The Lord giveth… & the EU Charter of Rights taketh away

[ashgarth]

I Dont know if this has been posted before apology if it has I found it interesting.
The Lord giveth… and the EU Charter of Rights taketh away *
Wise Up Journal
By Greg O’Brien
25.04.2008


“The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights sets out in a single text, for the first time in the European Union’s history, the whole range of civil, political, economic and social rights of European citizens and all persons resident in the EU.

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=285

They are based, in particular, on the fundamental rights and freedoms recognised by the European Convention on Human Rights ECHR).”

- The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

It all sounds wonderful doesn’t it, that is until you actually look at the details and see that just like the Patriot Act in America it does the exact opposite of what it’s supposed to do. To find out its true intent you have to essentially read it back-to-front. Just like the Lisbon Treaty all the wonderful stuff is put in at the beginning and all the real intent is saved for the end or masked in protocols, legal explanations etc. Most people won’t read it all (or even just read a summary text), and people who have only read the good parts trust the rest will be similar, they then go ahead voting without understanding the full implications. If you set a utopian tone at the beginning psychologically we assume that is how the entire text will read and we tend to block out conflicting messages later on, otherwise know as cognitive dissonance.

When you read it “back to front” you get some disturbing results. Here are a few examples from the ECHR to give you the real intent from the official EU Charter of Fundamental Rights website:

[bolded text is added by the author.]

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=9

“Article 2. Right to Life

a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

in defence of any person from lawful violence;
in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’ “
The EU says that if the state’s law enforcement officers can deprive you of your right of life, in other words murder you, while attempting to arrest you or during a riot, and legally your execution “shall not be regarded’ as breaking the law/article of the right to life. How many times do we have to be reminded that not reading slick lawyer “small print” can be perilous?

“b) Article 2 of the Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…”

That’s right the EU endorses the Death Penalty!!! You may have never heard that before when listening to the politicians or media glorifying the EU but there it is in black and white on their official website. Individuals can be given the death penalty for “acts committed” (who decides what these acts) in a time of war or of even the threat of war (war on terrorism).

Now here is the nice intro that politician’s can promote:

“1. Everyone has the right to life.

2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.”

Article 52 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights also states the level/scope of them and that a “limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms” can be made “provided for by law” (those “small prints”). It also goes a step further by saying “limitations may be made” if it is in the EU’s ‘interest’ (define interest?).

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=62

“Article 52

1. Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.”

Next we look at liberty, you would think the EU would be all for personal freedom, after all it promotes itself as caring for the citizens and being an example for the rest of the world, but again we find more lies. Here is the “small print” for restrictions to be placed upon you:

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=13

“Art 6. Right to liberty and security

(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;

(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;”

And here is the easy to read selling point for public consumption:

“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:”

Next comes free speech, of course the EU must be a guardian of free speech, after all we’re told that we in the west have levels of free speech unheard of in the rest of the world. That free speech is the cornerstone of a free and democratic society, but again if we look at the text we get a completely different picture:

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=18

“Art 11. Freedom of expression and information

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Again the nice show piece intro:

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.”

The EU has documented in it’s protocols, legal explanations etc that it endorses the death penalty, not punishing law enforcers that kill a person during arrest, killing people for rioting, detaining alcoholics, detaining minors for educational supervision, and restricting speech for protection of disclosure of information, morals, maintaining the authority, reputation…

They say that in the former USSR people had a highly developed mistrust of the government and knew that most of the news they read in the papers or seen on the TV was a complete distortion of the truth. The public learned how to interpret the truth by reading between the lines and reversing what was being said. We in the EU have been asleep and naively trusting of politicians and the media for so long that we haven’t developed these skills of discernment. We have taken too much for granted but we cannot afford to do this any longer. We are sleepwalking into a nightmare and unless we start waking up very quickly it will be too late. A NO vote in Ireland to the Lisbon Treaty can actually stop the charter from becoming legally binding and save half a billion people from living under it.

[Rory Winter]

If you read it back-to-front you'd be reading Arabic. That's nonsense. You read what you read as it is written in black-and-white. You are not required to seek conspiracies in everything. You read it and agree or disagree. No need to use mirrors.

The Charter of Human Rights was seen as a threat to British capitalism by Blair, Brown and Nu Labor. That is why they went to great lengths to blackmail the EU by threatening to veto the entire Charter if it didn't get its opt-outs. The subterfuge worked & it got its opt outs. Those opt outs militate against the individual in favour of the State and British industrialists.

The Charter, even as it stands, is better than anything we have in the UK where there is no Constitution, there is no Bill of Rights and where, under the feudal anachronism that is our government, we are subjects and not citizens. Ashgarth's comments are meant deliberately to cause anxiety whereas the points to which he refers are in the character of what all governments include as a proviso.

I absolutely agree that people should not take their freedoms for granted. Nor that they should take this Treaty for granted. I also agree that a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty as it stands would be a good thing. But there is a qualitative difference between those who oppose the Lisbon Treaty and those who wish to withdraw completely from the EU. The former are in a small minority and it is totally dishonest of them to try to add to their numbers those who oppose the Treaty.

You can oppose the Treaty as I do and be happy to remain in the EU. Opposing the Treaty does not mean that one opposes the EU. But read the anti-EU people's stuff & you'd think there was no difference! It's that dishonesty and disinformation that gives them a dodgy reputation.

Ashgarth, please give a link to the article you publish. Otherwise its credibility remains in doubt.

[blackcat]

[Pikey]

[ashgarth]

Thanks Blackcat
Ashgarth's comments are meant deliberately to cause anxiety whereas the points to which he refers are in the character of what all governments include as a proviso.

As Blackcat can see and rory cant they are not my comments.

[Leiff]

Keep it up WAC Ireland - its working!

Irish PM appeals for support for EU treaty after poll setback
27 April 2008, 22:08 CET

(DUBLIN) - Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern warned Sunday that it would be a disaster for Ireland to reject the European Union's key Lisbon Reform Treaty in a referendum on June 12.

He commented after a newspaper poll showed the government's campaign for a "Yes" vote had suffered a significant setback.

A Sunday Business Port/Red C poll show a substantial shift in public opinion against the treaty with the number planning to vote "Yes" dropping to 35 percent, down eight percentage points on a similar poll two months ago.

Some 31 percent of Irish citizens said they would vote "No", an increase of seven points. The number of undecideds had increased by one point to 34 percent.

The swing against the treaty is particularly marked among farmers and Ahern warned a "No" vote "would have repercussions that would severely damage us".

"The biggest beneficiaries (of the EU) are the agricultural community," he told RTE state radio. "They should be the ones leading this campaign for it (the treaty)."

"I just hope that the agricultural community quickly turn around their attitude and get behind the Lisbon agenda," he said.

Ireland is the only one of the 27 EU nations planning to hold a referendum on the treaty, and a "No" vote could scupper it altogether.

In 2001, Ireland shocked the EU when it rejected the bloc's previous Nice Treaty on institutional reform and enlargement. That decision was reversed in another referendum.

A planned EU constitution was scuppered by voters in France and the Netherlands in referendums.

Ahern retires on May 8 and with seven weeks until the June 12 vote, his successor, Finance Minister Brian Cowen, will have to campaign hard if the government is to regain the initiative.

When European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso visited Dublin this month to back the treaty, over 10,000 farmers gridlocked Dublin's streets in one of the biggest shows of force in a decade.

They were demonstrating against the EU stance in talks over a world trade deal, claiming it would damage Irish agriculture.

The poll was conducted on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of last week, among more than 1,000 voters across the country.

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1209321122.89

[Rory Winter]

[blackcat]

We have no choice but to vote Tory Rory as there is no realistic alternative. Only not voting at all is the choice and more and more people are choosing to do just that. It only takes about 25% of the electorate to get a massive majority in parliament as things have become so corrupt in our so called democracy. It is very telling that neither of the two main parties want reform of the voting system. They do not care which of them is elected.

The EU was fine in its original form but is now a means to an end for the same undemocratic criminals who are seemingly taking over the world. I cannot agree with your belief that we should be working within the EU to reform it. It is unreformable and its real agenda is becoming more and more apparent. Your only chance is independence for Scotland then working from within that entity to get reform of your own society, beginning with banking reform and your government controlling its own money supply. You are right about England being buggered, but the EU isn't going to rescue it. Will you be accepting refugees from south of the border?

[Rory Winter]

[blackcat]

You misuderestimate me Rory.
I mean that the choice is between Tory Cameron or Tory Brown.
I keep waiting to hear of the death of Thatcher to break open a bottle of bubbly I have been saving for the occasion. Rejoice rejoice!

[Rory Winter]

[blackcat]

[Rory Winter]

[Rory Winter]

Can nobody here answer my comments & questions above?

[TonyGosling]

Rory, cheerleader for the fascist EU is so disruptive,

Should I block his postings on this section?

What do previous posters on this topic think?

Please post on this thread or PM me here

[Rory Winter]

God what a dictator you are! It's YOU who are the FASCIST Mr Gosling and I really do wonder just WHO you are working for?

The powers you were abusing were taken away by Ian Neal. I am horrified to discover that apparently you, the man who was given a 3-month probationary trial as Administrator, is still being given the freedom to run havoc on this Forum!

[Leiff]

Please don't block Rory's postings - there would be an uproar from all those who are pro-EU but just can't be bothered to post at all!

[Rory Winter]

Many thanks for your input, Leiff. Yes, everyone knows I am a pro-EU federalist but equally, if they trouble to read all the stuff I have taken the effort to put up, they would know that I am dedicated to the process, do not support the Lisbon Treaty, have created a specific thread where the Europe Controversy can be debated from all points of view as well as having started a blog headed the Campaign for Democracy in Europe.

None of this interests Tony Gosling who just throws his weight around like a dictator. I even wrote to him privately, offering to bury the hatchet suggesting that we agreed to disagree and that he should recognize my right to put my case.

What did he do? He just ignored my offer!

So what can you do with a person like this? And what really is this man's agenda, after all?

[Leiff]

Perhaps, if you stopped bitching so much, you would get more sympathy from him - and me!

[Rory Winter]

Leiff, what you call bitching I would maintain is putting forward an alternative view. There are other pro-EU people who for whatever reason can't be bothered to post. So I have felt obliged to carry the can for all of them. And I am not looking for sympathy from anyone, just the right of reply.

Tony Gosling appears not to be interested either in discussion or burying the hatchet. So I think it should be quite clear what his attitude is. And to terrorise people with threats such as he makes will not put him in a good light. I suppose he thinks, "It's only that old fogey, Rory, nobody will notice if I kick him around the block."

Well, maybe they will & maybe they won't. But while Mr Gosling is one of the chief contenders to take over this Forum, having moved there from someone who was offered the post of Administrator on a three-month approval, it would not look very good for readers to see him continue to throw his weight around.

This forum seems obsessed with discussing everything but 911. I first joined the Forum a little after 77 in the hope of discussing false flag incidents & how to deal with them! I think it may be time for all of us to consider going back to basics.

If this Forum were to continue in its present form perhaps it should do so under a different name having nothing whatsoever to do with 911.

[TonyGosling]

[TonyGosling]

You did and you are.

[paul wright]

[TonyGosling]

[xmasdale]

[karlos]

I dont think Rory should be banned.
He is after all one of the most active posters here and is a peace and 911 truth campaigner like the rest of us.
I disagree with him over the EU but lets debate it and argue our case.
Banning is censorship by a different name.

Why on earth Rachel is not banned who is the world's number one truth critic and malicious poster?

[ianrcrane]

Karlos wrote:

[ashgarth]

What happened to my article first rory called reading the small print from the back nonsense then because he could not see the link he called it rubish.Then he steered the thread away into voting and thatcher and lib dems If the Idea of this site is discussion of topic what has thatcher to do with the hiding of the truth about the EU.This issue is importent to our future lets get the truth out.Not hide behind abusive comments.

[Leiff]

[Dogsmilk]

I agree he shouldn't be suspended.
If the EU is a valid topic for discussion he should be able to say what he likes.
I think he fights his corner well and is a lot less abrasive than a lot of us.