|Posted by George Freund on May 14, 2011 at 9:35 AM|
Outside View: The citizen's manifesto.
Publication: UPI Perspectives
Publication Date: 07-APR-05
2005 United Press International
Byline: GEORGE FREUND
TORONTO, April 7 (UPI) -- Some of the most eloquent words ever written in jurisprudence were penned recently by one of the most august courts in the world. Unfortunately, these words were not written to heap praise on a government; they were written to chastise it for breaking a sacred oath to defend freedom and democracy.
It is generally understood that there are three levels of government commonly referred to as the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. Their purpose is to serve the less commonly understood fourth level of government -- the citizenry. Unwieldy, it is frequently disregarded as the source of the other three. It is, however, the raison d'etre of civilization.
The Lord's court in England has determined that the executive has broken faith with the citizenry and violated its fiduciary duty to safeguard its most fundamental responsibility -- preserving the rights and freedoms of its people.
Should a legislature exceed its mandate to provide representation and proceed upon a path of domination, the contract with the citizenry must be regarded as null and void. The citizenry is obligated at that point to direct and control its destiny. Its first duty is to absolve itself from the executive and legislative branches should they not correct themselves.
This is a long and arduous process that encourages great risk, but as The Lords clearly express, Parliament has embarked on a path akin to Stalinist Russia -- the antithesis of the right to liberty.
It seems unlikely the executive and to some extant the legislative branches are ignorant of this movement to tyranny. It can only be assumed to be the policy of the present occupants of these high offices. No better understanding of this process was ever stated except as follows: "We enter Parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. ... If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and salaries for this bear's work, that is its affair. ... We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies. As the wolf bursts among the flock, so we come." -- Joseph Goebbels, German propaganda minister, 1928.
Such be the case, it is the duty of the true members of this parliament to repeal or at the very least let the sun set on our anti-terrorism laws. To identify the wolves, their opinions on these oppressive laws should make them readily apparent.
In the 14th century these same issues existed in what are commonly called the Crusades. There was a Muslim conspiracy to use lepers to poison the waters in France. The lepers were rounded up and savagely put to death. Place anthrax and al-Qaida in the modern version, and it becomes clearly evident that mankind has learned absolutely nothing in seven centuries. Do remember the anthrax was traced from a lot at Fort Detrick, Md., and the CIA manufactured al-Qaida -- a rather poor application of the Hegelian dialectic.
The substance of the British case centered on the sending of boots, sleeping bags and communications equipment to Chechnya. Heinous crimes I must admit, but hardly the grounds for indefinite incarceration. People in war zones should get accustomed to treading barefoot and sleeping in the cold. If you need to coordinate trips around combatants for food, water and medicine, too bad.
In my own country, 84-year-old women have had their cash seized. None of us can ever be safe when the Geritol set are carrying large sums of cash. I remember my grandfather telling me the primary reason the boys volunteered for D-Day was to stop those evil seniors from exercising democratic rights and freedoms.
If thieves use as their license when judges steal, the oppressed will use as their license when judges repeal and the citizens will use as their license when forced to kneel.
Lord Hoffman: "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from the terrorism but from laws such as these."
Lord Bingham: "The attorney general is fully entitled to insist on the proper limits of judicial authority, but he is wrong to stigmatize judicial decision making as in some way undemocratic."
Lord Scott: "Indefinite imprisonment ... on grounds not disclosed, is the stuff of nightmares associated with France before and during the revolution, with Soviet Russia during the Stalinist era and now associated as a result of Section 23 of the 2001 Terror Act with the United Kingdom."
Lady Hale: "It is not for the executive to decide who is locked up for any length of time, let alone indefinitely. Only the courts can do that. ... Executive detention is the antithesis of the right to liberty."
(The writer, who works in the security field in Toronto, has a regular Thursday night feature on Internet radio http://thatradio.podhoster.com/index.php?sid=1746)
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
Categories: New World Order