Wednesday, 27 May 2015

Gove moves prudently

The reported exclusion of measures to amend the application of the Human Rights Act in the UK from the Queen's Speech is probably good news. There are two issues around the HRA and the ECHR - and we must be careful we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. 

The first issue is the supremacy of the UK's judiciary. I believe that our judiciary must not only be fully independent from government, the extension of the sovereign as the fount of justice, but must also be supreme in all matters of legal judgement. No court should be able to over-rule or modify the decisions of our Supreme Court. 

The second issue is our rights against the depredations and incursions of big business and of government. I want absolutely to enjoy legal protection against overweening interference, against bureaucratic prodnoses, against politically inspired malicious persecution and all the other evils of a globalist, centrist big State. I want an Act of Parliament that preserves my freedom and my fundamental rights, and I want an independent British judiciary to defend those rights. 

How can one trust the French, the Dutch, the Czechs, the Hungarians and the Poles when in living memory they used their own police forces and compliant judges to send millions of their own people to the extermination camps at the polite request of their invaders? And how can we trust those invaders, the Germans, a race still stained with the blood of 30 millions? We forget that freedom and liberty are novel concepts to much of Europe, whereas they are ingrained in the very bones of Englishmen. They can revert quite easily to that recent barbarism, and cannot be trusted with the rights and freedoms of English subjects. 

So what we need is an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights without departing from the substantive protection of the European Convention that has applied since 1953. A return, in fact, to the status quo ante that applied before Protocol 11 took force in 1998; this was the provision that made the ECHR supreme (over the House of Lords at the time). Simply by resiling from this protocol Gove will achieve the necessary change.    

5 comments:

rapscallion said...

Completely agree that only courts be supreme. The thought of foreign courts having primacy over our laws must never be entertained.

You are however falling into the trap of using the Left's definitions.
There is no German 'race'. Come to think of it there is no English "race" either. Put up a face of a German next to a Frenchman or a Scot and you'd be struggling to tell the difference. All are of the caucasian major race. The others being Mongolian and Negroid.

Secondly, roughly less than 1% of Germans alive today were alive during the period 1933-45. You simply cannot tar the current inhabitants of Germany with that awful guilt. They have made great strides to right the wrongs their ancestors committed, returned works of art and paid compensation etc. Germany is more of a model democracy than we are for Christ's sake!

Your points would have been better made by just omitting any reference to individual nationalities and re-iterating the point that only British courts have the final say over British Law in Britain and that no law has primacy over ours.

G. Tingey said...

rapscallion

THANK YOU

I'm going to repeat a quote, I've just put up, 2 or 3 threads back, for public information, because there is so much lying bullshit spouted on "national" & "racial" characteristics.

BEGIN QUOTE:]
In Homo sapiens, the geneticists have found, repeatedly, that within-group genetic variation is higher than between-group variation. That means, if you're uninformed enough to subscribe to racial theory, that the small average differences between the average "black" person and the average "white" person are dwarfed by the differences among all white people and the differences among all black people. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about Scots vs. English, Asians vs. Whites, Men vs. Women, Gays vs. Straights, or whatever, apparently you get the same result. We're all mongrels, and we're more diverse within the groups we mistakenly call uniform than across the perceived racial divides that we discriminate about.
ENDQUOTE]

OK?

Bloke in North Dorset said...

Well said, OUR courts have to be supreme. They cannot be bound by precedence set in foreign parts, but they shouldn't be obliged to ignore it either.

Here's a really good discussion on the problems that Gove faces in trying to untangle this Gordian Knot: http://www.headoflegal.com/2015/05/26/why-michael-gove-must-think-carefully-about-the-human-rights-act/

I'm not sure how independent he is having worked for Blair, but he does have some useful insights.

Budgie said...

G Tingey, things have moved on from research at the gene level to investigating population's DNA. As I commented before ....

"DNA research shows that about 3/4 of the DNA on average of people in the British isles comes from the original peoples who followed the retreating ice about 12,000 years ago. When the sea level rose to create the British isles, the DNA was cut off so to speak. The other 25%+ comes from all the invaders: Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Huguenots, French royalists, etc.

There is very little difference between the DNA mix of the English, Irish, Scots and Welsh."

The DNA markers show that British people are distinguishable as a mix from other Europeans. That does not, of course, make the English a race.

G. Tingey said...

Budgie
Your second comment & mine are not at odds, actually.
Interesting slant on the same information.