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
|
Irish
travellers come in record numbers to soft touch Britain
In a
move that has devastating implications for our Green Belt, the
Appeal Court has allowed travellers to drive a caravan and horses
though Britain's planning laws.
So
whose human rights are really being violated?
by
Melanie Phillips - Daily Mail, October 1, 2004
Three
years ago, a handful of gypsy families moved on to land they bought
in Chichester, West Sussex, in open defiance of the planning laws.
Despite the fact that they had no planning permission to live
there, they built portable homes on the area they had unlawfully
occupied.
This
week, three judges in the Court of Appeal ruled that they should
be allowed to stay, even though this was a flagrant breach of
the planning laws. The reason? Human rights law giving them 'the
right to family life'. The judges said that wherever local councils
don't establish official sites for gypsies, such travellers will
have the right to set up homes. Since few councils will do this,
the ruling effectively gives the green light for illegal gypsy
camps the length and breadth of the land to become legally untouchable.
The law will thus legitimise widespread law-breaking.
In
recent months, many gypsy groups have been setting up mobile homes
on land where development is banned. One group in Wiltshire has
already been given permission by a High Court judge who ruled
that it would cause 'hardship and suffering' to move them, even
though the gypsies were in 'flagrant and deliberate breach of
planning control'.
Such
breaches have caused widespread anger and distress. In Cottenham,
Cambridgeshire, there have been repeated complaints of verbal
abuse, intimidation and anti-social behaviour by gypsies who set
up camp half a mile from the village. Now, though, the interests
of such beleaguered residents have been simply swept aside by
the Appeal Court, along with the previous decision of a High Court
judge who had ruled that planning controls in this case had been
correctly applied.
The
implications of this important test case are simply astounding.
They go way beyond the immediate issue of any local objections
to gypsy behaviour. For what the Appeal Court said, in effect,
was that gypsies can break the law with impunity on the grounds
that they are entitled to expect society to give them what they
want, regardless of the effect upon anyone else.
How
can it possibly be right for planning law to be swept aside in
such a fashion as if of no consequence whatever? How can unlawful
behaviour suddenly be deemed lawful, even though the law that
prohibits it is still on the statute book? The answer is that
the Human Rights Act has become the law that subverts the rule
of law itself.
Planning
laws exist to regulate development on the grounds that actions
which cause inconvenience or harm to others are not allowed. Until
this case, we were all bound by this law as are bound by any other.
But now, that fundamental principle has been destroyed.
When
Parliament incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights
into English law, we were reassured that the courts would not
be able to strike down acts of Parliament if these were judged
to be in conflict with human rights law. But now we can see that
the judges may have no need to strike down any such act at all.
For what this case has shown is that the Human Rights Act can
trump another act. So the courts can simply push aside laws such
as planning controls as if they didn't exist.
What
price the rule of law after this? If the gypsies can break the
law with impunity in this way, why shouldn't others now start
to build houses without planning permission? For this ruling destroys
the compact at the very heart of citizenship - the guarantee that
there is equality for all under the law. Instead, the judges have
decided that for certain favoured groups, they may waive legal
requirements that apply to the rest of us. All citizens have rights-
but some, it appears, have more rights than others. Indeed, what
this case also illustrates is that, for our politically correct
judges, the rights of minorities count for more than the rights
of the majority. In case after case, self-designated victim groups
are using the courts to confound the values or interests of the
majority.
And
they are able to do this because of the big lie at the heart of
human rights law. This is that no one could possibly object to
the rights it confers because they are universal. But every right
enshrined in the Act is balanced by an exception. So, by definition,
these 'rights' are not universal at all. On the contrary, they
are utterly dependent on the opinion, prejudices or whims of the
judges who are called upon to arbitrate between them.
And
those judges, who are terrified of being thought 'out of touch'
with modern life, have wholeheartedly embraced the obnoxious 'victim
culture' which gives unchallenged preference to minorities, however
they behave, at the expense of the majority who are deemed to
'oppress' them.
The
result is an increasing breakdown of social, legal and moral convention
by unelected, unaccountable judges. In some cases, where judges
have given increasing rights to gays, for example, over property
or family arrangements, they have unilaterally challenged moral
norms without public opinion even being consulted. In other human
rights cases, the courts have denied natural justice by giving
'rights' to illegal immigrants who break immigration and asylum
law, but whom the judges nevertheless deem to be victims of the
system.
In
the recent landmark case in which transsexuals were given the
right to claim on their birth certificates that they were born
as members of one sex when, in fact, they were born as members
of the other, human rights law has in effect been used to promulgate
an outright lie. Minorities whose behaviour may challenge the
established order in one way or another are nevertheless untouchable.
Even
to criticise gypsies is to provoke the vitriolic accusation of
prejudice. so those who dare tell the truth may be penalised,
while those who break the law have their behaviour sanctioned
by the courts. This is because, far from embodying universal values,
human rights law is the principal vehicle to impose victim culture,
one of the most destructive movements in our society. For far
from seeking to remedy injustice, victim culture creates injustice
by turning the concept of right and wrong upside down.
Thus
any behaviour by such minorities is excused, and blame directed
instead at the majority. By giving rights to minorities, it takes
them away from the majority. In this way, human rights law has
become a major weapon in the movement to challenge majority values
and norms of behaviour.
When
the Human Rights Act was passed, after pressure from a judiciary
which had arrogantly decided that Parliament could no longer be
trusted with democracy, we were told that it would merely make
it easier to enforce the European Convention to which this country
was already a signatory by ' bringing rights home'. Well, now
we know differently.
The
Human Rights Act is transforming the judicial, political and moral
character of the country. It has given a powerful boost to the
compensation culture, challenged our most fundamental values and
is now - thanks to a judiciary which has been suborned by the
prevailing moral sloppiness of the governing class - undermining
the rule of law itself.
Try
the air down here, Mr Prescott - Don't
majorities have rights too?
For
the health of our democracy, we, the people of the United Kingdom,
must find a way to force Mr Blair to resign
Such
defiance of the democratic process and the will of the majority
of we people of the UK, must be exposed by voters as a matter
or urgency, and not just in the two by-elections we have had this
July and the European elections in June 2004. But how can this
be done?
The
most effective way of getting our deceitful PM to resign would
be to mobilise the army of Labour MPs currently in the House of
Commons and get them to demand it, the loss of their seat to be
a penalty if they did not. All voters in Labour-held constituencies
need to write a letter along these lines to their local Labour
MPs:
|
Dear
Despite
his absolute and unequivocal assurances over the past year
of the serious risk to our security of Saddam Hussein's
'weapons of mass destruction', Prime Minister Blair
has admitted, that the threat was non-existent. For that
critical error of judgement and for his gross incompetence
in handling this very important issue, I ask you to take
immediate steps to ensure that Tony Blair does the honourable
thing and resign without delay..
I
would therefore be much obliged if you would propose and
help mobilise a Parliamentary vote of 'No Confidence' in
Mr Blair which, despite Labour's huge majority, would leave
the PM with no option but to resign.
If
I get no reply to this letter, I shall assume you will continue
to support Mr Blair as our Prime Minister. In such circumstances
I shall not vote for you in the forthcoming General Election.
Signed:
|
Simple,
non-violent, protest letters along these lines on a variety of
issues could be the basis for re-vitalising our democracy and
increasing voters' interest and participation in politics. Download
a printable copy of the above letter here.
There
is another way for the voice of the silent majority to be heard,
a voice that made sure broken promises would not only be revealed,
but punished in subsequent elections.
In
the year available before the General Election expected in 2005,
many topics are available as ammunition, each one asking questions.
A weapon for our purpose will be the results of Opinion Polls
in individual constituencies using ICM, NOP, Gallop, Mori
or YouGov.
Questions
suggested for this purpose are listed here.
CAST
YOUR VOTE ON A VARIETY OF OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES HERE.
Current
and prospective Parliamentary candidates of all Parties running
for election could share a platform at public forums in every
constituency. They would be presented with the results of
polls on this issue expressed by the majority of voters in that
constituency.
The candidates could be asked if their own views and that of their
Party manifesto corresponded with the polls, and if not, how they
intended to represent the will of the majority of local voters.
Local and National Press, Radio and TV coverage would be arranged
and the results published on this web site.
Here
is another powerful strategy for using your vote effectively in
the forthcoming General Election. Send your sitting and prospective
MPs a letter defining your requirements if they want your vote.
This example deals with the proposed
EU Constitutional Treaty.
Your
letters would end: "If you do not answer this letter, I shall
take it that you intend to follow the Government line. I shall
act accordingly in the forthcoming General Election.
Or
why not create a questionnaire that you send to all the candidates
in your constituency, getting them to give yes/no answers to questions
of your choice, and ending it with the same paragraph(above).
Download
a printable example of the questionnaire.
It
is high time for the people of this United Kingdom to stop allowing
themselves to be manipulated by politicians. We need our representatives
in Parliament to genuinely reflect the view of the majority in
their own constituency, even if this means going against their
personal and/or their party's policy. While they may argue their
case, hoping to change the minds of the majority in their constituency,
they should ultimately be obliged to reflect the majority view
of those who elect them.
It
will be argued by politicians of all parties that most voters
don't have the knowledge necessary to express an opinion on important
subjects at issue, and that our vote is a form of delegated democracy.
We should argue that it is their duty to ensure that we voters
do have ready access to such information as is necessary to form
an intelligent opinion. That, after all, is one main purpose of
Opposition Parties in our Parliamentary Democracy.
Most
important of all, such proceedings would rekindle in voters their
latent interest and obligation to cast their vote, knowing that
the candidate of their choice would be more likely to act in accordance
with their wishes. A much higher turnout in elections would be
the result.
Contact
your local Party Chairman. Gain his support for setting up public
forums in your constituency on these, as well as any other relevant
topics, well before the next General Election expected in 2005.
You should then, depending on the integrity of the candidate of
your choice, feel fairly certain that your view on any subject
being debated in Parliament will more accurately be reflected
by your representative in that assembly.
