Monday, January 25, 2010

‘Chemical Ali’ goes to meet his maker

It is reported that Ali Hassan al-Majid (aka ‘Chemical Ali’) has been executed by hanging.

He was notoriously responsible for the gas attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988, in which around 5000 men, women and children were murdered. He was also implicated in the murder of thousands of Shi’a Muslims in the Sadr City district of Baghdad in 1999. His capacity for genocide and crimes against humanity puts him among the world’s most notorious tyrants. And now he has gone to meet Allah.

Cranmer is not in favour of the death penalty.

But not dogmatically so.

There are some who might deserve it.

When one has tortured, slaughtered and butchered so many innocent people, why should one not be executed?

Yet the state-sanctioned killing of people like ‘Chemical Ali’ pushes many on the Left to ideological consternation.

It has been said numerous times (whichever party is in power) that ‘the British government does not support the use of the death penalty (in Iraq or anywhere else). We advocate an end to the death penalty worldwide, regardless of the individual or the crime.’

But today you will not hear much opposition in the UK to the hanging of ‘Chemical Ali’.

Is it because he is Muslim?

Or because his name has been rendered quite literally toxic?

It is a serious question.

If we were talking about the execution of Alistair Hardcastle, the Prime Minister would doubtless issue the usual condemnation. But we are concerned here with one Ali Hassan al-Majid.

And the sanctity of his life might not be quite so inviolable.

In the UK, the Left generally berate anyone on the Right who supports capital punishment: they are, quite naturally, 'extremist'. Yet the hypocrisy of the Left is manifest when most of them hold the morally vacuous position of opposing it domestically while justifying exemptions in other countries (usually by going Trappist).

Cranmer recalls Tony Blair’s silence on the news that Saddam Hussein had been hanged. With his typically inimitable ‘Third Way’ resolution of an otherwise intractable dichotomy, he appeared to simultaneously hold mutually-exclusive positions. Margaret Beckett said on his behalf:

I welcome the fact that Saddam Hussein has been tried by an Iraqi court for at least some of the appalling crimes he committed against the Iraqi people. He has now been held to account. We have made our position very clear to the Iraqi authorities, but we respect their decision as that of a sovereign nation.

It is a curious moral philosophy which can simultaneously welcome the fact that Ali Hassan al-Majid ‘has now been held to account’ whilst insisting that the United Kingdom, along with the rest of the European Union, opposes the death penalty in all circumstances.

Or are there exceptions?


Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

You know there are exceptions to the death penalty - it is there in EU legislation - and of course the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland are federated states under the EU.

But of course as you know it does not apply to murderers and rapists; only to those who may through 'unrest' threaten the Hegelian 'Moral Absolute' of the EU federal State (and its federal satellites; for example the French State).

The Irish, for example, wanted this imperial fascist power - at least they were given a vote - we never got a chance.

Victory to the British Resistance!

25 January 2010 at 17:52  
Blogger gyg3s said...

"Cranmer is not in favour of the death penalty.

But not dogmatically so.

I'm quite dogmatic about not giving anyone the right to kill me, irrespective of the justification.

Puzzling to see that Cranmer differs.

25 January 2010 at 18:07  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

PJ O' Rourke might have said of the current leftist view on capital punishment that to arrive at that point takes a lot of therapy.

25 January 2010 at 18:11  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

‘the British government does not support the use of the death penalty'
But every public opinion survey suggests that a significant majority of the electorate does, particularly for certain types of murder.
As usual, the government knows best and totally ignores the electorate. As this now happens on an increasing number of issues, I'm not surprised at the general disillusionment with politics and politicians.

25 January 2010 at 18:14  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Good bloody riddance, I say. I'm not going to wax sentimental about the extinguishing of an evil flame.

25 January 2010 at 18:16  
Blogger D. Singh said...


The right to execute 'you' is a federal right under EU law.

For example, if you got involved in a riot.

His Grace has given you a clue at the end of his article (hyperlink).

PS: Your Grace there was an unusually high number of people who logged onto your website yesterday (5,000 (?)). That is all very well. What concerns me is that just a few months ago only 143 loggers logged on from the Vatican. Today that number has doubled. What do they want with us?

25 January 2010 at 18:35  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr D. Singh,

His Grace noted this also, and is touched by your monitoring of his being monitored.

25 January 2010 at 18:46  
Anonymous len said...

"Now he has gone to meet Allah"

No, he will ultimately stand before Yahweh,creator of the Universe and give an account of his crimes.

25 January 2010 at 19:02  
Blogger JPT said...

Let our leaders hope that no country with a bigger army than ours takes a dislike to them...

25 January 2010 at 19:09  
Anonymous len said...

On reflection I agree with his Grace.

25 January 2010 at 19:14  
Blogger OldSouth said...

OldSouth is very uncomfortable with the death penalty, because it hands enormous power to the State, which has proven itself to be incredibly untrustworthy with its stewardship of power in general.

I have met lawyers who would unblinkingly see innocent defendants die for the advancement of their legal careers. It's chilling.

And yet, when the Oklahoma City bomber went unrepentant to his reward, OS felt no sadness, and hoped the monster's victims would find some comfort and closure.

It's the same sensation here: Sometimes, but rarely, only the noose will do.

Is OS a hypocrite? Yep!

25 January 2010 at 19:20  
Anonymous Terry said...

Genesis 9:6 introduced the death penalty for murder which had not previously been in existence when Cain murdered Abel (see Genesis 4:8-15). This still applies as it was part of the rules given to mankind generally, not the rules specifically given to Israel - it thus gets round the oft-quoted argument "but that was the Old testament".

So capital punishment for murder is commanded by God.

25 January 2010 at 19:49  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

WHO sold him these chemical weapons? They are at least as guilty as this man! The chemicals were NOT made in Irak! But probably in the USA

The USA have sold Irak weapons of mass-destruction with the intention that they would be used to kill their own US-soldiers! That is why they could accuse Irak with 100% certainty that Irak had weapons of mass-destruction: The USA had sold and delivered them to Irak themselves.

This statement may be too hard to swallow for many. But sadly it is so. The USA are more and more guilty of so many crimes against humanity! They want billions to be killed by their depopulation agenda Bilderberger Henry Kissinger always favoured. The Georgian Guide Stones (do a google search to find more information about it) state the First Commandement of the World Order is to bring the population of the world down to a maximum of 500 million people. For sure there is NO place for sick, weak, disabled people there!

Just read what US- officer Captain Joyce Riley wrote TRUTH Behind the Gulf War Sydnrome

And here:Biological Black Magic

Watch also the video: GULF WAR SYNDROME - Killing Our Own


25 January 2010 at 19:56  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

By the way: Saddaam Hussain was NOT executed. It was quite a show. And Saddaam had many doubles. Saddaam was taken out while the war was still being fought with most of his people by the Anericans themselves! US-troops saw Big Black armored Mercedeses drive up to a secret airport outside of Bagdad unto the runway and into the hughe Hercules transport planes that were waiting for them. They took off to unknown destination

25 January 2010 at 20:03  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Dreadful chilling hypocrisy involved here, which reduces us in all our enemies' eyes.

We vilify the head of state of a sovereign country then invade with massive violence (killing innumerable citizens of that country) on the pretext of a breach of some of that country's citizens' 'human rights' and then execute its head of state (and anyone else we deem complicit) as part of our desire to replace tyranny with 'democracy'.

At the same time we abolish capital punishment in our own country for even the most terrible crimes, but every year kill hundreds of thousands of our own unborn children.

Surely something has gone horribly wrong with us.

25 January 2010 at 20:16  
Blogger Dick Puddlecote said...

Glorious post, Your Grace.

This is a tricky hand of victimhood poker for the left to play. As you rightly point out, they generally 'fold' when faced with cases such as this.

Socialism can be fraught with an inherent hypocrisy at times (ie, all the times).

25 January 2010 at 20:34  
Blogger Miss Snuffleupagus said...

Your Grace
I used to think of myself as an out-of-the-box lefty who believed in capital punishment. These days of course, I am realising that I am not of the Left and therefore not nearly out-of-the-box as I thought.

But I do know what it is to think like a lefty and I am not sure that it is right to accuse them of hypocrisy or racism in this instance. It is possible, I think, to stand against CP, but to believe that others (in particular other countries) should make their own decisions on the matter. It is possible to believe in the good of 'not killing' but believe it is a greater good 'not to interfere' with the laws of other countries.

If this is the case, then the lefty in question is neither a racist nor a hypocrite. This would also explain why lefties find it so hard to be critical of female circumcision, while it is clearly wrong.

I have no trouble in this regard of course - but then, it would seem I am not of the Left... (and have no issue with telling people, in whatever country, what to do - especially if they are under the age of 18...)

25 January 2010 at 22:22  
Anonymous len said...

Phillip Walling,
Something indeed has gone horribly wrong with humanity.
When God created this world and humanity He pronounced it good.
What happened?
Consider the ant, every ant has a role to play it knows by instinct exactly what to do and its role to play.
If that instinctive drive was suddenly broken chaos would ensue.
That is exactly what happened when man rejected God and the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from man,the world, man, has been in a state of chaos ever since.

25 January 2010 at 22:22  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Old South 19:20
Let me offer a very weak defense of Timothy McVeigh.
The wholly unjustified execution of eighty nine souls (mostly women and children) by an out of control Federal army was an outrage. Under US law no crimes had been committed prior to the attack by ATF agents. Subsequent enquiries revealed no signs of child abuse as had been alleged by the authorities.
The fate Chemical Ali I care about not at all. I am against the death penalty. Bet I'm a bigger hypocrite than you are!

25 January 2010 at 22:38  
Anonymous James Dunlop said...

Terry, you quote Genesis 9:6, but in the millennia that have passed since that time, the rules changed. We wretched sinners were granted the chance of salvation by the Lord's loving mercy, by Jesus Christ being made man and dying for our sins. As he is all powerful, no one is beyond his redeeming mercy.

25 January 2010 at 23:09  
Anonymous Terry said...

James, the rules haven't changed. Salvation is a different issue from the penalty to be meted out by society for murder. You are of course right in every detail about God's mercy through Jesus, but the murderer still has to be executed, though he has the chance to repent and be forgiven before he dies.

25 January 2010 at 23:43  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

James, I suppose you mean a bit like the Penitent Thief having to go through with his execution. He definitely died a happy man!

Death as a penalty? Only for atheists, who seem quite happy with the prospect of oblivion.

25 January 2010 at 23:56  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

Like Old South and most of your communicants, I am uncomfortable with the death penalty.

In the final years of the death penalty in this country, juries were reluctant to find the prisoner guilty of first degree murder, and there was also the process of review and possible reprieve, or commuting the sentence. After the 1957 Homicide Act, it didn't happen often.

But I think that the death penalty should be on the statute books, even if used rarely.

You recall the case of the two low lives who entered a post office with a gun and ended shooting dead a young man and seriously injuring his father.

It is likely that these two thugs would have thought twice about carrying a gun if the death penalty for murder had been an option.

The liberal establishment ensures that life imprisonment hardly ever means just that, and with these two, no doubt we will get the bleedwell heartsores arguing that after a certain time these people are no longer a threat to society and can be let out on parole.

In recent years we had people agitating for Myra Hindley to be let out (she is repentant (really sorry for what she did..., she has served her sentence...Blah, blah, sob, sob, weep weep..) before she conveniently died on us.

26 January 2010 at 00:13  
Blogger Ayrdale said...

"Your Grace there was an unusually high number of people who logged onto your website yesterday (5,000 (?)). That is all very well. What concerns me is that just a few months ago only 143 loggers logged on from the Vatican. Today that number has doubled. What do they want with us?"

How does Mr Singh find out this information ?

26 January 2010 at 04:26  
Blogger agostino75 said...

We Catholics find Your Grace refreshingly honest and open. Follow my train of thought.

26 January 2010 at 08:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Arydale,

On His Grace’s website, on the right-hand side, below the portraits of great Conservative prime ministers, is a cluster map. Depress it and it will reveal the clusters of people around the world who read His Grace’s thoughts – and your posts.

No wonder Mr Len and Mr Preacher regard the world as their parish!

26 January 2010 at 08:12  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

The terms "riot" and "upheaval"are all that the eussr need to kill you ,either on the street while you protest,or afterwards at the prison of thier choice,either in this country or somewhere secret in another country,and will probably translate as "shot whilst trying to escape"this has already happened on the tube with seven shots to the head,where one would be sufficient,approved by the common purpose whore cressida dick,forget the liberal hand-wringing,this could so very easily happen to any-one of us if we do not obey,and the only reason that iraq was invaded ,was that saddam would not let the IMF rape his country.

26 January 2010 at 09:23  
Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...

Your Grace

It is interesting to observe this Country's increasing estrangement from reality

eg the Gouvernement-General of Her Britannic Majesty (God bless her) breezily suggests that the UK has abolished the Death Penalty

.... BUT it has made the Beloved Country safe for Murderers who can murder in the comfortable confidence that their lives will be safe, however many children or young women they kill and however sadistic they may be

The Death Penalty is being carried out every year by hundreds of Criminals

Perhaps gyg3s (25 Jan 18:07) might have occasion to reconsider his/her views, if his/her relative/s were murdered

Yr Grace's obedient servant etc


26 January 2010 at 09:24  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

It seems that justice, from a Biblical perspective, seems to require that the response to an offence is proportionate. The penalty should be no greater than the crime. That implies that penalty should be as harsh as the crime.

Some Judaeo-Christians believe that the so-called Jesus’s ‘love ethic’ sets aside the principle that the response to an offence be proportionate. He did northing of the sort. The thief on the cross was forgiven by Jesus: ‘Today you will be with me in paradise.’ The thief then says to the other convicted criminal hanging on another cross beside Jesus: ‘we are being justly punished, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds.’

To execute a murderer (setting aside the issue of mercy) is to treat the murderer with dignity because not only does he deserve it but because his dignity is derived from him being made in the image of God. You do not dignify a murderer by saying, as the socialists do, ‘Oh! He grew up in poverty. Oh! He had a bad education.’

Mercy: can only be exercised after conviction and sentence.

To abandon the criteria of righteous and just punishment – is to abandon all criteria for punishment. St Paul supports the social reasons for punishing crime: ‘the authorities’ are to draw the sword to restrain moral disorder. That implies that the risk of moral disorder, leading to social disorder, must be suppressed.

When St Paul appeared before the Roman imperial governor, Festus he stated: ‘If… I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die.’ That suggests that St Paul conceived of cases where the proportionate response to crimes was capital punishment.

Imagine if our country’s policy-makers thought along these lines about the issue of anti-social behaviour that blights the lives of millions of our fellow citizens (long ago abandoned by New Labour). I doubt if they would conclude that Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (Crime and Disorder Act 1998) are the solution.

26 January 2010 at 09:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From David Lonsdale

Your Grace, I am with Terry on this. The first stated civil law in scripture was the law against murder and the punishment for such crime, declared by God, was execution at the hand of men. I reproduce here the passage from Genesis 9,

“And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
This law and its attendant punishment pre-dates the Mosaic law, although this law was incorporated into the law as given to Moses. Whilst the Mosaic law does not apply to gentiles, the fundamental laws of sin and death dating back to Adam remain and the rule regarding murder has never been rescinded.

On what grounds do we oppose the death penalty? Is it because it is a barbaric punishment? If so then God must be barbaric, since he instituted the punishment and
re-affirmed the punishment in the Mosaic law. What would we have said had we been in Saul’s army when God gave the instruction to utterly destroy the Amalekites; every man, woman, child and beast? Would we have told God he was being unreasonable?

The wisdom of God is not the wisdom of men. We live in a socially chaotic society because we have chosen to ignore what God tells us. We pick and mix from the scriptures because the wisdom of God does not suit us. We have a church whose power is attenuated by the unbelief of its leadership. They are wiser than God and do not need to instruct the people in the truth of the scriptures. If God says we should execute murderers, who are we to tell him he is wrong.

26 January 2010 at 10:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the BBC at it's marxist worst.Pure sheep in wolves clothing ploy.
Obvious of course.
There is hope however, as when they resort to this type of stuff, they are desperate.
Faith is growing exponentially.Faith is something they don't understand and most fear.
Ours is a religion of faith, not rules and the faithful are not blinded by cheap science.

26 January 2010 at 18:36  
Blogger gyg3s said...

@G Eagle says, "Perhaps gyg3s (25 Jan 18:07) might have occasion to reconsider his/her views, if his/her relative/s were murdered"

If such a misfortune befell me, at most, I may seek vengeance.

I would not give power, over the life and death of my peers, to the state in order to exact vicarious vengeance.

I belief that to be the path of the weak and cowardly.

@D Singh says, "The right to execute 'you' is a federal right under EU law."

Could you provide a reference to support this statement? (Presumably an article in the most recent treaty?).

26 January 2010 at 20:55  
Blogger Peter McGrath said...

Your Grace would of course have a sophisticated analysis of the death penalty. Any man who puts his hand to the fire and encourages his fellow stakee in those circumstances is allowed his complications.

26 January 2010 at 22:33  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"No, he will ultimately stand before Yahweh, creator of the Universe and give an account of his crimes."

Even more possibly he has gone to meet nobody.

26 January 2010 at 23:52  
Blogger D. Singh said...


The Lisbon Treaty Allows Death Penalty and Killing of People by the State.

An interview with Professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider
Oliver Janich, “Focus-Money”: Professor Schachtschneider, according to your lawsuit against the EU Treaty of Lisbon at the Bundesverfassungsgericht (The German Federal Constitutional Court), the treaty allows the reintroduction of the death penalty and the killing of humanes. This sounds outrageous. What is the base of your argument?

Professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider: The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in its “explanations” and “negative definitions” accompanying the fundamental rights, allows a reintroduction of the death penalty in case of war or imminent war, but also the killing of humans to suppress insurgency or riot. This is in contradiction to the abolishment of the death penalty in Germany (Article 102 of the German Constitution), in Austria and elsewhere which results from the principle of dignity.

But does not the Charter prohibit capital punishment?

The relevant text for this is not article 2, clause 2 of the Charter which prohibits condemning people to death or executing them, but the explanation of this article which was incorporated into the treaty, originating from the European Convention Human Rights of 1950.

According to article 6, clause 3 of the EU Treaty in the Lisbon Version, the rights, freedoms and principles of the charter are interpreted according to the general provisions of chapter VII of the Charter which defines the interpretation and application of this Charter and under due consideration of the “explanations” listed in the Charter giving the sources of these provisions.

Why so long-winded?

Well, just to conceal this fact. The parliamentarians only get the text of the treaty which is difficult enough to understand and much too long.

But is it now unambiguous that the killing of people is allowed if the Treaty takes effect?

Yes, the Charter of Fundamental Rights was declared in Nice in 2000. But since it was not ratified by all countries, it was not binding under international law. If the Treaty takes effect, the Charter will become binding as well.

But this clause is only part of the explanations…

They are binding under article 52 clause 3 and 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. You can read the corresponding explanation of the comment in the Official Journal of the European Union. There is no room for divergent interpretations. And: why should it be written there if it is not meant to be there?

27 January 2010 at 08:45  
Blogger D. Singh said...

But has not the German Constitutional Court rejected your interpretation by acknowledging the Lisbon Treaty?

Not at all. It has not commented on this question.

Is that the usual procedure?

It is actually the normal case. If the Constitutional Court does not want to tackle an issue, it simply does not comment on it.

Is this legally possible?

Legally this is more than questionable, but it is being done.

According to the explanation, death penalty can be introduced in case of war or danger of war. This is a very theoretical case.

Really? Are not we at war in Afghanistan? Who is defining war? What is danger of war? What about the Yugoslavia war?

But is not it normal that deserters are executed in war or in times of war?

Yes, in dictatorships.

It is even more frightening that in case of insurgency or riot, killings are possible without law and without any approval by a judge. Who is defining this?

Exactly. I think that Monday demonstrations in Leipzig [which led to the overthrow of the communist Regime in East Germany in 1989] can be defined as riot, like virtually any non-authorized demonstration. Or take the turmoil in Greece or the demonstrations recently in Cologne and Hamburg. All you need is a few punks [“Autonome”] throwing stones.

There are politicians and jurists who argue that the fundamental rights of a country can only be improved by the EU treaty, but not reduced.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not contain any precedence or reservation of national fundamental rights or a principle of favorability with respect to these rights. Those who claim this prove their ignorance of the Union legislation.

How is this possible?

They argue with article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. But this article contains no such provision. It says: “Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized, in their respective fields of application, by Union law and international law and by international agreements to which the Union, the Community or all the Member States are party, including the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and by the Member States’

27 January 2010 at 08:46  
Blogger D. Singh said...

constitutions.” The crucial part is the clause “in their respective fields of application”. It means that the EU fundamental rights are decisive if the Union’s law is applicable and the national fundamental rights are decisive if national law is applicable. There is no case when both fundamental rights texts are decisive.

But could not the European Court of Justice declare that national law has precedence in this case?

This is something that the ECJ has never done. It always holds itself authorized. Besides, the prohibition of death penalty is no fundamental right. Hence, the argument that the fundamental rights can never be reduced does not apply here.

Another argument from the vicinity of the EU commission is that the article is there to allow the admission of states like Turkey.

But this is ridiculous. As a community, we have to say that we do not admit countries where people are killed, not vice versa.
Do the politicians know what they decide on?

Maybe not all of them. But definitely the CDU/CSU faction. I have distributed a five page summary of my lawsuit, so that the parliamentarians do not have to read too much. But the topic should also be known within the SPD because one of its parliamentarians, Professor Meyer, has tried to stop the ruling in Nice.
Can you imagine one reason why anything like this is passed?

Obviously, the governments expect riots. Skepticism towards the governments and the EU apparatus is growing and growing. The financial and economic crisis increases the pressure on the population.

So they want to be allowed to shoot them?

This is what it looks like.

What can we do against it?

I think that the EU Treaty permits resistance, because it undermines democracy.

What kind of resistance do you mean?

For example demonstrations and all forms of public dissent, the way of Gandhi.

…which then can be interpreted as a riot. This sounds like a dictatorship.

The word dictatorship is technically not correct. Since the Roman Republic, dictatorship is defined as a fixed-term emergency constitution. I would rather speak of despotism which can degenerate into tyranny. By the way: if in October the Irish approve of the Treaty of Lisbon, the abolishment of the death penalty is eliminated. •
Source: Focus-Money 35/2009, 19 August 2009

Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

27 January 2010 at 08:46  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Scope and interpretation of rights and principles
3. In so far as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention. This provision shall not prevent Union law providing more extensive protection.
7. The explanations drawn up as a way of providing guidance in the interpretation of this Charter shall be given due regard by the courts of the Union and of the Member States.
Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Right to life
1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.
Source: Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 14 December 2007, Official Journal C 303/1
Explanation on Article 2 – Right to life
1. Paragraph 1 of this Article is based on the first sentence of Article 2(1) of the ECHR, which reads as follows:
‘1. Everyone‘s right to life shall be protected by law (…)’.

2. The second sentence of the provision, which referred to the death penalty, was superseded by the entry into force of Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR, which reads as follows:
‘The death penalty shall be abolished. No-one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.’
Article 2(2) of the Charter is based on that provision.

3. The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter. Therefore, the ‘negative’ definitions appearing in the ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter:
(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:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’

(b) Article 2 of 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 penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions (…)’.
Source: Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, (2007/C 303/02)
The European Union has decided to reintroduce the death penalty for insurgents. Does this seem unbelievable to you? Have you heard nothing of it in the press? Then you better sit down first and take a deep breath.

27 January 2010 at 08:47  
Blogger D. Singh said...

All of the members states of the European Union have abolished the death penalty. The worst punishment that the head of an insurgent has to face at this time is a jail sentence. However, the Lisbon Treaty now allows the death penalty as punishment for insurgents. Against the background of the financial crisis the European Union is expecting major revolts in many of the member countries – and is therefore pushing for the Lisbon Treaty to come into force as soon as possible.

As a result of the Irish vote against the Lisbon Treaty in June of 2008 its enforcement was initially blocked. The Treaty seeks to extensively broaden the powers held by the 27 EU commissioners, to establish the office of a powerful EU president – which would practically transform the national laws of member states into historical relicts – and in some cases allow for capital punishment. In this context, once the EU reform treaty comes into force, the death penalty would be explicitly allowed, whenever necessary, for the purpose of “[lawfully] quelling a riot or insurrection.” The death penalty can also be sentenced in the EU in the future for deeds “committed in time of war or on immediate danger of war.” All this was published in small print in the the European Union’s official newsletter’s commentary on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which would come into force with the Lisbon Treaty. It seems that no one has taken notice of this particular passage, since Article 2 of the new Fundamental Rights Charter also states:

“No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.” That seemed explicit – only the small print includes these exceptions.

The small print to the Treaty of Lisbon reads as follows:

“(2) 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:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent excape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
The above was quoted in the official European Union’s newsletter of 14 December 2007. In effect, the abolishment of the death penalty is immediately relativised and annuled by the small print in the commentary.

In the case that the capital punishment becomes necessary according to paragraph c) to “quell a riot or insurrection” then the death sentence willl be possible in the EU in the future – despite its official prohibition. Did you know that? In April 2008 the German Bundestag voted with a 2/3 majority comprising of Christian Democrats, Social Democratis, the Liberal and Green parties, for relinquishing German sovereignty in favour of the EU and the Lisbon Treaty and its provisions for reintroducing the death sentence for insurgents. During the debate, Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) praised the EU reform treaty as a “great project”.

Once the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, the EU government will become transformed into a powerful central government – like the former Soviet Union. Individual republics will then become meaningless and be forced to serve the well-being of the EU empire instead of its own interests. The Irish, who in contrast to

27 January 2010 at 08:47  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Germany were able to vote in a referendum on the EU reform and on Ireland’s sovereignty, rejected the Treaty in June 2008, particularly also because of its implications of reintroducing the death penalty. In the autumn of 2009 Ireland will have to vote on the Treaty a second time.

In order for everything to function smoothly, on 18 March the 27 EU commissioners in Brussels secretely agreed to carry out a coup. This entailed breaking Irish law on several points. Before the vote and despite the current Irish law prohibiting political advertising, the EU carried out a political advertising campaign through the state media to influence the people’s vote toward favouring the Lisbon Treaty. This was financed by the EU citizen’s taxes. In order to ensure that the Irish vote go ‘right’ this time, the 27 EU states decided on 18 March in Brussels to buy votes: Bishops preaching in favour of relinquishing Irish sovereingty to the Treaty of Lisbon in their churches should receive money from EU sources. At the fore of all of this stood the EU parliament which even proclaimed that it wanted to see the Irish ‘No’ corrected as soon as possible, and that to this end Irish Bishops should even be put under immediate pressure. Many EU commissioners apparently considered this move too drastic – and agreed to secretely buy votes instead.

Source: Udo Ulfkotte, Vorsicht Bürgerkrieg! p. 361–363, ISBN 978-3-938516-94-2
(Translation Current Concerns)

27 January 2010 at 08:47  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older