And Ms Mendoza goes on in that vein ...

It's all bollocks of course.

The Canary is a hard line leftist site and the heavily spun reports they publish can be ignored. It has long been known that the EUROPEAN Human Rights Act was to be abandoned so the story is not news. Repealing the act is a move that will return to British control the ability to deport foreign terrorists, hate preachers and criminals. No longer will people wanted for murder in their own country be able to avoid justice by claiming they ‘have a right to family life’. Nor should the fact that some criminals face the death penalty in their homeland be a defence against deportation. Being allowed to get away with murder is not a human right.

Scotty is right to ask (a rhetorical question I guess) did we not have the true human rights covered by the act enshrined in British law prior to jointing the European Human Rights fiasco. We did, most of them are in fact derived from the Geneva Convention of 1949. Some of that was actually based on the Liber Judicialis, the Anglo Saxon common law implemented by King Alfred the Great in the ninth century. Most of what has been added by the European Human Rights act has little to do with ‘rights’ and much to do with assigning privileges to favoured minorities.

In it’s Article 10 purportedly protecting free speech, the European Act adds this caveat: “This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.”

In other words you have the right to speak freely but the government has the right to control information. We are better off without freedoms like that.

Another point to remember is that under The Common Law and the laws of most democratic nations, people are free to do anything that is not specifically prohibited by law. Under European law you are forbidden to do anything that is not specifically permitted by law.

That in itself shows how corrupt and illiberal the European Human Rights law is.

And for the record, it was Jeremy Corbyn himself who planted the story about having to sit on the floor. Though he had a valid point about crowded trains, it turns out the story was not quite as he told it and that was newsworthy.

The sooner The Canary is exposed to a high level of firedamp the better.

by Ian R Thorpe

The powers that be are pushing for a cashless society although some of the technology involved is hardly fit for purpose. But will going cashless and totally digital really be a benign move towards a safer, more convenient world, or will it amount to a monstrous invasion of privacy and a curtailment of personal liberty?

In this article on Wikinuts, our editor looks at the way a cashless society would allow government agencies, QUANGOs (Quasi - Autonomous Non - Governmental Organisations) and corporate undertakings willing to pay technology companyies such as search engine operators and social media enterprises for the personal data they collect to know far more about your lifestyle and spending habits than you would willingly share with them.

RELATED POSTS:
Back to Contents table
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [ Tumblr ]

According to animal rights campaigners abused monkeys are a key ingredient in your pre - prepared curry sauces and healthy, non dairy coconut milk. While the practice of using monkeys to harvest coconuts dates back hundreds of years in Thailand and Malaya, it has only recently come to the attention of Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) whose latest thing is 'human rights for animals'.
Human Rights Activists Impoverish Thai Peasants To Protect Monkey's Rights

Not so long ago, towards the end of last year, I used the words of John Lennon to provide a perspective on the psychopathic views expressed by the CEO of one of the world's leading food processing companies. Lennon said, "Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it"

He spoke the truth of course and what's worse, when he died in 1981 things were a lot less insane that they are now.

I used that quote in a short blog post highlighting a statement made by the boss of Nestlé who was expressing the view that water cannot be owned by everything and must be privatised so greedy, fascistic corporations like the one he runs can profit from it. (See the blog post with video)

The question of when water becomes property is one that nobody has yet attempted to answer. The US Government has already taken to jailing people for collecting in barrels rainwater that falls on the rooves of their home and outbuilding, for building ponds on their land to collect rainfall and for allowing farm animals to drink public property from streams and lakes.

We did warn of what was on the way, everything the increasingly tyrannical administration of The Emperor Obama are doing in violation of the US Constitution and The Geneva Convention was detailed in the policy document released by the United Nations under the title Agenda 21 which promises the abolition of private property.

It will be interesting to see how Obama plans to seek rstitution from the Sun, when our star's rays cause rainclouds, or government assets of surface water to evaporate, thus destroying valuable resources the government planned to license to corporate water merchants when the vapour had condensed enough to fall to earth. They are still working on that one, meanwhile the idea that water is not a naturally occuring thing but an economic asset is taking hold.

from News Beacon Ireland

Join the resistance now, before the shits demand the skin off your back.

RELATED POSTS:
Back to Contents table

Agenda 21: Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property
Agenda 21 may not have gained much traction here in Europe yet but it is forging ahead with its agenda of seizing control of private property and abolishing individual freedom in the USA where the fascist excesses of The Emperor Obama and his tyrannical administration are at war with the people. Think I'm exaggerating? Fools...

Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [ Tumblr ]

What Privacy Will You Have When You Can't Shop Without Submitting To Biometric Identification?

The Daily Stirrer has long been on the case of the people pushing for a total surveillance society. "If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear," the authorities assure us, "its for your own dafety and security they say. We say BOLLOCKS, it is about power and control. One of our main contributors worked in Informatuon technology at a very high level for many years, he tells us he and colleagues who of a similar classical liberal and libertarian mindset warned then that the way the industry was going would give fascistic corporate and political leaders a perfect tool for controlling society and suppressing freedoms and civil liberties.

One of the basic human rights guaranteed by interational law under the Geneva convention is the right to privacy. But when we see the kind of society Our New Unhappy Lords are planning for us in the future, it seems we have been stripped of that along with other rights without our even realising it. Take a look at this:

from Investment Watch:
In some areas of the world, payment systems that require palm scanning or face scanning are already being tested. We have entered an era where biometric security is being hailed as the “solution” to the antiquated security methods of the past. We are being promised that the constant problems that hackers are causing with our credit cards, bank accounts, ATM machines and Internet passwords will all go away once we switch over to biometric identification. And without a doubt, we have some massive security problems that need to be addressed. But do you really want a machine to read your face or your hand before you are able to buy anything, sell anything or log on to the Internet? Do you really want “the system” to be able to know where you are, what you are buying and what you are doing at virtually all times? Biometric security systems are being promoted as “cool” and “cutting edge”, but there is also potentially a very dark side to them that should not be ignored.

In this day and age, identity theft has become a giant problem. Being able to confirm that you are who you say that you are is a very big deal. To many, biometric security presents a very attractive solution to this problem. For example, the following is a brief excerpt from a recent Fox News article entitled “Biometric security can’t come soon enough for some people”

Washington Is Humanity’s Worst Enemy

Even though the government has accepted a very limited definition of same sex marriage the gay lobby keeps raving on about the greates non issue of all time. But in a free society should we be subjected to bullying if we do not show enough enthusiasm for homosexual and lesbian relationships? When did indifference become a hate crime?
The Daily Stirrer has written many thousands of worlds on the hypocrisy of the political left, the progressives and liberals as they link to style themselves. Anyone familiar with the theory of Foucault's pendulum will understand that society swung way to the left in the first decade of the twenty first century, and a globalists and unsustainably expensive collectivist model was imposed on society.

Homosexuality: As a liberal society we have a duty to tolderate, not celebrate.

Brian Leveson, a British judge best know to the public for his report on press ethics in the wake of a major phone hacking scandal, says UK courts need not automatically defer to European Court of Human Rights’ rulings.

Leveson says he is not “crushed by the European jackboot” when it comes to applying the European convention of human rights in British courts. However, he is obliged to take the Strasbourg court’s rulings “into consideration”. He said the convention was “devised in large part by British lawyers, reflecting British values, to ensure that the activities that we’d all heard about during the Second World War never repeated themselves”. Well we must suppose he knows what he meant.

In a somewhat more legalistic comment on European Human Rights law Leverson said, "When the convention became a part of UK law it allowed our citizens to cite the convention directly. That doesn’t mean we are bound [by its decisions] ... the legislation only requires us to take them into account,.

"So if it looks like a [British] statute could have one of two meanings, and one complies with the convention and one doesn’t, we are required by statute to follow the one that complies with our convention responsibilities."

Leveson insisted British judges would never depend on the Strasbourg courts due to the fact that UK courts have "matured" in recent years regarding their consideration of ECHR decisions.

The oath that every British judge takes requires that they try every case according to the laws and usage of the realm, which means we have to comply with the law as set out by the british parliament and interpreted by higher courts. Parliament requires judges to take account of European decisions.

But Thomas Buergenthal, a former judge at the international criminal court in The Hague said he responded with "sadness and surprise" to those urging Britain to leave the EU muddied the water by saying, "I think the UK doesn’t have to be in the convention because the legal system in Britain is bad. The presence is so important because Britain influences other judges from other countries and how the law operates."

Buergenthal seems to be confused about the points at issue here. The possibility of Britain's leaving the EU is related to political and economic issues. Our problems with the European Human Rights Court relate to incidences when the EU has tried to bully British courts and bureaucrats into overturning the laws enacted by the UK's sovereign government in order to comply with EU rulings.

An example was when the EU and EHRC tried to force Britain to change a law passed by parliament which affirmed the long standing convention that convicted criminals serving prison time are not allowed to vote. The Cultural Marxist who run european bureaucracies as usual took the view that criminals' rights override those of their victims.

RELATED POSTS:
Back to Contents table

Sweden: The Destruction Of A Great Nation
The headline may seem dramatic but when you read of what is happening to Swedish society due to the authoritarian leadership of a politically correct metropolitan elite, and the social engineering projects of left wing intellectuals, the attacks on free speech by corporate media and the effects of unmanaged imigration, you will understand we are being quite restriained in our description of the situation.

Social Science Degrees Make Great Leaders? More Junk Science.
We've had junk science on climate change, genetically modified seeds, many types of medicines and social engineering. The junkiest of junk science however is always commissioned by public service organisations and is aimed at convincing the public that our public servants are doing a good job. Fortunately the public are not as gullible as our leaders suppose.

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [ Tumblr ]