Article 8

ACCORDING TO TODAY’S SUNDAY TELEGRAPH some 102 criminals have beaten deportation over the last year due to Article Eight of the European Convention of Human Rights, which stipulate the criminal’s “right to family life”.

            The European Convention was passed into English law by the previous Labour Government, and as such surely qualifies in joining the ever lengthening list of ruination that, between 1997-2010, the Labour government brought our country to.

            But the betrayals of the previous administration are for another time. What concerns me is the way in which human rights have become weighted in favour of the criminal, not only by the European Convention, but also with the compliance of British judges, many of whom today seem to relish upsetting the public by their decisions.

            Although their hands have been tied in many cases by our politicians, who have signed and negotiated away the sovereignty of English law over our lives; they must also face criticism. Their “not me gov” shrug whenever challenged over an outrageous court decision; followed by a nod toward European judges, will just not do.

            The criminal is not and never will be the victim: the victims are those whom the criminal damages. His or her rights are secondary to those of his or her victims, and never their equal. The criminal’s background and upbringing, while a curiosity to inquisitive psychologists , probation officers and social workers; such professional observations should not be used to further the needs of  criminals by giving them, the perpetrators,  a “right to family life”.

            How many times have the victims or their families been left in tears by a judge’s sentencing? The newspapers, almost on a daily basis, record some unfair or downright criminal injustice committed by the criminal justice system itself. Under such circumstances, by passing the buck to Europe, members of the judiciary displays a lack of the very independence which they insist is a requirement of their office. They should  resign if they feel they have made a decision based upon a body of foreign law that has been allowed to migrate into English law by our politicians.

THE VAST MAJORITY of the British people, I proffer, are social conservatives who have been silenced by the political class that governs us within and outside of parliament. All the main parties are now Left of centre, as are the majority of the media who oversee them.

            The language of human rights are, however, easily understood by the conservative  majority - providing such rights are enacted by a British parliament, having been declared within party political manifestoes.

            The majority of the British people, may I suggest, have little truck for the criminal class – especially as that majority represent the peaceful and law abiding, who wish only to make their way through life with the  knowledge that they have the full protection of the law in doing so: but they can only feel themselves well enough safeguarded by the law if they are the sole agents of its creation through the power of the franchise.

            The European Convention of Human Rights, is a device devised, among many others, to help in the salami slicing of each nation’s independence away from national sovereignty and into a Federal Europe.

            There was no earthly reason for the last government to agree to sign up to legitimising this body within English law, unless the politicians who did so wished for the full integration of this country into Europe as mere canton or county council of a Greater Europe.

            Article Eight is a mere hors d'oeuvre to the main course that will be eventually served up to the peoples of Europe.

            In any mature and fully functioning democracy, the law provides the last word. It, if you like, fully abides by the wishes of the people by reflecting their broad idea of right and wrong, as well as the punishments meted out by the state to the law-breaker - including the conditions in which the criminal is kept.

           

THE LAW BREAKER does not have, and should not have equal rights with the law-abiding citizen. The question is, is how far the state should go in deciding the limits that have to be imposed, so that the criminal should not, in his captivity, enjoy more of the ‘comforts’ than are enjoyed by the law-abiding citizen on the outside?

            This question has been ignored by the criminal justice system and accounts for much of the anger of the law-abiding citizens. Each day we hear of cases where prisoners claim their human rights under the European Convention of Human Rights, or some other European directive; only to find their complaint upheld for the most ridicules of grievances.

            Each nation should be allowed its OWN independent system of justice without intrusion from the outside. Even in America, for instance, being a federal union, each state acquire many of their laws independently from Washington. This means that in some states capital punishment is still on the statute. It is so because, and only because, the people of that state requires it to be done so through the ballot box. If this is not true democracy then what is?

            In this country as well as Europe our political elite must be in total control. They, being of liberal dispositions, cannot tolerate any decision that they deem reactionary or that runs contrary to the climate of political correctness. For there is as little to discern between Christian Democrats or Socialists in Europe, as there is between Conservatives, Liberal Democrats or Labour in the United Kingdom.

            As such, our European liberal establishment can bare comparison with a totalitarian assemblage of some kind, the nature of which I do not wish to venture upon, but I will make one comparison; this would be with the Roman Empire, not at its height, but in the decades before its collapse.

MY POINT IS THIS. Laws belong to a people living within a specific nation and culture. Any intrusion from without may meet with some success through the alliance of a treacherous political class with a specific ideal - like the European Union.

             But if, through some extreme form of nationalism, which the liberal political class will be wholly responsible for calling up, the idea of a federal Europe will not go unchallenged; then they must take their share of the blame, because they would have run counter to the feelings of the people they live amongst and, seemingly, have nothing but contempt for, as liberal thinkers.

            Article Eight of the European Convention lacks credibility with the British public - but not with their politicians. Which is why it has been allowed to pass into English Law. Our main party politicians, I am sorry to say, wish this nation of ours to become a mere county within a Greater Europe.

            I am afraid to say (as far as traditional Tories are concerned)  that David Cameron is as pro-European as was Tony Blair and Gordon Brown before him. But I understand that it will take some time for the rank and file Tories to realise this. The great realisation that all the main parties speak as one in private regarding the European Union and the criminal laws it seeks to enact, currently by a back door that can be challenged by, if not altered by, the current “Tory” leader, one David Cameron.