Site Meter

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

ECHR & British Bill of Rights – a smokescreen

ECHR & British Bill of Rights – a smokescreen

Posted on February 16, 2011 by Ian Parker-Joseph

The British Government, as with all British Governments since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, have had to ponder on the big question of how to enable ever closer union when the UK is a Common Law state.

They have all looked at how to bury our Common Law in favour of the EU system of Corpus Juris, and until now none have tackled the problem head on.

During the blitz of legislation enacted during the Blair/Brown regimes, the majority of that legislation has simply ignored the rule of law and imposed Corpus Juris based statutes through the system. Strictly speaking much of that legislation is not lawful.

Cameron & Clegg however have taken the bull by the horns. Both pro-EU, both pro-integration, they have decided that now is the time to finally bury our historic Common Law and the safeguards that go with it.

What we have seen over the past weeks is a classic Problem/Reaction/Solution series of events, and history is littered with them, this time supposedly taking on the might of the ECHR.

We know exactly where they want to be at the end of this exercise. Corpus Juris with Common Law buried.


In order to do that they first have to create a problem. The problems they have chosen are the ECHR rulings on Prisoners Votes and Review of the Sex Offenders Register.

They know that both issues are abhorrent to the British Public, so it will be easy to whip up public support ‘for the Government to do something’.


The reaction started some time ago, there has been a public vilification of John Hirst, known as the JailhouseLawyer, an ex-prisoner who originally took the UK government to the ECHR over prisoners votes and won. Not once, but twice.
He has been vilified in the press, social media, on TV and reams of column inches and mass hysteria has been whipped up over the idea of murderers and rapists being able to vote. Notice they will always use the extreme examples to make the point, no mention of the 14 day detainee who didn’t pay their TV licence who will miss voting day..

The media, press, TV is now gearing up to similarly vilify anyone on the Sex Offenders Register, irrespective of the severity, the mass hype will blow this totally out of proportion to the problem. Paedophiles and Rapists will be the only offenders mentioned.

Classic Horsemen of the Infocalypse stuff.

Now whether the issues are valid or not is immaterial to the point I am making in this post. The point is that these issues have been engineered in order to fulfil a hidden agenda item of the Government’s choosing. Killing off Common Law in the UK.


Now we come to the solution. A Bill of Rights.
That is where the Government wanted to be in the first place, but it needed to engineer enough public support to push it through.

The Government is aware that very few people know that we already have a Bill of Rights in the UK. It is one of the very first constitutional documents that made this country the Mother of Democracy, it is the founding document for most democracies around the world, and this government wants to destroy it in favour of the EU.

After years of our Sovereignty being assaulted by Government after Government, illegally giving away our birthright to unelected bodies in Brussels, they are now going to try to kill it off completely.

This from Wikipedia: (highlights mine)

The Bill of Rights (a short title) is an act of the Parliament of England, whose title is An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown. It is often called the English Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament on 16 December 1689. It was are-statement in statutory form of the Declaration of Rightpresented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1689, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It lays down limits on the powers of sovereign and sets out the rights of Parliament and rules for freedom of speech in Parliament, the requirement to regular elections to Parliament and the right to petition the monarch without fear of retribution. It reestablished the liberty of Protestants to have arms for their defence within the rule of law, and condemned James II of England for “causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law”.

These ideas about rights reflected those of the political thinker John Locke and they quickly became popular in England. It also sets out—or, in the view of its drafters, restates—certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as represented in parliament.

Along with the 1701 Act of Settlement the Bill of Rights is still in effect. It is one of the main constitutional laws governing the succession to the throne of the United Kingdom and—following British colonialism, the resultant doctrine of reception, and independence—to the thrones of those other Commonwealth realms, by willing deference to the act as a British statute or as a patriated part of the particular realm’s constitution. Since the implementation of the Statute of Westminster in each of the Commonwealth realms (on successive dates from 1931 onwards) the Bill of Rights cannot be altered in any realm except by that realm’s own parliament, and then, by convention, and as it touches on the succession to the shared throne, only with the consent of all the other realms.

In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and Parliament Acts1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British constitution. A separate but similar document, the Claim of Right Act, applies in Scotland.

The Bill of Rights is one of the cornerstones of our Common Law. This Government aims to bury it with a new Bill of Rights, fashioned in the Fabian/Communitarian rights with responsibilities, in other words entitlements not rights, all subject to EU Corpus Juris.

If ever you needed proof that those in power are Traitors, then this is it.
We have finally reached the stage where the population of Britain has to make a simple but exceedingly important decision.
Its either our Common Law or the EU.

Oh, and to those who say its an old document, its out of date, it needs bringing up to date for the 21st century, I would say this: So is the Bible, the Koran and the Torah. Would you dare to consider letting the Government update those?

Whilst I personally would not object to having the religious aspects removed from the Bill of Rights 1689, for the sake of our nation, Don’t let this or any other Government near our Constitution.

The cry that needs to go out is not one clamouring for a new Bill of Rights, based on an engineered situation, but one that says:

 Text of the Bill of Rights
 The Parliamentary Archives – Holds the original of this Historic Record
 Official text of the Bill of Rights 1689 (c.2) as amended and in force today within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database


I have no doubt that John Hirst was acting in the best of faith when he undertook his case at the ECHR. However, I wonder whether he understood the wider implications of his actions, because if we lose this battle the entire justice system will very quickly morph into that we see in Italy, Greece and the majority of the EU, where an arrest results in imprisonment before trial, during trial, not just after conviction, where guilt is assumed upon arrest, assumption of innocence does not exist, where innocence has to be proven. If we lose this battle, his actions will have put back prisoners rights in the UK 300 years.


It would be truthful to state that I did not fully appreciate the wider implications, because they are only now becoming apparent with the UK’s resistance to fully complying with Hirst v UK (No2).

However, I did appreciate (when others have failed to see) that my case goes further than simply the issue of enfranchisement of convicted prisoners. For example, Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of law (the 3 objectives of the Council of Europe). And, was an attack upon the UK’s doctrines of Separation of Powers and Supremacy of Parliament. I did spend between 12-15 years putting the case together. I confess also to laying the legal minefield around it to protect my interests. I do not have the same faith that some MPs appear to have that they can navigate their way around the legal minefield.

I don't believe that David Cameron will appreciate this sick joke:

Adolf Hitler is due to inspect a concentration camp and the camp commandant, eager to impress the Fuhrer, addresses the inmates. "As today is the visit of the Fuhrer we will have a special sportsday. Therefore all the Americans shall play baseball in the west field and all the English shall play cricket in the east field. In addition, all the French shall play soccer in the north field and all the Jews shall play hopscotch in the minefield."

It is arguable that it does not have to be an either/or situation. It is possible that both systems can work in harmony as this blueprint shows Common Law & The Human Rights Act 1998 by Af KRISTINE RØBERG

No comments: