August 13, 2014
The Human Rights Act is a subversive piece of legislation that has been used to give minorities special privileges over and above the rights of everyone else. It gives invading terrorists and parasites from the third world the right not to be deported from the countries they are looting.
The Act is based upon the falsehood that all human beings are equal, which can never be a universal situation, as the members of the nation involved should always have the final say in what goes on in their territory, no-one else. Their ancestors fought and died to secure that territory and bought that right with their own blood.
As British people, we all know that the Human Rights Act has to go, but instead of doing what we should do, which is start enforcing our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, both of which are for biologically British people only, the government and the media would like people to think that they do not even exist. They talk as though we do not have a Bill of Rights and as if our Constitution, which the majority of the rest of the world’s law systems are built on, needs improving. They do not need improving, what they need is enforcing. They cannot be improved upon and made us the envy of the world when they were in force.
Every time we hear the government start talking about a New Bill of Rights or a New Constitution, we should be asking ourselves why, what was wrong with the old one and when were they given the right to over-rule them?
Who gave them that permission? Because it certainly didn’t come from any Lawful source.
The Human Rights Act has given courts a blank cheque to make up the law, a senior judge said yesterday.
Lord Neuberger, who is the president of the Supreme Court, said the Act effectively gave the views of the judiciary precedence over Parliament. He said this extra power for judges was a good thing – because it kept governments in check.
British judges have increasingly defied ministers since the Act was passed by Labour in 1998. The Appeal Court shot down rules to prevent sham marriages by ruling they discriminated against immigrants.And judges have used the Act to dismantle attempts to control terror suspects.
In his landmark speech, Lord Neuberger cited a key judgment from June in which the Supreme Court declared it had the power – so far unused – to tell the Government to legalise assisted suicide.
The 1961 Suicide Act makes clear that helping someone to die is a serious crime punishable by up to 14 years in prison. But judges and prosecutors have opened up a defence for those who act out of compassion – defying Parliament’s wishes and effectively wiping out much of the meaning of the law it had laid down.
Lord Neuberger’s intervention comes at a time when the future of the Human Rights Act and the supremacy over British courts of the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights are being questioned.
David Cameron’s July reshuffle shifted opponents of constitutional reform out of the Government and replaced them with eurosceptics who want to end the power of Strasbourg to give votes to prisoners or prevent the deportation of terror suspects. They also want to rein in British judges who use human rights to establish new law on privacy or assisted suicide.
The reshuffle has led to speculation that the next Tory manifesto will promise repeal of the Human Rights Act and its replacement with a British bill of rights.
Lord Neuberger is the leader of the 12 judges who have the final say in Britain on how the laws set by Parliament are interpreted.
He said in a speech given to lawyers in Melbourne, Australia, that the Human Rights Act allows courts ‘to interpret statutes in a way which some may say amounts not so much to construction as to demolition andreconstruction’.
‘We can give provisions meanings which they could not possibly bear if the normal rules of statutory interpretation applied,’ Lord Neuberger said. ‘Parliament has written us judges something of a bank cheque in this connection.’
They are using the exposure of how the Human Rights Act has over ruled the government, to try to gain support for an even worse piece of legislation, which will be a ‘New’ Bill of Rights. We should be insisting that they start obeying and enforcing our original Bill of Rights, as that is the Law in Britain, not what Brussels say and not what any Jews say either, as the Law is that they should not be found anywhere on our land in the first place, let alone playing at being Judges and Prime Ministers.