Site Meter

Monday, November 05, 2012

Are there modern kapos in the UK?

Are there modern kapos in the UK?

I shouldn't need to remind the likes of Carl Gardner and Adam Wagner that it was because of such as this that the Council of Europe was set up and the ECHR was drafted. Some Jews in the camps worked for the Nazi regime and were called kapos. That there are still some Jewish lawyers today who support human rights abusing governments is shameful.

Luckily not all Jewish lawyers lack a conscience. Solicitor Elkan Abrahamson, and barrister Flo Krause believe in human rights and support them, for example, by taking Hirst v UK (No2) to the ECtHR.

One wonders why Carl Gardner failed to mention Frodl v Austria, which is binding upon the UK, as a notable case? Strangely, he also refers to Greens and MT v UK being the key case dealing with exactly what the UK must do. However, according to the Council of Europe Hirst No2 is the leading case. When details like these are deliberately left out of an argument being advanced it displays weaknesses in the argument.

Carl Gardner is being dishonest, and inciting the government to be likewise.

Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council as specified in Chapter I.
Any European State which is deemed to be able and willing to fulfil the provisions of Article 3 may be invited to become a member of the Council of Europe by the Committee of Ministers. Any State so invited shall become a member on the deposit on its behalf with the Secretary General of an instrument of accession to the present Statute.

If Parliament wants the last word, it may only do so if it leaves the Council of Europe, the ECHR and EU.

ARTICLE 3 of the First Protocol

The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.

What part of ensure does Carl Gardener fail to understand?

Carl Gardener is again dishonest when he states it is the government rather than Parliament which must come up with a solution. Hirst v UK (No2) is against all 3 branches of the State, ie, Executive, Parliament and Judiciary, and as a lawyer he should know this. Therefore the onus to remedy the breach and prevent further breaches is the responsibility of each arm equally.

The UK must introduce concrete measures and not simply introduce a Bill knowing full well that the intent is not to pass it into domestic law. S.10 of the HRA makes provision to amend existing law without giving backbench MPs the opportunity to frustrate reform.

It is sickening that Carl Gardener advocates abusing human rights. Incitement to commit human rights violations, and human rights violations, should be made a criminal offence. In the same way that the extreme right is alive in Grcece, it would appear that modern kapos are at work in the UK.

No comments: