Wednesday, 16 February 2011

Bill of Rights and at what cost to the freedom of the people?

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
George Washington 7 January 1790
Ian Parker-Joseph has a must read post about the Coalition's decision to introduce a Bill of Rights. IPJ has entitled his post "ECHR & British Bill of Rights - a smokescreen" and that is exactly what this is; a smokescreen.

In any true democracy, the constitution on which that democracy is based should be a body of law not to govern the people, but to govern the government; to make government the servant and not the master of the people.

This country has had a Bill of Rights since 1689 which begs the question: why we need a replacement? Who will eventually decide what 'rights' such a replacement would confer? Politicians? In which case the accusation can be made that it will only further enslave the people of this land as recent events show.

Witness: the people have been 'granted' the 'right', under the Localism Bill, to instigate referendums yet the politicians have decided that the results of the people's decision can be ignored. We have been 'granted' the 'right' to decide whether the method by which we elect our 'representatives' should be changed, yet the politicians have decreed what that choice of alternative system should be. We have Theresa May, today, stating in Parliament that it is Parliament that decides our laws, yet is a member of a government that allows laws to be implemented in this land which Parliament cannot change.

What, pray, is the point of a new Bill of Rights when any rights the people of this land may have will rest with the EU, ECHR and the ECJ? To see why this will be, one only has to read this and apply a little logic!

When it is proposed to decide what 'rights' people should enjoy; by what method 'representatives' are chosen; by whom we are to be 'governed' - should that decision not be made by the people rather than politicians? After all, did not Cameron state that "the people are the boss"?

IanPJ quite rightly suggests that this latest proposal is just a smokescreen under the cover of which the Cleggerons will be able to change our system of justice and to undo our principle of Common Law. 

Unfortunately for the politicians, it is also a smokescreen which prevents them foreseeing their own forthcoming 'Ceaucescu moment'!


The Gray Monk said...

Speaking from experience, the Common Law Principle can be preserved in a system that does not use Juries. It is the underlying principle in the German Legal system which has two "Lay" members in a "Bench" of five, Judge, Assistant Judges and two members of the laity. It worked well in the pre-majority rule South Africa with English Common Law incorproated into a Roman-Dutch system.

One of the greatest flaws in the present "Common Law" system in the UK is its total abuse by the liberals and the Fabians to pervert Justice. The oft heard mantra that "it is better ten guilty men go free than a single innocent man be convicted" is a canard, an invention of the late twentieth century and was never a principle in English or any other legal system.

The burden of proof is always on the State to prove guilt, though the English system enshrines this in the insistence on all crime being an offence against the Crown and ignoring the victim. The European systems recognise the victim of the crime and the victim is present with a Counsel on the Prosecution side of the court throughout - or, in the case of a murder, the victims family or relations have the right to be there. Only in Britain is the victim ignored.

Our system is over a thousand years old. It is antique and wide open to abuse, particularly by smart lawyers who play the gallery and manage to get judgements that, frankly, would not be given in any other country. Often it is not the fault of the prosecution or the lack of evidece, it is down to incompetent juries and incompetent judges - or judgeswho are Fabians and seek to use the courts to alter laws.

This is another disadvantage of our system, our laws are so badly written, so as not to be "mis-applied" or "mis-interpretted" that the opposite happens. Our system has the law "liberally written and strictly applied." Another canard. It is impossible to apply much of our law now, because "Common Law" has "interpretted" it in such a way that conflicts between pieces of legislation arise. Coupled with that is the Whitehall mindset which keeps one department competing with another for power. There are an enormous number of conflicts in our law now as a result of Regulations and Acts introduced in competition by different departments which clash or create loopholes through which criminals can slip.

This cannot happen in the European system where the law means what it says and is "clarified" by judgements passed by a "Constitutional Court" in the case of Civil Law and by the Superior Courts in the case of Criminal Courts. No prosecution can be brought in any Western European Court unless a Magistrate has examined all the evidence collected and collated by the police and he/she is satisfied that there is a case to answer. ALL of this is "disclosable" to the Defence who may also, and I have personally witnessed this in Germany, call upon experts from the State and Federal Forensic Authorities (Now to be lost in the UK forever) to testify for the Defence.

The 1689 Settlement Act gave Parliament the power to Rule "by consent" of the Crown. It is regularly abused to ram through legislation that is not in the interests of the electorate or the Sovereign - vis Blair's abuses of the Executive of the Cabinet - and Parliament itself is now subservient to the massive Civil Service succesive Ministers and Secretaries of State have built around themselves to enhance their prestige and "authority" little realising that the real prestige and authority lies entirely with the Permanent Under Secretary - a Civil Servant.

The Liberals have brought the legal system in Britain into disrepute with their misguided attempts to promote and protect the "rights" of the lawless. It is in serious need of reform, but sadly, it is probably beyond reform, and the real powers in Whitehall, the Media and the Fabians will prevent it.

Woodsy42 said...

The existing Magna carta was agreed prior to parliament. No doubt the government would love to remove it and replace it with a bill of restrictions instead.
Can they do this without the direct agreement of the people?

Just Woke Up said...

The Law? hahahahahahahaha Justice? hahahahahahaha The Law is now there to serve the political and financial masters and to control the rest of us. I shit the legal system and its elitist masters.

The first poster writes abut the EU. This would be the undemocratic EUSSR run by a small and unaccountable group of 'former' communists? Fuck them. They do not have a mandate to dictate their Marxist policies to anyone.

Freedom and liberty are at stake here. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about. I am not an asset or a number and I am one of millions who have woken up and think the same way. This Govt charges on with constitutional and judicial change without the support of the people they purport to represent. That's called a dictatorship. It's also called treason.

Paul said...

WfW saw your post on the Collaborator Carswell's site. Nice one, son.

The Gray Monk said...

The sad truth is that Britain today, is further to the Left and closer to the Marxist 'ideal' than any other EU state. The Fabian Society has done its work well. The Media (BBC especially), education and the Civil Service are all now in the control of dedicated socialist thinkers. Britain now has a bureaucracy employment roll larger than 50% of the total workforce, the USSR at its height didn't achieve that!

I agree entirely that the EU needs reform and the most important is to make the Commission directly elected by the people of the State appointing them, and not the 'gift' of some politician somewhere who wants to reward his pals. The British Common Law system is too open to abuse by unscrupulous lawyers and now serves only to protect the vast incomes of the legal profession. I doubt very much that anyone would suggest Britain (Remember Scottish Law is different to English) go the way of Greece and the other examples mentioned - and the German courts do not have single judges sitting to pass judgement!

Then there needs to be the most massive cull of Brussels bureaucrats ever ... It will devastate the Belgian economy since most Belgians now seem to work for the Commissariat these days ...

WitteringsfromWitney said...

TGM: Two excellent comments, although in one or two areas we must agree to disagree.

W42: The govt tend to do a lot without the peoples consent. Its called democratised dictatorship.

paul; Thank you. Surprised he printed it!