Site Meter

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Dear Guy Fawkes this is how you blow up the Houses of Parliament...

Dear Guy Fawkes this is how you blow up the Houses of Parliament...

Email from myself to the House of Commons Information Office


I am not sure who or which body will hear this case, nevertheless I intend to proceed on the basis of the pre action protocol by informing you of my intentions.

1. The Parliamentary Assembly recalls that Council of Europe member states are responsible for the effective implementation of international human rights norms they have signed up to, in particular those of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5) (hereafter "the Convention"). This obligation concerns all state organs, whether executive, judicial or legislative.

It is contended in relation to Hirst v UK (No2) that all 3 arms of the State have failed in their obligations as stated in 1 above.

I am aware of Article 1X of the Bill of Rights 1689 "That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament", however, I contend that this, "questioned in any court or place out of Parliament", is not only unconstitutional but also incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998; relying upon Article 10 of the European Convention. If the High Court of Parliament is still in operation and is prepared to hear my petition then the questioning may be kept in house. However, then there is the problem of the principle of natural justice and being a judge in your own cause.

Daniel Hannan MEP recently asked the question Does Parliament have the courage to defy John Hirst?

I would contend that it is not wise for Goliath to challenge David.

As it stands it is contended that I am denied the human right of an effective remedy under Article 13 of the European Convention. This Article was not incorporated into the HRA 1998, and it is contended that this is a breach of my human rights under the Convention and that the HRA is not Convention compliant. This means that my human rights guaranteed under the Convention are mere empty words unless they can be enforced and become a reality. It is contended that because Article 1 was not incorporated into the HRA I am deprived of my human rights and therefore the HRA is not Convention compliant.

It is contended that the UK is not in harmony with the 3 objectives of the Council of Europe; Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law. It is contended that the problem is the outdated concept of the Supremacy of Parliament. This does not sit well with the European law principle of subsidiarity. It is contended that human rights is higher law, and that the concept of the Sovereignty of the People makes redundant the Supremacy of Parliament. Furthermore, the fusion of powers in the UK goes against the doctrine of the Separation of Powers which the Council of Europe insists must operate in Member States.

It may well be that the UK is too backward a country to deal with the issues raised here, and that the relevant authority has to seek a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights and/or Court of Justice of the European Union.

Please treat this as a letter before action, rather than dismiss it as the ramblings of a crank.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

John Hirst

Related content

Hirst v Parliament, Executive and Judiciary

PACE Calls for More Active Role of National Parliaments

No comments: