As I have now joined the old boys club, I thought I should give myself an opportunity to share my thoughts with our supporters wherever they are. In this Part two of a two-part series, I am satisfied that :
The Labour government and Judiciary have been selling Britain short since 1997
By Andre John-Salakov
I want to say to say “Thank you ” to Xochi, Michael and Paul from BirthdayAlarm.com I don’t know who you are but I received your birthday greetings at 12 midnight. Thank you
On the conclusion of Part One of this two-part series I suggested the exclusion of British-at-home and British-abroad from the list of those institutions that should be held responsible for the way the world sees the British outside Britain. Three institutions stand out: news organisations, legal profession, and the diplomatic service As a lateral thinker who I am, my earlier conclusion was perfectly logical and correct. The actions of a few often form the basis upon which the majority is adjudged.
Purpose of government
The era of Macmillan, Hugh Gaitskell, Harold Wilson, and to some limited extent, Jim Callaghan earned Britain serious respect among British-at-home and British-abroad.
Mrs. Thatcher did what she thought was right for the country. She too, earned the country some respect but the introduction of the Poll-Tax caused such a furore among the British-at-home and this led to a steady exodus from the country.
Mr. John Major did so much behind the scene to reverse some of the reckless policies of the Thatcher years but the wound was so deep and smelly.
On Thursday, March 7 1991, the Centre for Community Studies presented a document titled “THE POLL-TAX Proposals for Reform ” to Mr. John Major. (ISBN 1873156154) I wrote the Report.
At Para.1.5 I made the point that “ In democracies,
the key objectives of any government policy is to create a balance between the requirements of the State and the expectations of the people ”
At Para. 1.6 I ask “How can it be right for the poor, the not-so-poor, the rich, the not-so-rich, to buy from the same supermarket, pay the same amount for a packet of cornflakes, drive home in an assortment of cars ranging from an “
old banger” to a Rolls Royce, some to a caravan site, some to mansions and a great many more to a housing estate, only to find that they are – all of them, being called to pay taxes totally disproportionate to their respective stations in life? ”
Elsewhere on this site and in books I have identified the most important purpose of government, by reference to the game of chess. When the Chinese came up with the idea of chess in the 13th Century they had no idea that they were formulating a fundamental principle that would impact on government systems in centuries to come. The Indians claimed to have invented a similar board game in the 11th Century.
Whatever the reasons for the creation of Chess, what is important is the fact that Chess symbolises nation states at war. But the real purpose of those wars was not to seize lands and minerals, but to test the strength of each government and the readiness of each government to devise or design strategies to meet the exigencies of the moment
.
It is not true that the pawns (the foot soldiers) are to be picked up one by one and killed. Of course, they appear to be guiding the Castle, the Knight, Bishop, Her Majesty and her King. In fact the primary function of a nation state is the promotion of the people, same as happens with Chess governments. The act of promoting someone is conditional upon one’s ability to protect such a person in the first place. If our government is not in place to protect us, it cannot be said to promote us.
In the case of the Chess government, the protection cum promotion of the foot soldiers is to ensure that a pawn (foot soldier) reaches the other end of the board, at which point it partakes in the art of government. PATRIOTISM comes naturally to those foot soldiers.
Some questions
Since when has it been the purpose of the British government to protect and promote the inhabitants of the nation state?
My answer would be – the protection and promotion of the inhabitants of the nation state ceased at the point when politicians on government benches in the Houses of Parliament became self-indulgent, self-opinionated, selfish, arrogant and nepotistic, and when it became the norm for them to dish out “honours ” for cash.
Mr. Anthony Blair was not to blame for his authoritarian style. His friends, colleagues, and advisers were just as guilty as he was for the mishandling of the affairs of the British-at-home and British-abroad. The world was relatively at peace with itself until he and Mr. Bush decided to stand shoulder to shoulder as comrades,
In any event the protection cum promotion of the inhabitants of the nation state needs the backing of the judiciary.
In the first place, the judiciary under Labour was far from ” independent”. Quite honestly, I do not know since when the judiciary has been independent in Britain.
In the second place, some senior judges under Labour bullied other judges to toe certain political lines.
In the third place, successive Home Secretary under Labour bullied the judges, to the point that some of them lost their nerves and decided to just leave, anyway.
In addition, throughout Mr. Blair's years in office, the Lord Chancellor Department and Metropolitan Police carried themselves like mosquitoes: you can never tell what mosquitoes are up to during daytime, but when night comes, every mosquito knows where to find human blood to suck and poison at the same time.
Diplomatic mission
A diplomatic mission is meant to represent a country and its inhabitants. Under Labour some of our Embassies and High Commissions, in the Member States of the EU and in some parts of Africa and Asia, did not demonstrate the standard of integrity that one would normally associate with the Foreign Service of a nation state.
In Dublin, two senior members of the diplomatic staff, acted as informers for the Irish Gardai. In Belgium, we had similar problems. Of course, our diplomats did not work as agents of the Federal Police, in Belgium. However, the sorts of things that some of them did were worse – they peddled worthless information about British citizens to law firms, and other institutions
.
In Malaysia, Pakistan, and India, some senior members of staff sexually exploited spouses intending to travel to the UK.
All of the above sold Britain short in the eyes of the rest of the world. Unfortunately, once they arrive in office, many politicians appear to forget how they get there in the first place, especially if they happen to be in the government. Only those who go so far can possibly find out how far they can go. In any event, the law of physics makes it quite clear that what goes up must also come back down.
Humanitarian Law
Under Labour, civil liberties, citizen's rights and entitlements have been under attack since 1997. The police are armed to the teeth with all manners of statutes. Following the senseless killing of 27 year old Brazilian Charles de Menezes in 2005, kids started killing kids. The nation state is there to protect and promote the people. So, where is all that gone?
In Britain we have the Human Rights Act, but we also have the Supreme Court Act 1981, section 42, which completely makes it impossible for citizens to have access to justice. More disturbing, lawyers who vocalise injustices and wrong doings by the state are threatened with Section 42.
The High Court, through its website defames the dead, with impunity. Yet, Britain is a country of Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus. These two appear to emphasise the importance of Humanitarian Law.
Britain is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Yet, getting justice from the ECHR, in Strasbourg is just as well to look for a needle in a haystack. The rules are too tight, and I cannot help but wonder why nation states devise Systems that encourage miscarriages of justice.
The difficulty with what is commonly known as Humanitarian Law is simply that it only exists in the imagination of lawmakers, professors of law, and judges.
Rights or Entitlements
In KNOW YOUR RIGHTS WHERE YOU LIVE (British Isles Edition), I explain that Human Rights, Civil Liberties, or Entitlements are subjects matter of Humanitarian Law.
There are five types of rights. These are as follows:
Moral right
Public right
Private right
Statutory right
Right of Habitation
A right is a state of mind in which an individual conditions himself or herself to believe that he or she is entitled to receive something for his or her own benefit, and enjoyment, and any such claimant may not be required to justify his belief.
A Right does two things in the ordinary course of events. It creates an "Entitlement". It also creates a “Duty ”. Every right gives rise to a corresponding duty or obligation.
A right is either absolute or inchoate. I use the word “inchoate ” to designate incompleteness. The right to life is an absolute right. No one has the right to take another person's life. However, a right to work and to earn a living through, work is not an absolute right. It is “inchoate ” in so far that an employer can deny me the right to work and to earn a living, either because I do not have the necessary qualifications or, work experience. On the other hand, the government may forbid the employer from offering people like me the kind of job for which I apply.
In the light of those matters, the closest ally of a right is “Entitlement ”. In order to exercise a right, one has to claim it. To claim a right means that one has an Entitlement to any such right. Since an Entitlement does not create a right, an Entitlement would not normally guarantee the enjoyment of a right. Even if someone claims his or her right to work, it is up to those civil servants who are responsible for implementing the “right-to-work “ law to decide whether that person is entitled to the enjoyment of the right to work, in light of his or her circumstances.
The foregoing and other aspects of Humanitarian Law are covered in “KNOW YOUR RIGHTS WHERE YOU LIVE ”
To bring this discussion to a close, I am convinced that the government under Labour is not doing enough to protect and promote the people. The judiciary has done nothing to assuage the fears of many, either.
Madeleine story
This is one story that as done more harm to the name of Britain than any other human story in living memory. It does not require any amount of intelligence to work it out that Madeleine’s disappearance from Prai de Luz in Portugal was planned and executed by her step dad and mom.
The McCanns obtained property by deception from all manners of sources. Leicestershire Constabulary could have stepped in but the force kept its distance. The Labour government could have done something about it, but no one knows for sure what the government did to uphold the integrity of the nation state. In the end, police officers in Portugal were made to look like amateurs.
The disappearance of Madeleine is an extension of the proof that Britain is tribalistic, ritualistic and all that matters is CLASS cum STATUS.
Would the McCanns be honoured in 2008 NEW YEAR’S HONOUR LIST? You never know.
