Sunday, March 20, 2011

The British Bill of Rights will be the European Convention on Human Rights

It already is, of course: the 1689 Bill of Rights has effectively been impliedly repealed, having been usurped by the ECHR, which is singularly concerned with the ‘Rights of Man’, most especially ‘equality’. A man cannot serve two masters: man cannot be defined by two conflicting notions of rights.

His Grace was going to write on this matter at length today, but Bill Cash has done so eloquently over at ConservativeHome. Now that the Commission on reform has been announced – that is, the body which decide whether or not there is to be a distinctive British Bill of Rights which goes some way to wresting powers back from the judiciary to restore the sovereignty of the people and Parliament – it is apparent that there can be nothing but stalemate, and so maintenance of the status quo.

The Conservative Party pledged in its 2010 Manifesto:
“To protect our freedoms from state encroachment and encourage greater social responsibility, we will replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights.”
But, as Mark Harper reminded us in Parliament on Friday, the Conservative Party did not win the election. There is no hope of withdrawing from the European Convention or of repealing the Human Rights Act as long as we are governed by a coalition. Nor, indeed, as long as Dominic Grieve is Attorney General and Ken Clarke is Justice Secretary.

Which raises the question of why millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is now being spent on a Commission which has evidently been constituted to give the appearance of progress while simultaneously pre-ordained to deliver nothing but the status quo.


Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

Bit of a typo there Your Grace, 'a man cannot serve two masters'.

20 March 2011 at 10:36  
Blogger WitteringsfromWitney said...

Your Grace, page 11 of the Coalition agreement states:

"We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties."

Why the surprise contained in your last paragraph? They are after all only doing that which the said they would. Like all politicians they are once again spending our money on what is no more than a PR exercise in order that the status quo can prevail.

20 March 2011 at 10:41  
Anonymous graham wood said...

"the 1689 Bill of Rights has effectively been impliedly repealed, having been usurped by the ECHR"

Is this correct? I suggest not. As I understand it, Constitutional law, as in the 1689 Bill of Rights which incorporates and entrenches all other constitutional enactments, is a permanent Constitutional law and to be upheld in all British courts today. (confirmed by Speaker of the House of Commons 21st July 1993)
Cranmer, does not constitutional law take primacy over all Statute law?
Constitutional law therefore cannot be impliedly repealed by later Statute law, except and only by direct and express intention of Parliament. This is why succesive monarchs swear the Coronation Oath - entrenched in the same Act.
We have a Constitution !

20 March 2011 at 10:49  
Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

It appears that MEP's have also voted to allow themselves tax-payers money to promote EU propaganda: Taxpayers’ money will be used to fund pro-Brussels propaganda in any referendum on Britain’s future membership of the EU

20 March 2011 at 10:50  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Something needs to be done because when the judiciary operating secret courts can use the force of law and circumvent a person's right to defend himself in the public domain, then, to paraphrase shakespeare, something is seriously rotten in the state of our constitutional government.

20 March 2011 at 13:56  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

If something is implied, silence can be construed as acceptance but the Nation has hardly been silent on the matter.

A usurpers deaf ear is not representative.

20 March 2011 at 15:08  
Anonymous malvoisin said...

Both the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed by either Parliament or the monarchy. Both of these documents specifically reject any attempt to amend or abolish them.
I would suggest if you want to know more, please go to the Magna Carta Society website, it is a treasure trove of information and also shows the depths of treason being committed in this country

20 March 2011 at 17:03  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms Malvoisin,

His Grace agrees. But you need to familiarise yourself with the concept of 'implied repeal', which is what His Grace specified.

20 March 2011 at 17:07  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Your communicants ought to ask if their continued votes have been deemed as giving the nod YG.

20 March 2011 at 18:13  
Blogger anglotaff100 said...

serving 2 masters is when we take a favourable wrong and call it a right, then promote it more than the actual right,making the right seem wrong and the wrong seem right to those wwho have not studdied true rightcheousness.

20 March 2011 at 18:19  
Anonymous mr malvoisin said...

I must apologise, my post was not directed at you, your grace, it was a general observation for those people who mistakenly think that both he Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights have both been repealed.

20 March 2011 at 20:28  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I am not quite sure what the game is here , for the PM has been very upset about prisoner votes and yet the deputy is enabling the ECR construct to evolve.
Mr Cash makes a useful and perhaps pivotal point , for if you do allow judges , you allow the unelected to determine the law and circumvent wether in important matters it is what the people would want .It also smacks of beaurocracy trumping the powers of elected governments , which can only lead to trouble , particulary if said judges have a narrow view of life or god forbid may be politicaly biased , hence much better to allow the shape of law to be debated or in mafestos (with referal to judges) and the question be put to the people , if nothing else to ensure the law is communicated to the people and is living rather bound in its own langauge.

21 March 2011 at 01:01  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older