Silent Majority Speaks
Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship
|
Spin,
not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's
chosen method of communication. Ordinary people are dangerous. Ordinary
people might ask a question which throws a politician 'off message';
the Cabinet member might reveal himself or herself to be a human being
like us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might
tell the truth.
Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004
Blair wants to leave his
mark on history - looks more like a stain to me.
Peter Thorndyke, Diss,
Norfolk - Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
I know I'm me - why do I
need an ID card?
"Sorry, officers, I
don't have an ID card. I never applied for one. It seemed a bit steep
at 300 quid. I do have my free passport, my driving licence and my
London freedom travel pass, each with my photograph. I have my NHS
medical card, with its lengthy number, given me at birth, my RAF
service book with my Armed Forces number, and a chit authorising me to
wear a few gongs -including a General Service Medal with Malaya bar,
for fighting communist terrorists on behalf of my country, or so they
told me.
"I've also got various credit
cards and store cards, all with my signature on the back, generally
good for buying the everyday requrements for life as well as the odd
luxury. If you decide to arrest me, I suppose I'll have to be
photographed and given another number, besides my PINs.
"I'm afraid I haven't got a
pension book; it was taken away."
"By thieves, sir?"
"No ... well, not exactly. By the
Government. By the way, may I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?"
Oh dear, they've disappeared. E.
Harry Gumer, Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005
NO means NO
When does NO mean MAYBE?
When it's not the answer the EU wants.
With the
courageous French NON resounding in their ears, shabby, undemocratic
self-interested leaders of Europe propose ignoring the part of their
precious constitution that requires ratification by all members and
continuing without one of the biggest founder members to prevent
derailing the gravy train.
As in Ireland,
they refuse to accept any NO votes, ignoring the will of the people,
and re-stage votes until they can engineer the 'correct' answer. Sadly,
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dances to their tune like a puppet on a
string. With tactics such as these, how can anyone really believe the
EU has our interests at heart. Letter from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth, Kent - Daily
Mail, June1, 2005
Surely
the French result makes the £1million the EU recently spent on a
treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature and extravagant. Letter from Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail,
June1, 2005
|
May 31, 2005 (761 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,657 US - 89 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians - 25 media
June 3 , 2005 (765 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,670 US - 89 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians - 25 media
June 17, 2005 (779 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,716 US - 89 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media
June 26, 2005 (788 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,737 US - 89 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media
July 6, 2005 (798 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,751 US - 90 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media
August 24, 2005 (847 days since
war ended)
Death Toll: 1,869 US - 93 UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
September
29, 2005 (883 days since war ended)
Death Toll: 1,928 US - 96 UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
Britain has
traditionally been one of the biggest net contributors to the EU
because we do not get as much money back from Brussels in farm and
regional subsidies as our rivals.
According to
Treasury figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average contribution
taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion, or £43.55
per head of population.
The French -
the biggest recipient of farm subsidies - contributed £1billion a
year or £16.08 per head of their population.
|
This
insult to OUR human rights
Commentary
by Melanie Phillips - Daily Mail, October 7, 2005
Not
for the first time, human rights judges have lost the plot. This
court ruling is both ludicrous and offensive. Anyone who is removed
from society because of the seriousness of the crime they have
committed automatically forfeits the rights of that society, including
the right to a say in how it is governed. They have put themselves
outside the law and its privileges, a principle going back many
hundreds of years.
What
about our human rights?
Comment,
Daily Mail, October 7, 2005
This
is a profoundly depressing day for anyone who believes
in democracy, British law and the principle that citizens
have responsibilities as well as rights.
Yet
again, a perverse judgment in Strasbourg makes a mockery
of common sense. The European Court of Human Rights says
prisoners in or jails - people who effectively made war
on society - must be allowed to vote in elections. It
doesn't matter that our own courts have ruled that criminals
have forfeited their right to take part in the democratic
process. Or that our Prime Minister promised to prevent
a change in the law.
No,
1000 years of legal practice is simply overturned by judges
from shining centres of jurisprudence, such as Bosnia,
Croatia and San Marino.
But
of course this isn't the first time the European Convention
on Human Rights - which New Labour so enthusiastically
wrote into domestic law - trampled on our national interests
and sovereignty. The difficulty of deporting terrorist
suspects .. wrecking attempts to restore sanity to the
asylum shambles .. the 'right' of prisoners to porn ..
ludicrous concessions to travellers .. the 'human rights'
lunacy go on and on, while grasping, 'liberal' lawyers,
like those in Cherie Blair's Matrix Chambers, grow rich.
Now
this miserable case, brought on legal aid by axe killer
John Hirst, takes its place in this inglorious charade,
as unaccountable foreign judges presume to lecture us
on our supposed democratic failings.
Burglars
who destroy lives and property are solemnly guaranteed
a vote on such issues as law and order. Prisoners in marginal
constituencies are given a useful political weapon. Punishment?
Civic responsibility? Who cares?
Far
from protecting the weak and vulnerable, Strasbourg and
New Labour's Human Rights Act have opened the floodgates
to a tide of political correctness, costly litigation,
a rampant compensation culture and an insidious threat
to our way of life. And the so-called 'rights' of minorities
(what about duties?) are so numerous that they are destroying
the rights of the law-abiding majority.
|
If
prisoners are given a say in society's laws while themselves being
literally outlawed, it makes a mockery of the whole nature of
punishment and undermines respect for both the rule of law and
the concept of citizenship.
Voting
is not a basic element of human dignity. Indeed, universal franchise
is a relatively recent development. The vote is granted to individuals
as a symbol of citizenship. In turn, citizenship requires obligations
by citizens - the first and foremost of which is the duty to obey
the law.
But
now, instead of an individual's primary obligation to the state,
human rights law turns this upside down by imposing a duty on
the state to give people their rights. So human rights law has
decreed that prisoners have rights to TV, porn magazines, correspondence
or to get married. Since the Convention says the essential aim
of prison is 'reformation and social rehabilitation', it surely
cannot be long before the court rules that punishment itself is
illegal.
It
is no surprise that yesterday's ruling undermines the essence
of citizenship. For the judges - some from countries which boast
a less than glorious history of human rights or democracy - arrogate
to themselves the right to tell our Parliament what to do. As
five dissenting judges pointed out, the court went far beyond
interpreting the Convention. By extending its scope and meaning
it assumed the rule of legislator and interfered in the business
of national parliaments.
Not
merely has the court attacked democracy, but its thinking is also
flawed. Contrary to its claim that the British parliament had
not properly thought through such a ban, the issue has, in fact,
been considered many times in Westminster. Now the Government
is trying to minimise the effect of the ruling by saying that
it might only be prisoners who have been convicted of less serious
offences who will be allowed the vote. This might mean that convicted
burglars could vote - while robbers, murderers or rapists could
not.
But
this would diminish the sense of disapproval that society signals
when a burglar is jailed. Mindful of this problem, the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Falconer, has suggested that it might still be possible to
comply with the court's judgment but also continue to deprive
all prisoners of the vote.
But
this appears to be a bit of typical ministerial legerdemain. Lord
Falconer is wriggling like an eel because - as so often - the
Government will not face the fact that the cause of this mess
is the Convention on Human Rights itself. It rides roughshod over
national parliaments, courts, traditions and values. It busts
open the compact between the citizen and the nation because it
operates on the premise that a nation's own values and institutions
are less legitimate than trans-national values and supra-national
institutions.
But
the truth is that human rights law is not universal. It simply
depends on judges' interpretation of its many conflicting principles.
In fact, this case had already been rejected by British judges
who, despite applying the principles of the Human Rights Act,
considered it to be absurd. The concept of indiscriminate entitlement,
promoted by the doctrine of human rights, has progressively wrecked
this country's fundamental values and traditions.
It
has also encouraged people to make demands based merely on being
members of an interest group which did not have the same 'rights'
as others. The result has been that values of the majority in
society have had to give way, on the basis that these small interest
groups' self-designated 'victim' states trumps everything else.
For
example, another Strasbourg ruling forced a change in English
law to enable a transsexual to have a new birth certificate which
says that their sex at birth was whatever he or she deems it to
be. In other words, the certificate - the most basic guarantee
that we are who we say we are - will be a lie.
In
this and countless other ways, the very basics of our society's
values - family life, truth, law, social order, and now in yesterday's
judgment punishment and citizenship - have been relentlessly undermined
or overturned. Those values are deeply rooted in the religion,
traditions and history of this nation. But they are being steadily
replaced by values with no cultural roots and no legitimacy.
Human
rights doctrine has become a principal weapon against out society,
with the judges the standard-bearers in this culture war.
If you have
suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include in the
pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.
|
