Earthlinggb's Blog

The Human Rights of dolphins

Posted in Law by Earthlinggb . on July 27, 2013

Yes it’s ANOTHER “legal person” blog. Just because this message does not seem to be sinking in with the vast majority of Human Beings on this planet.

Now, before I go on, I think it’s great that we protect species on our planet (but PLEASE do not think this is done by the likes of the WWF etc – it is NOT) so I’m all for this initiative. BUT, like ANY initiative – just like the government’s initiative and legislation which protects gay rights, women’s rights, ethnic minority rights etc; if you have ANY experience with the law whatsoever you will know that such initiatives are exploited as positive discrimination practice which is, in itself, anti “Human Rights” because it literally gives certain groups MORE “rights” than others. Take employment law for example. If you are either of the previous 2 mentioned groups, you are FAR more protected and have a MUCH better chance of winning a legal case than if you are a white, straight male.

Don’t believe me? Try this:

EVEN WITH AN OUTRIGHT ADMISSION OF GUILT IN BLACK AND WHITE, THE STRAIGHT, WHITE MALE IN THE UK CANNOT, IT SEEMS, EVEN FIND REPRESENTATION IN COURT.

Now, what you all have to understand (for if you don’t this human race is finished – the majority being slaughtered by tyrants and the rest enslaved) is that YOU HAVE NO HUMAN RIGHTS! They DO NOT EXIST! The documents which state they are “Human Rights Acts” DO NOT apply to human beings! They apply ONLY to LEGAL PERSONS! For until you are recognised as a LEGAL PERSON you do not exist in law. If you do not exist in law then how can a “non-existent” entity be conferred ANY benefits? It is a LOGICAL FALLACY!

So what is the problem of being a LEGAL PERSON as well as a Human being? Well it really does not take too much synapse energy to work it out and I have beat that path before on other blogs so, if you’d like to know, read them! If you don’t like my tone then too bad. Spite yourself by not learning because you don’t like the “teacher”. Do I give a fcuk?

I wrote a blog some time back re the “Natural person”, in which I included the following:

Raise your right hand and swear on Asimov's Bible!

Raise your right hand and swear on Asimov’s Bible!

“As Martine explains, this colloquium was inspired by the long-running colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, which began in 1958.  She sees a connection between space law in 1958 and human rights of futuristic persons right now, in that they are both incredibly cutting-edge in 1958 and today, respectively.  In 1958, the experts decided that some things that were taken for granted, like national borders, had to be tossed out in the face of the new technology.  For instance, if a space probe is orbiting the Earth, it will violate the “airspace” of many countries whether they like it or not.  We may have to discard similar assumptions to come up with a serious legal framework for futuristic persons.  The point of this colloquium is to move forward the law on these new areas, as the law must evolve together with improving knowledge.  One crucial area is that personhood should be regarded based on intelligence and values, rather than substrate or superficial appearance.

This colloquium could go on for a long time — 10, 20, 30 years.  It won’t be done overnight, but the point is to move forward the law and ensure that the rights of futuristic persons are duly protected by the legal system as they are created.”

http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2008/12/the-terasem-movement-4th-colloquium-on-the-law-of-futuristic-persons/

Clones and Robots of the 21st Century WILL be given LEGAL PERSON STATUS. As will animals of various kinds. Now Corporations already have them and are given greater preferential treatment over human beings (while the idiotic human beings that we are WORK for the very corporations – and, in essence, give them “life” – who rule over us! THINK about that! We WORK the very systems of oppression {government, law, religion and corporations} which dictate our very lives! We give them the ‘breath of life’ which provides them the status and, ultimately, the very power over us that they have! We then have issues with them, as individuals, and THEY win hands down over us. THINK OF THE SHEER MADNESS OF THIS!

Next up, we have DOLPHINS (and I personally think they are beautiful creatures).

Dolphin persons

Give this some thought however. You may then just begin to recognise how absolutely controlled and anything but free that you are. You see, this is not a blog about giving dolphins rights. This is a blog to demonstrate and display to YOU that you have none!

1. “Bans holding them in captivity for commercial entertainment”

Let’s compare that with you. Are you held in captivity? Oh I really think that if you consider it seriously, you will recognise that, in fact, you are.

Commercial entertainment? Well let’s see. Let’s go back to those Corporations for example. They’re commercial and they are using you – perhaps not strictly for entertainment purposes (unless, of course you ARE an entertainer and there are many girls in certain clubs who are for instance) – but do you get to choose your working hours? Your working days? The work you do? The holidays you get? And do you REPORT to anyone? Even if you are the Vice President of Disney Corporation you STILL report to the President.

But then, just to really take the piss out of you, you have MPs who get paid over £2000 for 14 hours work per month for a water company. What does he do? Does he pump the water for them for 14 hours? Even that would be a decent hourly wage for a water pumper!

Then you get the non executives who you find on the Board of Directors of TENS of different companies! HOW can they possibly be doing a decent job for any of them while, for each, they may be getting paid hundreds or tens of thousands of pounds each directorship (or perhaps they just get tons of stock!). While YOU get a 9 to 5 and a contract which states you can’t work for anyone else while you are in full-time employment for the company. Now HOW does that work eh?

YOU’RE A SLAVE THAT’S ALL.

2. Do you think they’ll issue dolphins with passports? I guess not. Dolphins then, are FAR more free and less captive than you are even as a legal person.

3. Will they start having to pay VAT on their food bill? Will they even have a food bill? I doubt it somehow. Humans have the greatest intellect on the planet yet here we are, PAYING to live! (when we don’t have to).

4. Do they pay interest on their promissory obligations to each other? Oh yes, Dolphins and ALL sentient beings take on all sorts of promissory obligations. Again, we are the “intellects” and we have set up a system we allow to run which steals our own promissory obligations to each other AND charges us interest on them! Humans? Top of the food chain? Pull the other one!

There is a VERY interesting question to be raised here however. You understand the word “standing” when related to legal issues don’t you? For instance, if you are not a party to a contract, you have no “standing” in court to be heard in relation to any contractual dispute.

Look at it another way: The girl called Jade Jacobs Brooks from Essex, was considered non existent so she had no “standing” to demand her human rights be acknowledged and “benefits” (not that being given a passport and a citizenship is a “benefit” but, again, I’ve covered that elsewhere) conferred upon her.

But here’s a beauty: As stated by the UN, the child with no birth certificate, non existent in law then just like Jade, has no standing and, therefore, cannot be protected by the state. Those children all around the world in Afghanistan and Iraq and Palestine who have no ID/birth certificate, have NO STANDING in law such that, if they are murdered by America, Britain or Israel, there is NO legal basis on which to prosecute. Genocide can take place and if those who are killed have never had legal standing, they did not legally exist. They CANNOT, therefore, be legally considered as murdered! 

Now, that would APPEAR to be a good argument for ensuring one has a birth certificate and, therefore, is legally recognised right? But let’s look at the dolphin issue once more:

If a dolphin is killed, it has no birth certificate so HOW then does it achieve “legal personality”? Well, simple. A dolphin is obviously a dolphin right? So one dead dolphin means someone has murdered it. Or, if it is kept in a tank somewhere then it’s obviously a dolphin!

What about all those human beings who are trafficked year after year? Isn’t obvious they are human beings? Pretty obvious really if they walk into a court and say “Hey judge! I’m being held against my will for the purposes of prostitution”, What’s the first thing the judge or police will say? “ID and address please!” Yet what the FCUK has that got to do with what that person – sorry, human being – has just stated? IF, then, that human being has no ID or birth certificate or Social security number to give, then that human being DOES NOT exist as a person in law and the law will do NOTHING to help them!

Will a dolphin have to fill in form after form and submit them to court? Will it have to follow legal procedure? Will it have to submit all documents with a 7 day window? Will it have to write out an affidavit? No!

So let’s say someone has it captive in a tank somewhere. Someone else sees it and reports it to the authorities. Here’s the thing – under any circumstances related to HUMAN person’s rights (if such existed), to complain under such (and watch out because the British government are looking to introduce a new Bill of Rights which, in parliament, they have stated will be NON JUDICIABLE – figure that one out!) requires that you MUST be the one DIRECTLY affected by any action. All others who may complain generally about issues affecting you (or even them – if it is too generally applicable to society) have NO “standing” in the matter.

It reminds me again of our friend Ken Clarke when, in Parliament, he just laughed at the idea of a parliamentary question relating to Bilderberg. He said he does not see what interest Parliament have in a Private organisation and how that organisation is or can be under parliamentary scrutiny – effectively, then, what he is saying is that Parliament have no “standing” wrt Bilderberg because Bilderberg is private.

WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT YOUR PRIVACY AND YOUR PRIVATE CAPACITY?

Answer: You don’t have one!

Why? Because YOU are a LEGAL PERSON SLAVE!

Meanwhile……. in Canada.

Canadian Queen oath

Forcing would-be Canadians to pledge allegiance to the Queen before they can become citizens is discriminatory and a violation of their constitutional rights, three permanent residents are set to argue in court on Friday.

All three maintain they oppose the oath on religious or conscientious grounds, saying pledging allegiance to Canada should be sufficient.

The Citizenship Act requires applicants for citizenship to swear or affirm they will be “faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors.”

People born in Canada or abroad to Canadian parents are automatically citizens and don’t have to take any such oath.

“All of the applicants would willingly take an oath to observe the laws of Canada and fulfil their duties as Canadian citizens,” the document says.

That they cannot have the “convenience” of a Canadian passport or the right to vote is a small price to pay for adhering to their principles, the government argues. (Ahh! So they WILL allow them to adhere to their principles – and, I assume, believe they are providing for their “human rights” – but there’s a BIG problem with such an argument. It is a “human right” to be provided with a passport and the means to travel. It’s also a “human right” to be provided with citizenship and NOT a cut down version! So they may be allowed their beliefs BUT with a penalty of foregoing another human right? hahahaha. The legal person system is so incredibly see through it should be coming apart at the seams by now!) 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/11/canadian_citizenship_oath_to_queen_will_be_challenged_in_court.html

 Why would ANYONE willingly take an oath to a piece of land and to abide by laws which they have not read or, perhaps, even understand the full implications of? It is this ignorance which provides these statist maniacs their power to manipulate and control every last person on this earth.
Discriminatory; Which it is. To live “freely” you must pledge allegiance to another? So much for free human beings to have freedom of conscience, thought and expression plus freedom of faith, religion etc. From the outset, no commonwealth country provides that freedom! How about that?But hey, no-one ever thinks of that! And the monarchists will ignore the pure contradiction in it and say “If you don’t like it, then leave”. But where does one go because one must accept “citizenship” and therefore, allegiance to another piece of earth with fictional boundaries drawn up.

So, to have all those freedoms, one MUST become stateless. However, do that and they win again because their legal system will not provide any “human rights” to you including a passport.

And you think you are not captive? :-)

 

 

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 21 June 1948 vol 156 cc992-1083
LORD ALTRINCHAM moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:        Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and                993        Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a British subject or citizen of that country shall thereby have the status of a British subject.        The noble Lord said: Since this is a complicated and very far-reaching Bill, it may be desirable that I should begin by explaining the purpose and effect of my Amendment…………
Apart from that, however, it is obviously a term that is quite applicable for the purposes for which it has been used by Canada and may be used by other Dominions. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are, after all, single geographical entities under one system of government, under which every member of the community has equal rights and responsibilities. But citizenship in that sense is obviously entirely inapplicable to a vast range of territories such as we have to deal with in the Colonial Empire and to an immense variety of peoples who        996        range in their standard of civilisation and of civic responsibility from the head-hunters of Borneo to noble Lords opposite. There is a very wide range within this single term of “citizenship,” and obviously there are great differences in that range in the sense of civic rights and civic responsibilities. There are also immense varieties of Governments and of rights and responsibilities, varying from universal adult franchise, as we have it here, to no franchise at all. All those variations would be brought together under the term “citizenship.” In fact, to cover the Colonial Empire the term “citizenship” must be wrenched from its proper significance. It can be defended, if it is to be defended—and this is what we dislike and wish to avoid—only as a convenient legal fiction. We dislike the fiction and we see no good reason for it. For that reason alone—the history and the proper meaning of the term—we would like to see it altered in the Bill so far as the United Kingdom and Colonies are concerned. 

§        In the second place, we believe that the use of this term for the United Kingdom and Colonies may have very undesirable political repercussions. Although this Parliament is, of course, still supreme throughout the Colonial Empire, nevertheless, as everybody who has lived and lives in the Colonial Empire knows, there is in the Colonial Empire a universal dislike of Whitehall government. There is a universal desire to feel that they are not dominated by a distant Legislature and administration but that, in fact, they are able more or less to conduct their own affairs without remote control. That has always been the history of the Dominions since the days when an early settler in New Zealand said that he would rather be governed by Nero on the spot than by a committee of archangels in Downing Street. That feeling is just as strong in the Colonial Empire. We have been trying to recognise that in every respect. In various ways we have been preparing and even carrying out systems of decentralisation and of regional organisation which will give more authority to those who are responsible on the spot. While, of course, there are in the Colonial Empire at the present time old Colonies with ancient Legislatures—and do not let us forget that—to whom this term will appear curiously inappropriate, the Colonies are all moving the same way.                997        Therefore, while this term “citizenship” when used in the Dominions will have an increasing significance as the Dominions grew in stature and in power, in the United Kingdom and Colonies it would have a steadily decreasing and ultimately shing significance.

§        There is no such difficulty if we remain faithful to the old term of “British subject.” That term has covered every variety of subject under every variety of Government. In is appropriate to them all, and they are proud of it. We would much prefer that no suggestion were made in this. Bill or in any other way that we are seeking to tie the Colonial Empire more closely to this country, to make it more dependent upon this country or in any way to interfere with the individual development of Colonies or groups of Colonies.

§        In the third place, there is another objection which is also deeply felt upon these Benches, and that is that the establishment of the term “citizenship” in many Colonies would be a fertile ground for political agitators. Our effort now, certainly in the African Colonies and elsewhere, is to try to give priority and emphasis to economic development and to avoid the danger that that development may be outstripped and impeded by premature political agitation. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, called attention to that danger in a remarkable speech not many weeks ago. “Citizenship,” after all, ought to mean, and in its proper sense does mean, equal rights and responsibilities. Do noble Lords opposite really suppose that, if that term is used in regard to the Colonial Empire, it will not be exploited against us by every malcontent, by every political agitator? It is a poor answer to say that after all the term is merely a legal fiction. That would be the truth but, as I say, it would be a poor answer. I am afraid that it would furnish the Soviets, in their propaganda against the Empire, with another text for their constant theme of the “crude and callous insincerity of British Imperialism.”

 

Constitution

HL Deb 15 September 2004 vol 664 cc1242-59

Lord Morgan

Secondly, and more importantly, the Royal prerogative is a fiction and a dangerous fiction. It includes a wide range of ministerial appointments and vast areas of patronage. It makes it difficult for the Royal Family. The present Queen has behaved impeccably but it is possible that a future head of state, for example, might have different views on fox hunting—I throw that out as a possibility—and that that might lead to problems. At present, the whole situation with regard to the Royal prerogative is an enormous cop-out for Ministers of any party. It has absolutely aided the growth of uncontrolled, undemocratic and unaccountable patronage—the so-called “demi-monde” of which the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, has written. I believe that it also has the effect of emphasising the status of our citizens as subjects and not as citizens.

Finally, I refer to the Prime Minister. Any Prime Minister is a beneficiary of Royal prerogative. We have seen the dangers of it in the Butler report. That report showed how changes in our constitutional mechanisms have led to serious effects in our foreign policy, and it absolutely makes the case for a far more written constitution.

First, the Prime Minister’s power to declare war under the Royal prerogative should absolutely come to an end. As it happened, there was a parliamentary vote in March, before the Iraq war. But simply leaving it to one individual, particularly in the way in which the Butler inquiry showed that that decision was reached and with all the misrepresentation attached to it, means that we should go towards the American system of having parliamentary approval and should draw a great distinction between it and the fiction of the prerogative.

Finally—I know my time is up—the question of legality should be set out. If a war is to be undertaken, it should be clearly set out that it is legal and that constitutionally and internationally it is approved in law. Far too much is taken on trust. Our presently informal, secret, enclosed constitution is dangerous to our liberties and I greatly welcome the Motion that has enabled me, however briefly, to say that.

 

CROWN LANDS ACTS.—COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 09 April 1866 vol 182 cc958-65

MR. HENLEY

said, he supposed that the management of certain rights included the receipt of any profit from them?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER            Yes.
§MR. DARBY GRIFFITH            said, he understood the proposition to be a sort of adjustment between the property of the Crown and of the public, equalizing a liability on the one hand and a debt on the other. The property of the Crown and certain other matters frequently spoken of were all pure legal fiction, for the property of the Crown had been, since the settlement of 1688, arranged by the Civil List, and the Crown could not possibly resume that property. The foreshore rights were of an uncertain character originally, and had been sometimes exercised in a hostile manner to individuals.

 

INDEED YOU ARE CAPTIVE! Your “legal person” is a created fiction by, ironically, another legal fiction called the Crown (a legal person in of itself) which assumes a greater status of legal person than your legal person and, in doing so, imposes its legal statutes and rules upon you.

 

A fundamental of law is the following: ALL PERSONS ARE EQUAL BEFORE IT.

The biggest joke played upon the world’s population ever to be conceived (along with the theft of our own promissory obligations to each other – again given legitimacy by the legal fiction of the Crown.

 

INCREDIBLE WE ARE STILL ACCEPTING THIS. BUT WE ARE!

About these ads

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. D. Hounsome said, on July 27, 2013 at 1:45 am

    Most interesting, keep em coming Earthling.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 310 other followers

%d bloggers like this: