Archive for Human Rights Charter

Britain And The EU Debate – In Or Out?

Posted in Britain, Conservative Party, David Cameron, England, Europe, Government, Human Rights, Justice, News, UK with tags , , , , on 10/09/2013 by floroy1942

For some two years the debate about whether Britain should stay in the EU or get out has seen much discussion. David Cameron has promised a referendum on the subject if they get back in in 2015, but I have to ask, are the British general public aware of sufficient facts to form an objective opinion? Going by many of the comments seen on various news items I very much doubt it. I have the feeling that if it were put to a simple in or out referendum the answer from most people would be the latter.

European Union Building Brussels

European Union Building Brussels

What the general public see of the EU is what they read in the papers and on the TV news. I have myself been a vocal critic of many of the EU polices that have come out of Brussels. I believe the most contentious is the Human Rights Charter (HRC) that has seen countless abuses in the past. Most Brits feel quite rightly that it is not for Brussels to tell us who should go to prison and for how long for example. Ridiculous Health and Safety Rules (HSR) are another problem that has resulted in many needless deaths because the rescue services could not help for fear of breaking these laws.

Court of Human Rights

Court of Human Rights

From the public’s viewpoint I believe the HRC is the most unpopular when people think of Europe’s failures. These laws, in particular the infamous Article 8 which states that “every person has a right to family life”, has been used countless times by convicted criminals to escape justice. This is just one example of how these laws have been misused, particularly by unscrupulous lawyers who milk them for all they are worth. Two well known terrorist preachers who persuaded many young Muslims to fight for terror groups or strap on a bomb is a good case in point. Both Abu Qatada and Abu Hamsa managed to evade deportation to face terror charges in America and Jordan for more than ten years.

In regard to the HSR, a case that comes to mind is an old man in a park who drowned while feeding the ducks. He was floating face down in three feet of water and would be alive today if the rescue services had gone in the water and dragged him out. Unfortunately for him the Fire and Rescue crew that attended did not have anyone qualified to enter water that deep and had to wait for the arrival of specially trained men. This is just a single case of a Health and Safety cock-up that could have been avoided if our Rescue Services had been able to operate as they used to.

Typical Anti-Europe Headline

Typical Anti-Europe Headline

These are the kind of stories that get into the press and turn people wholly against the idea of EU membership. But unfortunately, there is another side to this saga that many of the general public know nothing about. I am speaking mainly of the financial sector that has its base in London.

London's Financial Centre

London’s Financial Centre

Whether you know it or not, London is the financial capital of the entire European Union. Business Secretary Vince Cable said in a speech to the City of London’s Guildhall, “Pulling out of Europe would damage the economy, deter investors and undermine Britain’s standing. Britain is the world’s sixth largest economy and has Europe’s biggest financial centre”.

The main worry is that if Britain leaves the EU, all the major world banks and companies that have their corporate headquarters in London will move to mainland Europe resulting in London, by comparison with today, becoming a ghost town. This would obviously not be good for London, and financially, not for the country.

Vince Cable MP

Vince Cable MP

This view is not held by everyone however, for Conservative lawmaker Jesse Norman said “London’s finance industry could still prosper outside the EU due to its size, time zone and use of the English language. Britain could also improve trade with emerging markets”,

Looking at the facts though, putting our trust in developing nations and “emerging markets” could prove difficult, but possibly successful in the long term. In the in-between-years however, life would be hard.

A recent poll has suggested that the ‘Out’ vote is currently at 43%, with the ‘In’ vote trailing at 39% which gives an indication of how the vote might go at this time.

David Cameron

David Cameron

Prime Minister Cameron is attempting to get some leeway by trying to persuade other European States to allow Britain to reclaim some of the powers from Brussels, although the report does not say which ones, but its a fair bet the Human Rights Charter is high on the list.

Unfortunately he does not seem to be making any progress with this move, because other member countries fear that if Britain does such a thing other nations may well follow, and this could lead to the breakup of the Union. For a start, the government needs to put constant pressure on Brussels to give us back our laws and our standards of justice which have served this country well for centuries.

According to Vince Cable, Britain should stay in the Union and try to change things from the inside. This may well prove to be the wisest course for Britain to follow.

Roy.

Britain To Leave The European Union?

Posted in Britain, David Cameron, Elections, England, Europe, Human Rights, Immigrants, UK with tags , , , on 01/07/2012 by floroy1942

If David Cameron puts into practice a suggestion he made today of a referendum on the United Kingdoms’ partnership with Europe, could the people vote to leave? For years there has been disquiet among the UK population about membership of the Union, none of which takes into consideration the economic and trade implications. 

Many of the laws passed in Europe find their way into UK legislation, much to the irritation of many, for some concern both legal and illegal immigrants and gives these people the ability to run roughshod over our laws. As an example, these laws have very often stalled the deportation of proven criminals when they make use of the Human Rights Charter.

On the other hand, leaving the Union may well cause irreparable damage to the City of London, and it may not stay the financial capital of Europe. It is well within the realms of possibility we could see a mass exit of major banks and companies from The City who feel they must operate from an EU country if they are to do business within the Union.

Without doubt, Mr. Cameron is on a dangerous path, not only for the country, but for his own political future.  It is imperative that everyone is fully informed of the implications of leaving Europe, both in economics and trade, for it will be a bumpy path. It is difficult to say who is in the majority, those for or those against, but one thing is certain, the outcome may surprise us all.

Personally I think that if the vote goes the way it should, i.e. a ‘Yes’ vote, at least it may shut the mouths of those among us who constantly use our membership as an excuse for all that ails the country. It’s up to the government to accept those laws and rules that are good for the country, and reject those that go against our national sovereignty, laws, and our ability to control properly our own affairs. Not only that, but we the people need to get up off our backsides and start working towards fixing all that is wrong with ‘Great’ Britain once and for all.

Britain should not be ruled by Europe but it can be an integral part of it without the ‘big brother’ approach. Considering the number of disgruntled citizens within our shores who moan endlessly about the EU, it can only be hoped that cooler heads will rule the day.

Roy.

Human Rights Laws – The New Enemy

Posted in Al Quada, Benefits, Britain, England, Human Rights, Islamic Revolution, Justice, UK with tags , , , , on 18/01/2012 by floroy1942

Once again the Human Rights Laws of the EU are working for terrorism. Abu Qatada, Europe’s number 1 terrorist has once again been able to use Human Rights Legislation to escape deportation to Jordan from the UK. He was tried ‘in absentia’ in Jordan for involvement  in two terrorist conspiracies to carry out bomb attacks there in 1999 and 2000.

Abu Qatada - Hate Preacher

He moved to the UK to evade Jordanian justice in 2001 and went on the run to escape being arrested in the UK, but was found in 2002 and detained. In 2005 he was freed from jail because it was deemed to be unlawful, and a first attempt to deport him in 2008 was blocked by the Court of Appeal. In 2009 his deportation was upheld by the Law Lords but was again blocked when he went to the International Court of Human Rights (ICHR). So now, here we are in 2012 and once again he has been able to escape deportation to face a new trial for his crimes in Jordan because he claims evidence against him was obtained from one of his fellow conspirators by torture.

The ICHR did accept that sufficient safeguards were in place between Jordan and the UK to prevent Abu Qatada himself from being tortured, but it could not allow the deportation on the grounds that the evidence against him may have been obtained under duress.

Shopping With Our Tax Money

This man is described by judges as ‘extremely dangerous’, but appears able to thwart every attempt to deport him from this country by consistently manipulating Human Rights Law to suit his purpose. In the ten plus years he has been in Britain he has constantly preached hatred for the West, and who knows how many young Muslim men have been swayed by his hate rhetoric into committing acts of terrorism? This man is truly evil, but it seems the law cannot touch him and in my opinion that is a monumental disgrace.

This is by far not the only case where justice has been outwitted by terrorists and criminals who know how to twist the HR laws to their advantage. The list is endless and it involves not only those who would destroy us and our way of life, but also career criminals, some of whom are guilty of murder. The infamous ‘Right to Family Life’ (Article 8) of the HR Act has been used on many occasions, and with others it is the ‘torture’ clause as in this case.

Smiling? Why Not He Lives Off Benefits!

In the first case all a foreign criminal has to do is get his girlfriend pregnant and he can claim Article 8 as a defence. A known terrorist like Abu Qatada only has to state that he will be tortured in the country to which he will be deported, or as in this case, the suspicion that evidence against him was obtained by torture, and the whole thing falls through.

These people are making a mockery of not only the laws of Britain, but of International Law also, and its time a stop was put to this farce.

ICHR Court

When the Human Rights Charter was first introduced in 1948 it was a universal reaction to the abominable atrocities carried out against the Jews during the Second World War by the Nazis. Human rights are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being. Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in both national and international law” Thus is it written! Over the years bits have been added or changed and have led to many clauses now being used by terrorists and criminals to escape justice.

In my opinion, the whole thing needs a major overhaul to close the loopholes that currently exist in the system. It cannot be acceptable to anyone that people such as Abu Qatada can escape all forms of justice in the present day. There still remain at least six terror suspects in the UK awaiting deportation to various countries including Algeria and Egypt.

Roy.

The Erosion of Christian Human Rights

Posted in Britain, Christianity, England, Human Rights, Insanity, Modern World, Religion, UK, UN, United Nations with tags , , , , , , , , on 08/05/2010 by floroy1942

Why  does everyone seem to have human rights except christians in today’s world? Christians are once again under attack for their faith in England, this time by The National Secular Society (NSS) who have been in a long-running battle with Bideford Council, and are now threatening to take them to the European Court because the age-old traditional saying of prayers before a council meeting convenes human rights.

Bideford – Council Under Fire

The moment of prayer before a council meeting is a tradition that goes back centuries, but is now under attack because it ‘breaches the human rights of atheist and agnostic council members’. Well I say, what about the human rights of Christians? The NSS is determined to halt the practice through judicial means and will not be satisfied with just winning against Bideford, but will, it is believed, go on to have the practice banned in all council chambers up and down the country.

Founder of the NSS

This society, formed in 1866 by Charles Bradlaugh, was intended to combat Christian religious privilege, separate church and state, and promote secularism. Currently, the society campaigns for the disestablishment of the Church of England, an end to tax exemption for religious schools, and public funding of priests who work in jails, hospitals, and the armed forces. They are also deeply involved in the abolition of the blasphemy laws and are intent on keeping religion out of human rights, healthcare, legislation and equality issues. And now, they have Bideford council in their sights! According to councillors, they have been chosen because it is not a rich council.

The sad thing is these people don’t belong to any faith, they are agnostics and atheists, and because of their lack of faith, it seems they think they can restrict the practice ours. It is without doubt the right of any person to be an atheist or agnostic, but equally so, it the right of any individual to believe and practice that belief. Britain is after all a christian country.

The act of prayers before a council meeting is a way for councillors to seek guidance to do the right thing for the people they represent, and yes, it is based on christian beliefs and values, but those who do not believe do not have to take part. To quote the words of a christian councillor, Tony Inch; “those who do not wish to take part can twiddle their thumbs”.

According to Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the NSS, councillors should pray at home or in church but not at meetings (he now wishes to tell us when we can and cannot pray?); “It is not appropriate in modern-day Britain for prayers to form an integral part of council meetings”. It all comes down to a small number of people wishing to force their views on the majority and put an end to yet another age-old tradition, when the simple answer is just to not take part. Those who value their christian faith and traditions can take a moment or so to pray, but it doesn’t mean the non-believers have to. They can out of respect for the human rights of the believers wait just a moment or two with their own thoughts while the prayers are concluded.

The most annoying part of situations like this is people who play the ‘Human Rights’ card in an effort to deny others theirs!

Standing Up For Christian Rights

The former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has voiced his concern at yet another attack on christian values in Britain by calling it an “attack on freedom”, and he is quite right. He said; “The centuries long tradition of saying prayers before council meetings is simply an acknowledgement of the important role the Christian faith plays in civic life. The attempt to rule such prayers as discriminatory is an attack on freedom and a cynical manoeuvre to drive public expression of faith from national as well as local life.”

The Human Rights Charter 1948

The Human Rights Charter, the world’s response to the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust of WW2, was signed in 1948 at the UN but is sadly used today by any crackpot, fringe group, terrorist, criminal or the insane to get what they want at any cost. Its misuse is eroding all the nobler values that have stood the human race in good stead for centuries. Now, just because you don’t like what Joe Blogg’s does because it doesn’t fit with what you think he should be doing, take him to court to satisfy your own twisted ideals.

It’s all wrong folks! Our higher moral standards, religion, system of government, our very way of life is being dictated by a handful of self-righteous, self-centred individuals who think they can use the law for their own ends just because what we do does not fit with their ideals.

It doesn’t matter what noble purpose our forefathers had when creating these ‘Rights’ for the people, once the edifice starts to crumble through gross misuse it will not be long before the whole building collapses, and where will we be then; Back in the Dark Ages?

May God help us see the light of reason.

Roy.

Human Rights? WHAT Human Rights???

Posted in Arab, Britain, England, Extradition, Hacker, Human Rights, Immigrants, Insurgents, Muslim, Prison, Relationships, Spain, Travel, UK, UN, United Nations with tags , , , , , , , on 14/03/2010 by floroy1942

A Dubai Restaurant

Equality Laws, Human Rights Laws, we westerners are throwing these around like sweets at a carnival parade, but after giving away these ‘goodies’ to all who come here, has anyone stopped to think if we can expect the same rights in other countries? I’m afraid the whole charade is somewhat one-sided.

To prove my point I quote the case of a British couple in Dubai who were arrested for ‘kissing’ in a restaurant last November. It seems Ayma Najafi gave Charlotte Adams, with whom he was having dinner, a peck on the cheek. This was witnessed by an Emirate woman who complained to the police because her son had witnessed this ‘disgusting’ display. The pair were arrested and sentenced to one month in a Dubai prison for breaking the strict Emirates ‘Decency’ Laws. They were released on bail pending an appeal to be heard in April.

Sex on the Beach?

They are the third couple to be arrested for such ‘offences’ in the last two years. Among them is Michelle Palmer, who along with her companion was sentenced to three months for having sex on a public beach, although to be honest I do find that somewhat justified. They were lucky to have their sentences quashed and deported.

In many Muslim countries, anything resembling a show of affection in a public place, even non-married couples holding hands, is strict taboo with the real threat of a prison sentence if you do not comply.

As a westerner, you would consider it your human right to show affection for someone even in a public place. The French and Spanish, among others, kiss you on both cheeks in a normal greeting, in France even the men but thank goodness not the Spanish (I live here). Phew!

The Human Rights Charter is a United Nations document presumably signed, and applying to all nations. So how is it you can get arrested and jailed in Muslim states for a kiss?

Britain in particular, being the country I know most about, has given away everything, even common sense in the name of human rights and equality, and

I Know My Rights!

there, more than any other country the laws are misused for personal gain. Known terrorist sympathisers and agitators like Abu Qutada have twisted and used the human rights laws to escape extradition and jail. Waled Salem, an Egyptian career criminal escaped jail by playing the human rights card. Gary Mckinnon the Pentagon hacker is currently using the same law in an attempt to escape extradition to the USA.

So where does that leave the British tourist and businessman going to these countries, actually ‘in a straitjacket’ comes to mind. Everyday things that we take for granted will get you a prison sentence in places like Dubai.

On the subject of religion, which for us is everyone’s right, if you are a non-Muslim don’t go looking for a church, or hold a prayer meeting in Saudi Arabia. ALL forms of worship outside of Islam are strictly forbidden in Saudi and any attempt at worship will get you arrested by the Religious Police. Even the open wearing of a crucifix is enough to get you into trouble. The Law states you may be; e.g., a Christian, but forbids you from any act of worship or wearing of signs of your faith. Like most Muslim states, the dress code for women is especially strict. Even as a tourist, a woman is expected to cover up when in public.

UN Charter of Human Rights

So I have to ask, where does this leave our infamous Human Rights Charter? It would seem to apply to any country that is not a Muslim State where any show of affection, or religion other that Islam is strictly forbidden.

It is without doubt a one-sided affair and perhaps it is time for a complete review. Western Governments like the British Labour Party must stop giving away the rights of ethnic Britons in favour of Muslim immigrants, for they will not return the favour. Also, the Islamic countries need to relax their stringent religious code drawn up it would seem to ensure male dominance. It goes without saying that respect for each others way of life is paramount, but to jail a couple for a peck on the cheek is going way too far.

Inshallah.

Roy.


%d bloggers like this: