With the exception of the SNP who have not yet had time to be corrupted by Westminster, if a Westminster politician's mouth is moving she/he is lying. For example, one of the Tories lies in justification of scrapping the Human Rights Act was that the EU ruled that prisoners in British jails must be allowed to vote. That is not true. What the Court ruled was that the Tory proposed blanket ban on all prisoners voting was too severe and harsh. You see, you don't cease to be a citizen (or in the British case a subject) because you are sent to jail. Should you lose your right to vote because you are sent to jail for failing to pay a fine, or stealing a bottle of water from a supermarket? What the Court argued was that distinctions should be made between crimes and their sentences in deciding who should and should not be allowed to vote. That is the sensible thing to do, but of course common sense and humanity have no meaning in the Westminster universe.
In addition, the Tories told us that the EU Court had prevented Britain from expelling people who were a threat to British society and forced us to harbour terrorists, which again is not true. What the Court did was prevent Britain from sending people to countries where it is certain they would be tortured. You don't uphold the law by sending people to be tortured, you uphold the law by preventing it. The British however, are in favour of torture, just like the Americans, only in Britain's case we prefer it if others do it for us because torture is really not cricket is it, it's something Johnny Foreigner does isn't it?
All this discussion highlights the fact that Britain no longer adheres to the fundamental concept of a civilised society, one which is governed by the Rule of Law. The only law a Tory is prepared to recognise is one which she/he agrees with. In 1885 Albert Dicey defined the rule of law by three fundamental concepts
a) No one may be punished for any offence, nor suffer any form of penalty for a breach of the law unless it is proven in open court. That means that there can be no arbitrary power exercised by any official persons or bodies over individual citizens.
b) All persons are equal before the law, regardless of economic, social and political status. There are no class distinctions and no one is above the law
c) The rule of law includes the benefits and freedoms conferred on individuals by judicial decisions when determining individual and collective rights from the ordinary law of the land.
As is apparent Britain is in continual breach of every one of these three fundamental principles. The Rule of Law constitutes the basis of all political and constitutional morality and, as the ethical judgment of political behaviour depends on how that behaviour meets the moral criteria embedded within this concept, we can safely conclude that British government and the Westminster political system are both unethical and unlawful in a great many of their actions, particularly in the mysterious concept they call 'the war on terror' and of course in the Tory lexicon that includes trades unions. Dicey's description of the Rule of Law was the standard of British life until it was updated in 2006 by Lord Thomas Bingham who was a scathing critic of all who would oppose the European Convention on Human Rights, asking which of the convention rights they would discard and writing "would you rather live in a country in which these rights were not protected by law?" Under Bingham's judgement he declared that Britain's invasion of Iraq in 2003 was unlawful arguing that "the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law."
I repeat without apology, the real target of the Tories are the trades unions and working people who dare to claim any rights at work or employment protection. I recently discovered that a clause in the employment contracts of people who are employed by the Westminster Parliament, for example, someone working for an MP, declares that these contracts are non-contractual. Seriously, Westminster gives a contract of employment to people in which there is a clause declaring the contract non-contractual meaning that any breach of that contract by their employer, for instance by an MP who employs someone in their office, is non-enforceable. In other words, the Mother of Parliaments has declared that its members can do anything they like to their employees and there is nothing they can do about it. And you all thought that I was off my head by insisting that Westminster is hell bent on reducing workers to a slave like status. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
No comments:
Post a Comment