The new ‘October Revolution’ to undermine the British way of life
Britain’s Gift to the World and the European Law Time Bomb
Michael A Clark
On 2nd October, 2000, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is to be incorporated into United Kingdom law.
This legislation means that any British law that does not conform to the ECHR is illegal and open to challenge in the courts. New Labour’s obsession with incorporating European human rights laws into Britain’s unique legal system now threatens to undermine every aspect of British life.
The American Bar Association’s 200th annual meeting started in New York in July and came on to London, England, to visit Runnymeade on 15th July in order to rededicate its monument to Magna Carta. The theme of the bicentennial, "Common Law – Common Bond", was a powerful reminder of the law and the freedom it has established among the British-related nations of the world.
How very ironic it is that while these freedoms have been marked and rededicated by the people from the United States of America, the European-obsessed government in Westminster has rushed the Human Rights Act through Parliament. This will undermine Britain’s greatest legal gift to the world – the great statute of Magna Carta 1215.
What possible point can there be in making a great fanfare about these new rights based on a foreign legal system, if we do not have any continuing respect for the preservation of rights and freedoms we already have and which our fathers fought for over many centuries?
The peoples of Britain, the United States and the great nations of the British Commonwealth and Dominions are the descendants of Magna Carta. They are the inheritors of a long and proven legal tradition which has been successfully developed over 785 years.
Is the worldwide British nation now supposed to believe that human rights is some gift to England from Europe? God forbid! Freedom and civil liberties were England’s unique and great gift to the world over many centuries. Yet, as of 2nd October, 2000, hundreds of Britain’s existing laws will now be challenged at great expense under the European Convention, which will produce only two results.
Human rights lawyers will grow rich.
First, human rights lawyers will make a great deal of money and become very, very rich. An extra £60 million a year has been set aside for court and legal aid when the Human Rights Act comes into force in October. The British Prime Minister’s wife, Cherie Booth a Roman Catholic and a leading QC, has even set up a new set of barristers’ chambers, called Matrix, which specialises in human rights legislation.
Writing in The Daily Telegraph, London, on 7th August, 2000, Cherie Booth declared that the Human Rights Act "forms an integral part of the Government’s programme of constitutional reform, which has the aim of modernising Britain to make it a strong and confident democracy in the 21st century". It was as if Downing Street had had a direct hand in the article, in other words, standard Blairspeak. For the first time, the Prime Minister’s wife could be said to be intervening in party politics and on a controversial law from which she stands to gain considerable financial reward.
Cherie Booth and Rabinder Singh, barristers at Matrix Chambers, explain in their article how the Act seeks to bring out new attitudes and responsibilities in Britain’s people and public authorities, and to support democracy. They urge the courts to take a "sensible approach" to discourage the expected rush of what some people have described as "crackpot" claims.
Judges will become political.
This conceals the second and more serious effect the European law will have on our courts. For the first time Britain’s judges will be compromised by involvement in politics. Until now, there has been a clear separation in Britain between the politicians who make the law, and the judges who rule on it. Under the new Act, decisions on the rights and wrongs of highly political pieces of legislation will be made by judges, not politicians. There will be wide scope for personal opinion to influence the decisions they make.
Lord Irving, the Lord Chancellor, is now instructing, not requesting as normal, all magistrates to report to specific venues for re-education in new racial and European law. We have been told by one long-serving magistrate that on receiving the instruction from the Lord Chancellor, he sent back his resignation. He is not prepared to implement alien European law in the Queen’s Realm and more seriously, nor should the Lord Chancellor. At her Coronation on 2nd June, 1953, Her Majesty the Queen promised on solemn oath to uphold the "laws and customs of the Realm". This does not include the laws and customs of foreign lands.
What human rights violation?
The question that thunders out in this imposition of European law is "Where is the monstrous human rights violation in Britain that the European Convention will prohibit?" Cherie Booth argues that the consequences of incorporation will not be great, others have said it will cause chaos in the courts.
Whatever the result the very idea of the British people being "given" their rights is alien and insulting to the British tradition. The people of Britain have always assumed and have enshrined it in statute law that they are free to do anything that is not expressly prohibited. Yet, as of 2nd October, 2000, and the new "October Revolution", the people of Britain are meant to rely on a dubious set of foreign judges to safeguard their freedoms. It is utterly monstrous and a treason against England’s enduring gift to the world – Magna Carta.
When reading Magna Carta today it is easy to dismiss it as merely of historical relevance, but there are phrases which are as relevant in 2000 as they were in 1215:
Article 40: "To none will we sell, to none deny the right of justice", are words that might well be hung in a frame on the wall of the Lord Chancellor’s office for him to take into account when setting the level of court fees and the policy of making courts self-financing.
Article 39: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned …… save by the lawful judgment of his peers", is the basis of trial by jury, which is regarded across the Atlantic as a fundamental principle of democratic society. The jury system is now under threat from the Corpus Juris, the Napoleonic system of repression now being prepared as a European Legal Area Project.
The arguments for the new European law do not bear close examination and should sound constitutional alarm bells for the citizens of the United Kingdom at this 60th anniversary of the Battle of Britain.
Dangers of fast-track legislation.
Cherie Booth writes: "The Act will prevent the courts from striking down Acts of Parliament but enable the higher courts to make a declaration of incompatibility, which can trigger a fast-track procedure to amend legislation". There is a very narrow line between striking down an Act and a fast-track procedure to amend legislation. The greatest danger of the fast-track is that it is a device which can be used to avoid proper parliamentary debate.
The Convention is going to be a very useful way for New Labour’s obsession with incorporating European human rights law into the British legal system, to force through policies which would not go down well if presented openly to the nation. The new "October Revolution" of European law is a hugely deceptive way of disguising from the people a process that was not revealed to them: a transfer of power from Britain to Europe and from politician to judge.
Court actions being prepared.
Lobby groups are now preparing a series of high-profile actions in respect of the police, asylum seekers, prisoners, education, privacy, health, homosexual rights and religion. At the beginning of August, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the United Kingdom must relax its homosexual laws; a British court, in consideration of the coming new law, ruled that Sikh terrorists had a "human right" to remain in the country and Westminster Council dropped a parking fine for fear of legal action in Europe.
What are we coming to in respect of supporting family life which is the bedrock of society and in turn the nation? Some lawyers say a case could be made for gay marriage. Non-British religious groups will seek more rights; Muslims want polygamy allowed. The requirement to wear school uniform could be an infringement to freedom of expression, and a ban on sex in the school premises might contravene the freedom of family life. Courts could be asked to rule on Section 28, which bans the promotion of teaching homosexual practice in sex education.
As the Church over many years has been going love mad, so now the State is about to go rights mad. The question they both have failed to consider is that love is not the first attribute of God, but the fourth, and that under the Law of the Lord, no one has rights as such.
We await events – and the inevitable Day of Judgment!