum and immigration, murderously resulting in deaths after deportation when the court change could have prevented them all, and by 2. all the big NGOs for aid to Africa and the debt crisis, though the court change in force throughout the West would empower the debt slave countries to enforce globally fair distribution of wealth.
These are big claims for what the court change can do! They give you a duty to read sentence by sentence the basis for the court change’s existence, and to react to it on its merits alone, not with a feeling of, “I must not stick my neck out to claim this is real if the system is ignoring it.”
Since 7 July 1999 in Britain and the Council of Europe countries, all court or other legal decisions are open-endedly faultable on their logic, instead of final. “Open to open-ended fault finding by any party”. This is on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 + PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments. It begins from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98, in 1998-9, on scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels.
This case referred to violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries’ laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence. Hence, the European Convention’s section on requiring an ECHR to exist requires its member countries to create an ECHR that removes the original’s illegality, by its decisions not being final.
It follows, this requires courts within the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries’ courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in the 47 Council of Europe countries.
The concept of “leave to appeal” is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further faultable in return, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.
World trade irreversibly means jurisdictions are not cocooned but have overlapping cases. When a case overlaps an affected and unaffected country, the unaffected country becomes affected, through having to deal with open ended case content open-endedly, that can affect any number of other cases open-endedly. Open-endedness is created in its system. So the court change is of far-reaching international interest. Anyone can add to the list of countries outside the Council of Europe whose people can claim the court change on this basis. It easily includes all the Western countries, naturally by all the overlapping issues that take place between them. It can notionally include autocracies, to become real if they become free in the future, as well as democracies. So it potentially can reach most countries of the world if their folks have the democratic sense to want it.
Pardon me, but is not ‘terror’, actual and anticipated,bombs, suicide murderers and all, fatwas and so on, a bit of a threat to our liberties, too?
JGD
The ‘war on terror’ has become a readymade excuse for all these attacks on civil liberties.In truth we are a great deal safer than when the IRA were bombing the mainland.The greatest threat to our liberties appear to be those who make the legislation.Whether they realise this or not,I’m not too sure.