Earthlinggb's Blog

Clegg/Cameron selling you “Human Rights”

Posted in Uncategorized by earthlinggb on May 20, 2010

STOP letting them CON you!

Thanks and yet apologies to the original poster of the following. On one hand, thanks that it allows me to demonstrate how people are being so easily duped into believing that the Cameron/Clegg coalition is “different” from Labour and their attempt to “sell” the people the idea that they are different and this was their idea. Then sorry if he takes offence that I use his post, thereby suggesting he’s naive and unaware. That’s not my intention.

“Coalition To Scrap Human Rights Act!”

theresa-may-coalition-human-rights-act-scrap?CMP=AFCYAH

“Hip, Hip, Hooray!”. This “Coalition is proving to be to me a total success!” of “common sense!”.

The new Bill of Rights had been planned by the Labour government for years prior to now. The introduction of it simply never was going to happen until we signed the Lisbon Treaty. Now we have – and we have no Labour government – the new government will introduce it and sell it as their “new” idea and that it’s good for us. BULLSHIT! While, this proves again, that there is no difference between one government and the next. HAD Labour won the election this STILL would be happening! And it is NOT for us – not in the slightest. HERE is what its purpose is. Its REAL purpose:

THEY ARE SCRAPPING THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT TO INTEGRATE US FURTHER INTO THE EU IN STEALTH MODE. THEY ARE SELLING YOU ANOTHER CON.
WE HAVE A BILL OF RIGHTS WHICH IS PERFECTLY GOOD FOR US – but NOT for THEM!

You THINK this has been suggested by Nick Clegg? NO! Think again.

You’re being CONNED again! But AGAIN you won’t wish to believe it! “It all sounds good so let it happen”. The European Communities Act 1972 sounded good and we let it happen!!!! They DECEIVE you time and time again with “selling” you things on this “perceived benefit” when it is LIES!

All I’d say is that rather than them telling us how good it all is, we say “Stop, wait a moment – what about this…and if this…and what do you mean by that?” because, when you do this, they show their true colours and what the reality is behind it. This “independent forum” will be nothing of the kind I assure you.

Let me explain –

There is a working document in Parliament named “The Governance of Britain”.

constitutional-renewal-white-paper

Remember this is LABOUR government talking –

July 2007 Green Paper on constitutional reform, “The Governance of Britain”. The note sets out each proposal and progress made since the publication of the Green Paper, including the contents of the Constitutional Renewal White Paper and draft Bill published in March 2008. The Government has said that it will bring forward legislation “when time allows”.

One of the FOUR major proposals in it is as follows:
Britain’s Future: the citizen and the state – this included a discussion of the need to develop a British Statement of Values, and perhaps a British Bill of Rights.
No British Constitution and Bill of Rights huh? You hear Parliament and Government today talking and the news covering it “A British Bill of Rights” WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE ONE!!
But that’s hushed up! Ever wondered why?

On 25 March 2008 the Government published a White Paper and Draft Bill, The Governance of Britain: Constitutional Renewal.
Speaking in the debate on the Queen’s Speech, Jack Straw responded to questions on the status of the constitutional renewal proposals as follows:
…The constitutional reform Bill is specified in the Gracious Speech. Everyone knows that what has changed since then is the overriding imperative of dealing with the world economic downturn, but the Bill will require parliamentary time. The Queen’s Speech states: “”My Government will continue to take forward proposals on constitutional renewal, including strengthening the role of Parliament and other measures.””
As ever, Her Majesty meant what she said-and that is my intention, too.”

Now pardon me, but I just find that last sentence by Straw making me raise my eyebrows. Was it necessary to say this? Does he speaketh too much? Who’s he trying to convince?

The Governance of Britain Green Paper was published by the Government a matter of days after Gordon Brown became Prime Minister. The Labour administrations of 1997-2007 oversaw major changes to the constitutional structures and systems of the United Kingdom including the establishment of devolved administrations in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland and the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
And THAT is what this is all about. The entire Constitutional debate and the promotion of “a British Bill of Rights” (when we already have one) and a change of the monarchy/Act of Settlement allowing for catholics to marry into monarchy etc etc etc, is to have us slot into Europe NOT to think first of the rights of British Citizens. It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with us and the government AGAIN are pulling the wool over our eyes.

The Green Paper echoes several proposals for constitutional change by the Liberal Democrats in their 2007 paper Real Democracy for Britain, and by the Conservative Party’s Democracy Task Force, chaired by Kenneth Clarke.
Ken Clarke: MR. BILDERBERG. And remember, Clarke is now “Lord Chief Justice” yet he has committed treason!

And as Mr Bilderberg, he works alongside Mr. Blair and Mr. Brown to ACHIEVE what they are trying to achieve BECAUSE before these people work for the British people and British Government THEY WORK FOR THE AGENDA OF BILDERBERG AND THE BANKERS WHO “OWN” them. Once the goals are achieved, they personally do pretty well for themselves.

Here is ANOTHER issue which I picked up on with this “so called” new Bill of Rights:
RECOGNISE THE DECEPTION IN THIS.

Recognise the “one way street” being proposed under the “flag” of Human Rights/Bill of Rights. And remember also that the establishment want you to forget about out existing 1688 Bill of Rights.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights
Background to proposals for a British Bill of
Rights and Duties
Standard Note: SN/PC/04559
Last updated: 3 February 2009
The Joint Committee on Human Rights announced in May 2007 that they would hold an inquiry into a British Bill of Rights. Their report, A Bill of Rights for the UK?, was published on 10 August 2008.
In short, the Committee recommended that the UK should adopt a Bill of Rights and Freedoms “in order to provide necessary protection to all, and to marginalized and vulnerable people in particular”.
They stated that:
Adopting a Bill of Rights provides a moment when society can define itself. We recommend that a Bill of Rights and Freedoms should set out a shared vision of a desirable future society: it should be aspirational in nature as well as protecting those human rights which already exist. We suggest that a Bill of Rights should give lasting effect to values shared by the people of the United Kingdom: we include liberty, democracy, fairness, civic duty, and the rule of law.

Just ONE thing. Note: “and the rule of law”

The Committee recommended that some additional rights, such as the right to trial by jury and the right to administrative justice should be included in a Bill of Rights. They also considered the inclusion of environmental rights (or ‘third generation’ rights as they are known). The Committee did not recommend fully justiciable social or economic rights but a situation where the Government would have a duty to progress towards realising certain rights of this kind:
We suggest that the Bill of Rights and Freedoms should initially include the rights to education, health, housing and an adequate standard of living. Government would have a duty to progress towards realising these rights and would need to report that progress to Parliament. Individuals would not be able to enforce these rights through the courts, but the courts would have a role in reviewing the measures taken by Government.

Now, do you see it? Do you see the outright deception here? How the Government will PROMOTE “Human Rights” and a “Bill of Rights” BUT, ultimately, it is total nonsense?

No? Then let me explain:
“The Committee did not recommend fully JUSTICIABLE social or economic rights”
What does that mean? As follows:
Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority.
Essentially, justiciability seeks to address whether a court possesses the ability to provide adequate resolution of the dispute; where a court feels it cannot offer such a final determination, the matter is not justiciable.

Upshot? If your Human Rights under a Bill of Rights is breached in any way, you don’t have recourse to complain. There’s NOTHING you can do because the matter is not “justiciable”.
You could be beaten to a pulp and thrown in jail because you were a vocal dissenter with ANYTHING the government did and you would have NO comeback.
Therefore bottom line: YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.

How would you respond to this: “A Human being is born free and with unalienable rights. As long as a human being causes no harm, loss or injury to another human being then there is no higher authority which has power over that “person” (be careful with the word “person”). Statutory Legislation (Statute law) is NOT law, in fact, but is given the force of law by the governed. Statute law is, in fact, a form of commercial law and, as such, is a form of contract. In being such, it requires an actual contractual agreement between both parties and, therefore, the “person” must accept to contract with the organisation wishing to enforce such statute law upon him”.

Advertisements

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

%d bloggers like this: