Wednesday, 13 April 2011

ECHR is a circus, not a court

The ECHR is supposed to be Europe's supreme judicial authority on Human Rights matters, but the court has about as much judicial credibility as Roland Freisler's Third Reich 'people's court'. 


Freisler was the antithesis of judicial impartiality; a dyed-to-the-bone Nazi, he sent scores of the regime's opponents to the guillotine, including juveniles, after they had endured his bullying and ranting in court. Had a steel beam not crushed his skull like an eggshell during a fortuitous allied air-raid in 1945, Freisler would surely have faced the judges at Nuremberg himself.


There's something hugely distasteful about a politicised judge. We appoint judges with great powers over our lives - powers not only to free or make captive, to punish or forgive, but also to take life. Even the European Convention on Human Rights, let alone the powers of our Parliament, recognises the legality of judicial murder in certain circumstances. In return for this power, we rightly demand that our most senior judges are superlatively legally capable, with deep experience gained in the exercise of justice before being appointed. And above all we demand the explicit assurance that they are absolutely politically neutral; that we will be not be disadvantaged by our beliefs should we kneel for judgement before them, but be judged purely on the rightness or wrongness of the case. 


None of the above applies to the 47 members of the ECHR. All of them are political appointees, put there by partisan politicians to promote a particular brand of social policy. Of the plenum, 20 are not even judicially qualified or experienced, but compliant dags, lapdog administrators, placed to bark at their political masters' commands. In this, it is no exaggeration to say that the ECHR is far closer in character to Freisler's 'People's Court' than to Britain's Supreme Court. The ECHR is not a court but a circus, where the puffed-up buffoonery of the clowns, having run riot in the dressing-up box, deliver obiter of such blatent unjudiciousness that the spectacle would induce laughter were the 'court's' powers not so deeply enshrined in our Euro slavery. 


And now the circus has demanded, against the explicit decision of our national Parliament, that we grant votes to prisoners in jail, that we do so by a date that they demand or face fines of millions. Axe murderer John Hirst is a loathsome individual who hangs around the blogosphere like a syphilis bacterium, and it makes my flesh creep to imagine the evil behind those hooded eyes. Yet the ECHR circus used the excuse of this scoff-law's appeal to impose a political  - yes political, not judicial - obligation upon our sovereign nation. Politics is not the business of a proper judiciary, but the life-blood of these clownishly-costumed popinjays. 


We must stand firm in rejecting this. There must be no compromise, no giving way. Thus and no further. This is far too important for any surrender. Here we must stand. 

14 comments:

Robert said...

How much will you bet that our Quisling government will give in ?

Anonymous said...

Indeed, it is taking the piss, will Camoron cave in?

yokel said...

This is the Frankfurt School at work again. I had a bit of a rant the other day. Go down to
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime

Blue Eyes said...

I am a bit confused. British judges are no less political and of a class themselves. The US Supreme Court is no less coloured by ideology. Have you got a suggestion as to how we might better appoint judges?

I suppose the alternative would be to have referendums each time a statute needs to be interpreted.

Raedwald said...

BE - UK judges are appointed by the Lord Chancellor and US Supreme Court Judges by the POTUSA, but in both cases candidates must be qualified and experienced judges, at the top of their game. You don't even have to be a judge to be appointed to the ECHR - any old bureaucrat with no judicial experience at all will do as long as they comply with their master's commands.

Weekend Yachtsman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Weekend Yachtsman said...

Excellent post Mr. R.

Naturally our "Government" (read "local administration") won't take a stand against this, or anything else.

I am beginning to feel, as Dr. North does, that only a revolution will deliver us from this evil.

Blue Eyes said...

WY: If there was to be a revolution, it would hardly be one that garnered the support of popular opinion. If that many people really wanted "out" of the various European projects I think we would see a party pandering to that view fairly quickly.

R: Maybe you are right that these things should be decided by legal experts. Alternatively maybe they shouldn't?!

Angry Exile said...

When this was being talked about at the end of last year and a couple of months ago I made a few comments here and there that the UK could give prisoners the right to vote providing, like everybody else, they could make it to their local polling station, and that due to acknowledged abuse postal and proxy votes should only be an option for people who are actually out of the country or bed ridden in hospital. Being on the wrong side of a locked door through your own actions should not qualify for a postal or proxy vote, so only prisoners who happen to be out on election day could vote. Chuckle chuckle.

I've completely changed my mind. Yes, there should be no compromise, no dissembling, no trickery. Just a clear and unambiguous refusal to abide by the court or to acknowledge any future decisions it makes by immediately withdrawing from its jurisdiction. Prisoners are still citizen, yes, but they are citizens without their normal liberties following due process. If that's not good enough for the ECHR they need to be told where to go.

Anonymous said...

We don't elect politicians to do our bidding or what is popular but surely they are the ones who ought to be standing up for their right to call the shots here . To find ourselves again in the situation of helplessness is pathetic and I for one need some place or body to focus the discontent I feel.

Anonymous said...

"Prisoners are still citizen, yes, but they are citizens without their normal liberties following due process."

But are they without their normal responsibilities? I think prisoners should do their duty and vote, like the rest of us.

Voting would also help in preparing these people to lead better lives after release.

DC

Anonymous said...

With the approval of our Westminster politicians, commons and lords, and our sovereign Queen Elizabeth, we invited the EU to be our rulers and the government in Brussels to order our legislation.More precisely we begged De Gaule to please let us in. So what's your complaint? You all got what you wanted except that the expensive old order was not abolished. I would propose that the British political class be abolished, lock stock and barrel.That way we may well cope with our rediculous recession and overwhelming debt that the old order bequeathed us.

Sean said...

My late granfather who was a Pole fighting for the Allies spent the 5 years after the war as part of the denazification program as he was a German Speaker.

He always told me the worst Nazis where the judges not the military, or the so called National civil servants. And they were apparently the hardest the break.

All this is bordering on a act of war, my guess its only a question of time before the populace turns on this bastard empire.

Ed P said...

I welcome more insanity from Europe, as it can only help to wake up the dozing masses and speed the demise of this undemocratic, unelected and fascist empire. It's not EU, but FU now.