Site Meter

Tuesday, March 22, 2011




I take exception to so-called experts on human rights who are against the human rights of the victims of State abuse and support the State's abuse. If you look at Tom Zwart in a warts an all vision, he even looks a bit like Hitler! Nationalism and think tanks are a danger to the rule of law. Governments tell them their view or views on a particular issue, and pay them, and they come out with statements saying the same as the Governments. It's just another form of corruption. It reeks of brown envelopes. He who pays the piper calls the tune!

Tom Zwart states: "Increasingly the European Court of Human Rights is taking on the core values of the Contracting Parties, while skating on thin ice". When I first read this I assumed he was using "taking on" as in adopting. Now, I realise he is using it in the sense of challenging. Perhaps, Tom Zwart can pull his head out of his arse long enough to wake up to the fact what he is witnessing is a democracy revolution? The challenge is from the Individual v the State. Clue: Hirst v UK (No2). I don't see ECtHR v UK in the title of the case. The Court judged the contest and the UK lost. The UK appealed to the Grand Chamber and it upheld the Chamber judgment. The UK then decides to take its ball home and kick it into the long grass for over 5 years.

Perhaps, Tom Zwart might like to reflect on the UK's view that convicted prisoners lost the moral authority to vote by committing their crimes and being deemed serious enough to warrant a prison sentence? However, moral authority has never been a criterion for the franchise. On the other scale, when the expenses scandal reared its ugly head Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, opined that Parliament had lost the moral authority to govern. There is no moral authority to fiddle expenses out of the public purse. These MPs are undermining democracy by their breaking the rule of law. Then there is the convicted prisoners constitutional right to the vote being removed by the elected. It is for the electorate to choose the elected not vice versa.

This is what got my dander up (source)

More drivel from Tom Zwarthere.

No comments: