Sunday, 3 November 2013

ECHR to order Muslim bombers freed?

As the Telegraph catalogues the government's frustration that a failed exploding Jihadist can appeal his conviction to the ECHR, I'm going to recycle a post from April 2011; repeating old polemic is something I've only ever done twice in five years, but I'm saddened that nothing has yet changed about the ECHR and I think this one is worth another spin. The ECHR remains a politicised circus of judicially unqualified clowns who have run riot with the contents of the dressing-up box.

13th 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
Danute Jociene, appointed to the ECHR at 33
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.


Anonymous said...

"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"

It's no secret, Bliar's missus was instrumental in manoeuvring, cajoling and pressing Tony to open the door to the ECHR.

Not only, did the enabling of the Human rights Act make her Mrs Bliar a monetary fortune it did the same for many others plying an unsavoury trade, it birthed an explosion of yuman rites lawyers - which the taxpayer underwrites to the tune of hundreds of £millions a year.
Worse, it has enabled, via the ECJ [same thing - nary a difference just 'texture'] all EU edicts to be enacted, ie - cultural Marxist foibles like gay marriage are now enshrined in British law but it also gives a faux legal veneer to much else besides - the green agenda is one example with its emissions targets promises and the madness all that entails.

In short the ECHR aids Brussels facilitating the EU-Nomenklatura takeover of British institutions and government departments.

The ECHR, with it's engineering sister court - the ECJ have and are re-ordering the EU underlings - aka the proles. Coming along to a British court soon, a test case; soon it will be illegal to criticise Islam and Sharia - this is the drift from the UN and the West has yet again - caved in.

Free speech is the victim, of totalitarianism, the Brussels empire, and Islam.

G. Tingey said...

Why, therefore do other European countries not have this problem?
The French don't.
So I suspect the fault is not, actually with the "court" but with our own politicians.
Which would not surprise me in the least, actually.

flyinthesky said...

G. Tingey, I'm tending to agree with your suspicions, that said as they seem to lack the ability to formulate a credible position perhaps it's better to remove the option.
Other eu nations seem to implement to the best of their nations interest whereas we seem to implement to the fair play N'th degree and then some.