Eurosocialist & Antifascist: Who's blocking our Rights?

[Rory Winter]

Eurosocialist and Antifascist
http://tinyurl.com/yqslpc

My readers will have noticed by now that the Chimes of Freedom blog is headed by the European flag under which is stated that it is both Eurosocialist and Antifascist.

Non-British readers may not be aware of the ongoing campaign by the extreme Right against Britain's membership of the European Union. These Europhobes --more kindly described as Eurosceptics-- are a motley group of Little Englanders, mainly of a xenophobic and reactionary right persuasion.

But, having lost an Empire and any sense of raison d'etre, it is not only the usual blimpish right that lays a claim to exercise British xenophobia. The malaise stretches right across the social and political spectrum to include a lot of lefties lost in a political wilderness and without an ideological home.

Whereas the concept of a united, European Left is both a popular and normal phenomenon in continental Europe, the British Left has retained its traditional aloofness and pukka attitudes by not joining that common European front. 'Europe' is referred to as 'somewhere over there' as if Britain is somehow separated from Europe.

Of course this is nonsense. Britain is and has always been indivisibly part of Europe in its geography, its culture, its religion, its politics and its language. Only in a strangely schizophrenic British attitude of mind will you find Britain to be a separate entity, where when fog obscures the Channel it is the Continent that is cut off, not this overcrowded little island.

And due, no doubt, to the dumbing-down of the British mainstream media (MSM) even the Continent is no longer referred to as such. It has become 'Europe', something which Britain is not part of. The traditionally conservative outlook of the Brit has become so insular it would rather cut off all contact with the non-English speaking world to live in an artificial bubble of unreality which it hopes will be forever England.

It is part of a serious social malaise that is now so advanced it is eating at the imperial foundations upon which the very United Kingdom itself was built. Britain is in post-imperial collapse and in denial, projecting instead its unhappiness with itself on 'Europe' and immigration.

This social malaise (or is psychosis a more appropriate description?) is now so widespread that Britain provides the Basil Fawlty-type xenophobic Right with a breeding ground for the narrow-minded, petty bourgeois attitudes that Mrs Thatcher implanted in the susceptible British psyche.

The so-called demand for what is referred to as a referendum on Europe perfectly describes the spell of reactionary-minded xenophobia the British (predominantly the English) have fallen under. Disguised by a blimpish indignation against having to use metric measurements instead of imperial ones and driving 'on the wrong side of the road' (it appears that most of the world has been driving on the wrong side) this xenophobia is currently expressing itself as (i) Europhobia, (ii) a general hostility towards immigration, and (iii) an Islamophobia fuelled by the Bush/Blair fake 'War on Terror'.

**********

As an ex-colonial Brit, I am able to gauge and understand the British mentality both from a peculiarly British view of things as well as to perceive it from an arm's-length-view of one who still has a colonial memory of being at the receiving end of British attitudes.

The world-famous Canadian author of The English Patient, Michael Ondaatje, is a fellow expatriate of mine. His father, Mervyn, a planter in the old colonial Ceylon of the 1930's, was a pal of my old man who was also a planter. The Ondaatjes used to visit my family from time to time and my elder sisters have a memory of Michael as a rather tubby, aloof little chap who used to love scoffing on a can of condensed milk.


Michael Ondaatje

In his book, Running in the Family, Michael Ondaatje writes of an occasion when Mervyn, who rather worse for drink, held up the Colombo to Kandy train by running along the top to the engine, getting the driver drunk on arrack, leaping off the hotplate to strip off his clothes and run naked into a tunnel from whence he refused to emerge, thereby playing havoc with the Ceylon Government Railways' wartime schedule.

But why did a Ceylon Army officer have to run along the top of the train?

Because, as a dusky Eurasian, he with every other non-white officer was forbidden to walk through the train's corridors where there were compartments occupied by pukka white officers of the stiff upper lip British raj. That kind of mixing simply wouldn't do. It just wasn't British.

Eurasians of my ilk grew up with a memory of the precious white attitudes of Brits who walked around Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) with a permanent, invisible wall of separateness that kept them in a constant state of undeclared apartheid from the rest of the dark-skinned rabble. Fortunately for me, any fake ideas of British or white superiority that might have been implanted within by colonial conditioning was soon knocked out in the nationalist upsurge of the 1950's when British colonialism was thrown unceremoniously out of the window.

That nationalist reaction to four hundred years of colonial rule, first by the Portuguese, then by the Dutch and finally by the English, was understandable. But sadly, like all extreme reactions, it too was destructive leading to the fifty-year civil war that Sri Lanka experiences to this day. But that's another story.

**********

Returning to the white, pukka attitudes of the British mentality: really, nothing has changed very much since it lost its Empire. The pukka attitudes simply submerged into a quite artificial, Basil Fawlty-type 'Britishness' and continued to emerge as a desperate distaste and even hostility towards 'coloureds', foreigners in general and now, together with the rest of Europe, as Islamophobia.

But none of these things can be admitted to. The British believe themselves to be far too tolerant and fair-minded for that. So they have to be thinly disguised by entirely nonsensical rationales such as a pretend 'Euroscepticism' which hides a fully-blown Europhobic, xenophobia.

A xenophobia which is a sign of an endemic mental weakness or malaise, exposing Britain as the perennial sick man of Europe. A sickness which right-wing politicians, 'neo-liberals', Atlanticists and Washington's Neocon, closet fascists fully use to their advantage to drive a wedge between Britain and the rest of the European Union.

It is highly significant that an anti-EU Referendum rally is to be held in London next week, preceded the day before by the blimpish racists of the No Sharia Here SIOE, led by the Fawlty-like Stephen Gash and masterminded by the ubiquitous political opportunist, the Danish Anders Gravers. You can be sure that a lot of the Islamophobes marching on October 26 will also be marching in the EU Referendum rally. The same petty-bourgeois closet-racists are behind both Islamophobia and Europhobia.


Stephen Gash out of Fawlty Towers

And these phobic types are being supported by media tyrants like Rupert Murdoch who, like the criminal Conrad Black, not only support the Bush fascists but would have Britain out of the EU and into the economic hegemony of the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA).

Ever since the end of WWII, Britain has been under the military hegemony of the US and its foreign policy. During the Thatcher years, Britain became 'Airstrip One', a forward base for US imperialism and potential nuclear attack in a European Theatre of War. But it remained, on the whole, within the economic hegemony of the European Community, later Union.

Thatcher never like that idea and cashed-in on the natural anti-European sentiments of Britain's Basil Fawlty mentality by keeping Britain out of the Euro and the Maastricht treaty.

Homegrown xenophobic, Europhobia also provided the Thatcherites and their successors, the Blair/Brownites, with the political clout to opt out of various areas of European legislation meant to protect the rights of trades unions and, through the Working Directive, to provide a maximum limit of 48 hours to the working week.

Using Newspeak and by turning reality on its head, this socially progressive legislation by the European Union was presented to a wholly prejudiced and tranced-out British audience as somehow a threat to British liberties! And this in a country which remains the historical cradle of trades unionism and the struggle for a 40-hour week which, when finally obtained, was done in by Thatcher and her peculiarly British form of fascism.

Thus, in today's dark ages, even a 48-hour week is presented by British capitalists as something that we progressive Brits would rather not have! And, together with having opted out of that social legislation, the closet-fascists and their Tory fellow-travellers in the Cameron party of Neocons would have us give away our human rights as well, the Human Rights Act of 1999 being presented by Britain's lying media as something which militates against and threatens our human rights!

A Human Rights Act, by the way, which it took 49 years for the complacent Brits to get around to legislate into its own laws, such was the reluctance of the British ruling classes to deal with anything that smacked of rights for the lower classes! And now the Brits are being conned into believing that 'Europe threatens its independence'! In the 51st State what independence does Britain have? The British bubble of unreality again!

Reich Fieldmarshall Hermann Goering was right in one thing at least when he predicted in 1940 that in twenty years time Britain would become an overcrowded little island living on the glories of its past.

Overcrowded, yes. But not by immigrants. By a breakdown of infrastructure and public transport and an overpopulation of private transport. Living on the glories of its past, yes. But where the Neocon fascists in Washington are calculatedly using British xenophobia, nostalgia and an entirely false belief in its independence to stir-up racism, religious hate and persecution and to persuade a generation of British working people, ignorant of their past struggles, to forsake all their hard-earned rights by turning its back on protective European social legislation.

The call for a Referendum is a fake, carefully packaged by the Right to sound as if it were something to do with free speech. The same free speech which the Right constantly abuse by using it to promote xenophobia, race hate and to attack the people's social and civil rights.

It is for these reasons that Chimes of Freedom and New Civilization remains solidly Eurosocialist, in defence of the people's rights, and Antifascist against the pukka white nonsense of xenophobia and imperialist racism.

[Rory Winter]

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing: The EU Treaty is the same as the Constitution

Lift the lid and look in the toolbox, and all the same innovative tools are there

The Independent, 30 October 2007
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3109902.ece

The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content. The draft constitution resulted from a political desire to simplify European institutions, rendered inefficient by recent expansions. It was about creating more democracy and transparency within the European Union. It was about opening the way for a "Constitution for the people of Europe".

These goals were reflected in the composition of the treaty-drafting Convention which brought together representatives from the European Parliament and national parliaments, from the governments of member states, as well as from the European Commission. The debates were very public. The resulting draft constitution was a new text and replaced all previous treaties.

For the Treaty of Lisbon the process has been very different. It was the legal experts for the European Council who were charged with drafting the new text. They have not made any new suggestions. They have taken the original draft constitution, blown it apart into separate elements, and have then attached them, one by one, to existing treaties. The Treaty of Lisbon is thus a catalogue of amendments. It is unpenetrable for the public.

In terms of content, the proposed institutional reforms – the only ones which mattered to the drafting Convention – are all to be found in the Treaty of Lisbon. They have merely been ordered differently and split up between previous treaties. There are, however, some differences. Firstly, the noun "constitution" and the adjective "constitutional" have been banished from the text, as though they describe something inadmissible. At the same time, all mention of the symbols of the EU have been suppressed, including the flag (which already flies everywhere), and the European anthem (Beethoven's Ode to Joy). However ridiculous they seem, these decisions are significant. They are intended to chase away any suggestion that Europe may one day have a formal political status. They sound a significant retreat from European political ambition.

The concessions given to French opponents of the constitutional treaty are more symbolic than substantial. The expression "free and undistorted competition" has been taken out at the request of President Sarkozy. It reappears at the request of the British, in an annexed protocol to the new treaty which stipulates that "the internal market, such as is defined in Article 3 of the treaty, includes a system guaranteeing that competition is undistorted".

Far more important are the concessions made to the British. The Charter of Fundamental Rights – an improved and updated version of the Charter of Human Rights – has been withdrawn from the draft treaty and made into a separate text, to which Britain will not be bound. In the area of judicial harmonisation and co-operation, Britain will have the right to duck in and out of the system as it pleases. Having already weakened all attempts at further European integration – such as by refusing the title of Minister for Foreign Affairs – Britain has also been allowed to be the odd man out whenever it feels like it.

Otherwise, the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary.

The Brussels institutions have also cleverly reclaimed the process from the – to them – unwelcome intrusion of parliamentarians and politicians in the work of the original drafting Convention. The institutions have re-imposed their language and their procedures – taking us even further away from ordinary citizens.

Now comes the ratification process. There should not be any big problems – except in Britain where a referendum would obviously lead to a "No" vote. Elsewhere, the complexity of the new text, and the apparent surrender of all sweeping ambitions, should be enough to smooth over all difficulties.

But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention: a stable Presidency; a streamlined Commission; a Parliament with genuine legislative rights; a Foreign Minister, even if he has been given another inadequate title; decisions taken by a double majority of governments and citizens; and the most advanced charter of fundamental rights in the world.

When men and women with sweeping ambitions for Europe decide to make use of this treaty, they will be able to rekindle from the ashes of today the flame of a United Europe.

The writer, a former French President (1974-81), was president of the Convention on the Future of Europe, which drafted a new constitution, 2002-03

__________

Rory's Comments:

Giscard d'Estaing's comments about the 'concessions' made to the British bear out what I have already said in a previous article, Eurosocialist and Antifascist.

http://tinyurl.com/yqslpc

The 'concessions' made to the British government by the Lisbon Treaty are those which will benefit British capitalism and the ruling classes, not the ordinary person. By allowing Britain not to be bound by the new Charter of Fundamental Rights and to duck in and out of judicial harmonisation and cooperation the Treaty of Lisbon has effectually allowed the encroaching British police state an unfettered freedom to do as it will and its judiciary to continue as a law unto itself.

All this amounts to very bad news for the average Brit who, as I have said, was bamboozled by the British right into thinking of a new European Constitution as somehow a danger to it. As always, the British Right was able to turn reality on its head and to use a gullible and misinformed public to serve its own purposes.

CHIMES OF FREEDOM, http://tinyurl.com/3bcb6u

[Rory Winter]

Here is what the European Greens had to say about Britain's opt-out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights:



EU Summit : British opt-out from Fundamental Rights Charter is unacceptable
23.06.2007

Commenting on the outcome of the EU summit Johannes Vogggenhuber, MEPand Vice-President of the Constitutional Affairs Committee in the European Parliament, today said:

"Europe has come close to a deep division, which has only been avoided at the very last moment. This summit has shown that the political integration of the continent, which has been pursued for 50 years now, has adversaries within. An alliance of nationalists, neoliberal ideologues and Rumsfeld's New Europe is at work to reduce the continent to an internal market plus NATO. The 18 member states, which ratified the Constitutional treaty, underestimated the determination of this coalition and closed ranks too late.

Despite the absurd menaces and blackmail attempts of the [Polish] Kaczynski twins, the real bad guy of the summit is Tony Blair. The opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights he secured for the United Kingdom is unacceptable. Bearing in mind the universal principle of human and citizen rights', this opt-out is extremely destructive for the credibility of the European Union as a community of shared values both at home and abroad. These values are at the very heart of Europe and if the UK doesn't share in them is it openly putting into question its own Community membership. Instead of allowing an opt-out, the EU should rather accept that the UK leaves the European project for good."

http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/pressreleases/dok/188/188278.eu_summit@f r.htm

Charter of Fundamental Rights, PDF Version

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

[Rory Winter]

These are the Fundamental Rights which the Brown government has opted out of. This amounts to nothing less than an all-out attack by Brown & Co on the fundamental rights of people in Britain!

__________


You, Europe, and your rights
The Government is blocking an EU charter which would protect these fundamental rights for British people. Why?
The Independent, 22 June 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2692471.ece

Eugenics

Prohibition of eugenic practices, particularly those aiming at the selection of person. Article 3

What's at stake: Science is seeking to eradicatedisabilities by genetic manipulation. It might be possible for parents to order a "designer" baby.

Expert opinion: "I would be totally opposed to any attempt to socially engineer people."

Ian Gibson, vice-president, Royal Society for Public Understanding of Science

Torture

No one should be subjected to torture. Article 4

What's at stake: Since the invasion of Iraq, British soldiers have found themselves in the dock over the abuse of civilian detainees

Expert opinion: "It is all the more deplorable when some of the most powerful men on earth seek to justify the use of torture."

Moazzam Begg, a torture victim and former prisoner in Guantanamo Bay

Human trafficking

Trafficking in human beings is prohibited. Article 5

What's at stake: This year the UN said that human trafficking had reached epidemic proportions. The Home Office said that in 2003, 4,000 women were trafficked into the UK for sexual exploitation

Expert opinion: "It is shameful that this country is trying to duck out of a charter that specifically prohibits child trafficking."

Louise Christian, human rights lawyer

Data protection

Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her. Article 8

What's at stake: A vast amount of data is stored on each of us already. From 2010, ID cards will be compulsory for anyone applying for a passport in the UK.

Expert opinion: "It's... a safeguard to protect the right of the individual in relation to the state."

Maurice Frankel, director, Campaign for Freedom of Information

Right to protest

Everyone has the right to freedom of assembly and of association. Article 12

What's at stake: Anti-war protests prompted the Government to bring in legislation to prevent unlicensed demos within quarter of a mile of Parliament

Expert opinion: "Allowing dissent in the form of peaceful protest is the hallmark of a country that understands respect for human rights."

Kate Allen, Amnesty International UK director

Working rights

Every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment... in any Member state. Article 15

What's at stake: The Conservatives' fear is that Poles and other east Europeans have taken up jobs and housing at British workers' expense

Expert opinion: "People who come to work in the UK are providing vital services which would collapse without them."

Brendan Barber, TUC general secretary

Deportation

No one can be removed to a state where there is a serious risk of torture. Article 19

What's at stake: The Government's determination to deport terror suspects to countries with questionable human rights records

Expert opinion: "In an effort to circumvent its obligations, the Government has secured 'memoranda of understanding' with Jordan, Libya and Lebanon."

Shami Chakrabarti, Liberty director

Industrial action

Workers have the right to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action. Article 28

What's at stake: The right to strike has been restricted in the UK since the 1980s. There are rules about ballots andpicketing. None of these restrictions is mentioned in the charter

Expert opinion: "We back the right to strike, to negotiate, to fight against unfair dismissal."

John Monks, European TUC leader

Child exploitation

The employment of children is prohibited... except for limited derogations. Article 32

What's at stake: Could be a threat to family-run corner shops where children help out, or to the pocket money others earn from babysitting or paper rounds

Expert opinion: "To keep children safe, we must ensure parents and employers are clear about how and when children and young people can be employed."

NSPCC statement

Health care

Everyone has the right to preventative health care. Article 35

What's at stake: Earlier this month, The Independent highlighted a new pill that could help hay fever sufferers, which the NHS will not prescribe because of cost. Critics say this clause could open the NHS to litigation

Expert opinion: "This article would not give much backing to any patient who took on the NHS."

Dr Evan Harris, member Medical Ethics Committee

[Rory Winter]

And now the point has to be made and loudly: it is not 'Europe' or a European Constitution which threatens the fundamental rights of the British. It is the fascist attitude of our own governments (both Nu Labour and Tory) which are creating the police state!

It is Britain that is the odd-man-out when it comes to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. That is the reality. Yet what we read in most of the mass media (utter lies of course) makes out 'Europe' to be the threat! These lies must be challenged by folk like you and me. The fascist policies of British governments must be challenged, by civil disobedience if necessary, and we must appeal to the European Union for help. It is our only, last chance!

This goes for all of us but especially for minority groups who are at the sharp end of the British government's fascist persecution.

The people of Britain are the victims of the treason of their own political leaders. In the name of God, how long will it be before they wake up to see the truth. The truth, not the nonsense that is being shoved down our throats by a Right wing, fascist establishment?

There is still time to fight these fascist chickenhawks. To give up the struggle before the battle is over is to be a coward and a defeatist. Worse still, to do so is to betray ourselves, our families and our most precious beliefs.

We must not surrender to them!

[xmasdale]

I agree with you, Venceremos. Unfortunately I think there is a preponderance within the 9/11 Truth Movement of the attitude that EU means the UK government signing away our rights and freedoms to an unaccountable bureacracy in Brussels.

The way things are developing, though, there is a certain logic to what they are saying. Unfortunately I have not found the time to study the new European treaty in order to analyse exactly what powers now lie with Brussels, rather than London, or if there are many meaningful powers that lie in Edinburgh, Cardiff or the Greater London Authority or with my local borough.

However, throughout my life I have watched successive British governments resist moves towards federating Europe, on the grounds that Britain, they claim, is so much more democratic than the rest of Europe. But, if it were democracy (accountability to the people) they were truly concerned about, they would not at every stage of its development have resisted greater powers being given to our elected representatives in the European parliament. They most certainly would not not have opted out of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. We need these rights enshrined in British law to protect our dwindling liberties.

Now I find myself surrounded by anti-European campaigners who reckon that the European Union and NAAFTA are all part of a plot to take away democratic freedoms and concentrate power in the hands of the few. Creating large units of governance, they maintain, aids this sought after domination and takes us further towards the ultimate goal of a global fascist state. The 9/11 Truth Movement, they argue, should identify with the little englanders who will thereby become receptive to the truth about 9/11.

While they argue that creating large units of governance furthers the global fascist agenda, they also argue in the case of Yugoslavia that that country was broken up by the same forces of darkness, because small units of governance are much easier to control, on the divide and rule principle. They are now maintain it is the same divide and rule principle which is being used in Iraq and soon will be in Iran.

Strikes me, that whatever happens, you will always find someone to argue it is all part of an illuminati plot.

Another principle of federalism which is so frequently not understood is that of "subsidiarity", the notion that decisions should be taken by the smallest competent authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity The EU has, I believe, failed to implement that principle sufficiently, largely in order to please commercial pressure groups which stand to gain by standardisation. But the EU has not gone down the road towards centralisation of power, nearly as far as has the Russian Federation, the United States or the United Kingdom.

The people's campaign within the EU should, I believe, be for subsidiarity, essentially demanding more powers to local and regional governments and less to national and continent-wide institutions. Autonomy for all nations and regions within continent-wide and global democratic institutions should be the ultimate goal, but we are a very long way off achieving that.

To those who try to frighten us with the phrase "world government" as the ultimate oppressive institution which threatens, I say "what kind of world government are you talking about?" presumably not the kind I would like to see which would be democratic, answerable to a global electorate. (In fact a useful reform towards that end would be the addition of an elected people's chamber to the structure of the United Nations. Currently the UN does not represent people but governments).

I believe we already have a form of world government. It goes on behind the scenes conducted through networks of the rich and powerful, the upper echelons of the capitalist class. They take decisions about the future of the whole planet and they do so in their own interests: that of profiting from commerce, banking and warfare. The challenge is surely not to spend time resisting "world government" as such because certain global decisions (particularly those of keeping the peace) need to be taken at a global level, but rather of ensuring that the world is governed in the intersts of us, its people, by establishing instruments of world government which are answerable to us, the people, whom those b****** are oppressing.

For my part the only European body I shall be resisting is NATO.

I hope some of these anti-EU campaigners will clarify their views on this thread.

[Cruise4]

Overall... what a load of inconsequential rollocks.

The EU is a fascist dictatorship and will act accordingly. The British and European Governments, along with most governments around the world are corrupt criminal traitorous liars and murderers. The EU has lied about its agenda from Day 1. National sovereignty is non-negotiable and its the British people who will decide the future of our country, and our European brothers will fight for their countries too, in the end.

Break up the EU completely and the UN and the IMF and the World Bank and the other 1001 methods of control and servitude they are responsible for.

This is War!

Half the people or less telling the rest what to do is NOT democracy. Chinese perspective is NOT English perspective. Cultural difference over homogenity. Global decisions can be taken without centralisation. Money is a racket. The Law is a racket.

ALL government needs reigning in. No councils, No Council Tax, No surveillence, No License fees, No Income tax, No dumbing down of kids, No MI6 drug importing, No 'out of control' immigration, No oil use, No additives, No vaccinations, No invented plagues, No Financial Service industry, No lawyers, No Judges, No courts, Vastly reduced police, vastly reduced army, right to bear arms, No party politics, No lost deposits if a candidate, No media ownership by a few, No secret societies, No prison for non violence, no troop pre-emption, No secret service criminal outfits, No more establishment, no more wars, no more phony rollocks that these people have foisted upon us all.

They want a prison planet, we should and could have a paradise. The EU will begin to lock in the former. We won't rest until we have the latter.

[spiv]

I've been pursuing a case in the European Court of Human Rights for in excess of seven years on behalf of a client. Without getting into detail, several years ago his wife tragically died, but he has been denied a tax allowance (widow's bereavement allowance) because he is male, whereas had it been he who had died, his wife would have been eligible for this allowance for two years.

Now article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights states "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention
shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status". Now I claim my client's case is blatant discrimination on the grounds of gender. There are several cases of the same type travelling through the courts.

See the convention at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916 D7A/0/EnglishAnglais.pdf

However, despite the UK Government's rhetoric about "Human Rights", the "Human Rights Act" (remember the fanfare when Jack Straw introduced this?), the introduction of much legislation against discimination and so forth, the UK Government have been fighting hard opposing my client's claim. Other cases have gone as far as the House of Lords, so hard has the Government fought them.

Recently the outcome was that the European Court of Human Rights agrees that blocking this tax allowance for men was discrimination, but they refused to award any compensation to these men, yet costs of representation have been awarded (so yes, the lawyers line their pockets!!).

So once again we have the Government saying one thing, which is then trumpeted by the mainstream media as propaganda, but the actual truth is very hidden from the Public's view.

By the way, if you read through that convention, see the link above, you will also, I feel sure, wonder at just how much is being flagrantly ignored when it comes to the restrictions of our rights and freedoms under this fictional "war on terror"!!

[xmasdale]

[Rory Winter]

[Rory Winter]

[Rory Winter]

[Rory Winter]

Why are Tony Blair and Gordon Brown trying to deny us the Charter of Fundamental Rights?
Spy.blog, 23 June 2007
http://tinyurl.com/27uooz



What with all the media spin by the UK Government and the European Union and the shallow analysis and reporting by the mainstream media, we are puzzled as to what exactly has been agreed at the European Union summit in Brussels this weekend.

We are still especially worried about what exactly Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have agreed to with regard to the European Union Reform Treaty and especially, the legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights (.pdf) These sort of follow the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK's Human Rights Act 2000:

Article 7 Respect for private and family life

Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.

Article 8 Protection of personal data

1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.

2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.

3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.

However, there are significant differences i,e, there are no explicit exemptions for the Government using vague weasel words like "national security" or "the prevention or detection of crime" or "public health" or "the economic interests of the UK" etc. which so much UK legislation has embedded into it.

Nothing seems to have changed since we commented on this back in 2004: Have the pundits actually bothered to read the EU Constitution ?

See also this confusing BBC background article on Charter of Fundamental Rights

Is there really a workable United Kingdom "opt out" from these clauses ?

If so, then why should we tolerate authoritarian Labour politicians who seek to deny us these human rights, which are enjoyed and legally enforced by the rest of the European Union ?

We demand that these existing human rights are upheld now and ratified by this UK Government and all future ones.
__________

Rory's Comments:

Although this article was published last June the points being made are still highly relevant. The Blair/Brown regime has cunningly cashed in on the innate Europhobia of the British (and in particular the English) by using a wholly unfounded disaffection among Brits for the European Union to exert pressure on other member nations and the Commission in order to extract 'concessions' from the Union, not in the interests of the common people but on behalf of the vested interests of British capital and the ruling classes.

The high level of ignorance and Europhobic prejudice amongst Brits was deliberately nurtured by British politicians and their attendant media in order to use it as a weapon against progressive European social and civil rights.

At the recent meeting at Lisbon, not only did the Brits insist on their right to opt put of the new Charter but went out of their way to water-down the Charter nevertheless. Proof indeed of the mischievous intent of the Brits to act as a reactionary force within the EU working, no doubt, in the interests of Washington's neocons.

The British, along with others on the Right in countries like Poland, are now seen by other Europeans to be a trojan horse for Washington. They play an entirely destructive role as an adversary of the EU. While doing so they ensure that their own people are kept ignorant of the deceptive game they are playing.

Ultimately, it is the British people who will pay the price and that they have now begun to do with Britain's inexorable slide into becoming a full-blown police state. The time has already come when those of us in Britain who consider ourselves to be rightfully citizens of Europe to mobilize ourselves against these tinpot dictators. All is not yet lost and I believe the time has come, as European citizens, to make a direct appeal to the European Union to help us protect our fundamental civil rights against an oppressive, domestic government.

http://tinyurl.com/3dyefr

[Rory Winter]

BTW, all those who bleat about their human rights being taken away (the right to demonstrate etc) should recall exactly who it is that's taking away those rights!

Not 'Europe' but our own government!

They can't have it both ways. If they object to their human rights being taken away then they should be attacking their government, not 'Europe'!

Duh!

[xmasdale]

Interesting that not many seem interested in this topic.

[Rory Winter]

[Justin]

Ivenceremos wrote:

[karlos]

[Rory Winter]

[Rory Winter]

[karlos]

[Rory Winter]

[karlos]

The alternative I propose is for the UK to be a free country again. Setting our own laws and running our own affairs. Simple.
UK must become a sovereign nation again.

You telling us that the EU's open skys policy is good for pollution with aviation fuel enjoying zero taxation?

What protection has the EU legislation provided us?
muslims imprisoned without trial
uk fishing industry decimated
uk agriculture on its knees
uk manufacturing all gone
uk taxes highest in history
crime highest ever
drug taking
murder
UK abortions 250,000 every year
i could go on and on but no point really, while there are a few euro slaves left the government will feel justified in continuing to deny the UK public the chance to vote for freedom.

The EU is an evil empire.

[Leiff]

[xmasdale]

[Justin]

¡venceremos wrote:

[Mark Gobell]

Interesting thread.

Would be even better if we could keep our emotions in control.

I must admit that the idea of voting to stay in the EU in order to protect our Human Rights threw me somewhat.

I'm always sceptical of reasoning that suggests we wouldn't have benefited from something unless we were in it.

How is this possible to gauge ?

Did we have Human Rights before the EU gave them to us ?

Do we need them ?

Are they not enshrined in UN Charters anyway ?

If Human Rights are so essential then who is to say that campaigning for them from within nation states would not have produced results ?

[Rory Winter]

[Rory Winter]

[Rory Winter]