October 26, 2007

Jack 'Boot' Straw

Jack 'boot' Straw shows once again why our liberty will never be safe while his ilk are in power. Ex-comies like him simply don't understand that liberty cannot be imposed by the state because liberty is freedom from the state.

Back in 1950, the aim of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was to protect the continent from ever again experiencing the horrors of totalitarianism.

Not all totalitarians wear uniform's from Hugo Boss. Some where suits, like you Jack 'boot' Straw. The ECHR hasn't been that good at protecting us from you, you just derogate from it if it becomes too restricting. Which is a shame because for all its problems it is just about our last best hope for liberty at the moment.

We must constantly reappraise the relevance of these rights.

Meaning that they are not the universal natural rights as originally proposed to be, those rights that we gain simply from being human. Humanity isn't being 'constantly reappraise' to keep it 'relevant' so any rights that have to be are not rights at all but mere laws. Just as Bentham meant when he called them "nonsense on stilts", so perhaps now we can get away from all this talk of 'rights' and talk of liberties and freedoms instead, which are never the gift of the state as they can only be taken away by it.

Our counter-terrorism legislation, for instance, must strike a balance between public safety and individual freedom.

Yes it must, its such a great shame that it hasn't maggot brain. Instead your counter-terrorism legislation has trashed individual freedom while doing nothing what so ever about public safety.

There is particular tension around the issue of the deportation of foreign nationals.

Not really every other country, except this one, happily deports foreign nationals. It was only this one where the likes of Bakri Mohammed where allowed to scrounge off benefits while you where too afraid to try to deport him back to his native land where he was happily taking holidays.

It is not possible to deport them to countries where there is a risk of torture or death, even if they're guilty of serious crime.

Well twatface, in the case of Bakri Muhammad you wouldn't have been had you been. You would have been deporting him to his favorite holiday destination. That is had you been willing to deport him rather than finding him and his Islamo-fascist comrades more useful as an excuse to wheel out yet more of your own-brand-fascist legislation.

The Opposition often cites this as an illustration of how regard for human rights puts the liberty of individuals, in this case undesirable ones, over the safety of the wider community. But we will not outsource murder and torture.

Oh, really?

To enjoy the benefits of a liberal democracy we must adhere to the letter and the spirit of human rights.

No, to live in a liberal democracy those we the people choose to elect must remember to adhere to our traditions of liberty, of the state staying out of peoples live unless absolutely necessary. Rather than taking every opportunity to tear them up like you and the piles of rancid yak vomit that you call your colleagues have done.

The price we must pay for freedom is not to debase our values

Like the Labour Party has done again and again.

it is to live with the circumstances it can throw up.

The thing that makes me most want to throw up is you, you shit eating pig fucker.

We will do our utmost to secure the safety of the British people

At least when you aren't letting innocent people get shot and killed by the police due to a bureaucratic fuck up.

and we are prepared to limit individual liberties as required

Why how noble of you! Such a sacrifice on your part, to be prepared to limit our liberties. It's not like you and your fellow fuckwits have not been using ever changing excuses for destroying our liberties every since you gained power in 1997. Oh no.

The HRA and an independent judiciary are in place to establish and marshal the lawful boundaries of our response.

Which will be one of the reason that the Labour Party has been setting out to reduce the right to a fair trial for so long. Not that it is too much of an obstacle so long as your fellow former communist comrades are there in the judiciary to help use it to trample on liberty.

The Conservative Party is wrong in its interpretation of the effect of the HRA.

Not really, they are right on the effect but wrong about the solution. Had you spent a bit more time on getting your legislation right rather than trying to shit out a tidal wave of crap laws then it might have been drafted better and had fewer bad effects. However trying to get things right, rather than chasing the next tabloid headline, isn't the Labour way.

Their position, to quote the Justice Spokesman, Nick Herbert, is that it "should be scrapped, and replaced by a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities that would enable us to take the necessary action against those who commit acts of terrorism".

He continues: "If we were to have our own Bill of Rights, the convention would be reinterpreted accordingly and the margin of appreciation would allow us to take more action against those who threaten our country." But, they say, they would still stick to the ECHR itself.

This "margin of appreciation" argument is often trotted out. But the truth is that the Conservatives fundamentally misunderstand this issue.

They often do, they didn't gain the name the 'Stupid Party' for nothing. However at least they aren't actively malevolent like the fetid shower of piss that calls itself the Labour Party. Though if having a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities is such a bad idea perhaps you should tell your Dear Leader who seems to think that stealing all the Stupid Party's ideas is far smarter than listening to anything that the dribbling morons around him could come up with.

They claim that those countries with their own domestic Bill of Rights are left alone by Strasbourg. David Cameron has said that a British one would have "a status similar to that of the German Basic Law and in so doing help restore British parliamentary supremacy".

And we all know what you lot feel about British parliamentary supremacy the Clunking Fist having just signed it away to the EU. Breaking one of your manifesto promises to do so.

But the standard of protection afforded to people by German Basic Law is greater than the HRA, and less flexible than the ECHR. Decisions in German courts are rarely overturned by the ECHR because German Basic Law is more stringent in protecting the individual in the first place.

So more protection for the individual is a bad thing? Nice to know where you stand on that one you syphilitic badger fucker, at least it means we can stand up wind.

In the UK, on the other hand, the courts are able to apply a different proportional test when rights conflict. The HRA allows judges to consider the interests of not only the individual but also the community. Repealing the HRA and replacing it with a Bill of Rights would restrict the flexibility and the application of balance within our courts.

You mean the stupid party might have accidentally figured out what liberty actually means? Protection of the individual against the collective, be it society or the state. Great, but I can see why you would be opposed, it goes directly against the basic thrust of your programme of these last ten years.

Instead of regressing to narrow xenophobia

Such as stealing policies from the BNP and demanding 'British jobs for British workers' like Gordon Brown did at your last conference. Perhaps he should stick to stealing off the Stupid Party, at least they are not racists.

The aim of our British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities will be to clarify and explain the obligations which come with rights, and examine whether there is a basis for making these clearer under the law.

We have no obligations to the state. The state is our servant to do those few things that can only be done collectively. It has obligations to us, which it is currently failing to honour, and we owe it nothing. This is not some kind of exchange between equals, we have lent the state some of our power and our rights simply set out the limits within which we are willing to see our power used.

The HRA has not become an iconic statement of liberty, like the American Bill of Rights, but this doesn't mean we value our rights any less

We value our rights but based on your legislative record the only value you place on them is as trophies; heads to line your walls once they have been shot and killed.

A British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities will help us find a clearer expression of our values as a society – and as a nation.

If it is to be more than a legal document and become a charter, it is vital that it is owned by the British people and not just the lawyers.

which is where the HRA went wrong. The HRA was owned by the lawyers lock stock and barrel, lawyers such as the wife of the Labour Prime Minister that placed it on the statute books.

This is why the development of the Bill will come with a full debate as part of a substantial programme of constitutional renewal.

So stand by for even more constitutional destruction.

As Gordon Brown said yesterday, this work will "found the next stage of constitutional development firmly on the story of British liberty"

At which point great gouts of flame where seen bursting from his turd encrusted y-fronts. The only thing that Labour has attempted to add to the story of British Liberty are two words:

The End.


Post a Comment

<< Home