Archive | European Court of Justice RSS feed for this section

The Future of UK Labour: Why Jeremy Corbyn Must Go

14 Feb

labourFar from being a hypocrite, I have always stated that Corbyn is an interim party leader.

Despite protestations from anti Corbynista or Corbynite naysayers, I have never believed that he has either the gravitas or image to be a world leader.

He appeals to my values, but I consider him to be simply too bland and aloof and never quite on the ball or in the loop. If not also too harsh, Corbyn reminds me of the person who arrives at the party when it’s just finished and everyone is leaving.

I am certain, however, that he is thoroughly principled and humanitarian, in his values and politics, and that is what attracts me to him. But in the politics of today, being principled will never be enough to win hearts and minds, without presence and some charisma.

It is with sadness that his convictions and principles just aren’t enough to sate today’s often ill-informed, MSM-influenced, and style-over-substance electorate. I also do not believe he is capable of winning over new voters. He is viewed as too left-wing, which is why he is bête noire to many on the right.

Rather like an obese father, too lazy to fetch his own slippers, Corbyn must go; first, because he did very little or nothing to support the remain campaign in the Brexit vote. In fact, he was hardly anywhere to be seen.

It’s true that politics are also fickle; but also, that Corbyn genuinely seems to shy away from the public eye, and he most certainly does not like journalists, TV cameras and MSM.

But can we blame him when more than 70% of the coverage they print and report about him is all negative?

No, of course not!

In Corbyn’s favour on Brexit, there are some suggestions his own party supporters conspired against him to ensure he couldn’t campaign. If so, we can also blame the lack of positive media coverage by Murdoch’s imposed blackout on him and the factory of negative briefings churned out against him by the Number 10 press office, as they did with his predecessor, Ed Miliband.

Just as they did with Ed in 2015, Labour supporters turned their back on Corbyn and the remain campaign, largely due to orchestrated fears, played out by leave campaigners around ‘foreigners invading our country and taking our jobs’ and ‘an unelected EU taking our money, and making our laws.’

Corbyn failed to do a single thing to enlighten, inform, or change the minds of those even from within his own party wanting to leave the European Union.

Neither was he, or those close to him, it appears, aware of just how big the swell to vote leave would turn out to be.

Rightly, Corbyn recognised the benefits of EU membership (to protect trade, investment, the environment, farming, our freedoms and rights), but he failed to convey this to supporters, and seemed completely unconcerned about the potential outcomes of not doing so.

Importantly, it goes to show just how out of touch he is; with the values, and expectations, of young people, traditional Labour voters, & his own grass roots supporters. It was as if he was either purposely asleep at the wheel, or derelict in his duty. That, or his chauffeur drove him in the wrong direction.

It is also clear to me that his deliberate, almost conceited unwillingness to engage in public debate, has helped in his undoing. He also now appears to be proving himself to be an autocratic leader, who is dismissive of the valid criticisms of his failure to lead, rightly laid at his feet.

At the start of his leadership of the party, he had already removed several of his detractors from their shadow leadership roles, informing the press that he isn’t going anywhere. This is arrogant and dictatorial of him. Perhaps also a red rag to bull. You don’t remove someone just because you don’t get on with him or her, or they don’t like you, especially if they are good and effective at what they do.

Corbyn should have been more diplomatic, statesman-like, and proactively sought to galvanise and inspire his party and supporters. In sum, well below the expectations of an effective opposition leader and he has shown neither foresight nor strategy. All of these have served to harm Labour’s future and counter the destructive efforts to diminish rights and privatise everything, as is the current course of the incumbent party.

As Brexit unfolds and becomes more clear, right-wing supporters in the Tory party will slowly repeal the laws that were agreed by all EU member states and designed and enacted, primarily to protect citizens from exploitation and and greater inequality. Without a doubt, things will become worse for the majority, but minorities in particular. We can see the beginnings of this already being evident in the resurgence of the Far Right and increases racism.

Corbyn’s inaction has effectively given the likes of Gove, Hunt, May et al, carte blanche, to repeal the HRA, DPA, FoIA, worker’s rights, privatise the National Health Service & more.

Perhaps more worrying, is that Theresa May is worse. Well, of course she is, especially as it is her clear intention to carry on where Margaret Thatcher left off. But what she lacks in ability and confidence as a sheepish head of state, is masked by her image and taste for designer clothing. More importantly, her longer term aims to diminish what few rights we have remaining. 

As little thanks, we can take small comfort in the fact that the UK Independence Party that began much of this is now disintegrating from within. 

 

 

Author: Jason Schumann

 

 

 

UK Snoopers’ Charter: Big Brother and Human Rights Ruling

29 Sep

Theresa May.jpeg

[Source: Google Images]

 

In November 2016, Britain’s Parliament passed legislation to expand state surveillance of private individuals.

Dubbed the “snoopers’ charter” by civil liberties and Human Rights organisations, the law was intended to require telecommunications companies to keep records of all customers’ emails and web activity for a year, and gives public authorities and officials wide-ranging access to such information.

In effect, this law – had it been left unchallenged and successful, in its enactment – would have also allowed any public official or authority to access any individual’s personal data, whether in the privacy of his/ her home, such as internet browsing history; or mobile phone data; and even medical records and financial transactions.

The law would also allow for computer hacking and of mobile phones.

(The Met police have already admitted to indiscriminately collecting private data, by covert means, under the Regulatory Powers Bill (RIPA)).

 

Her Majesty’s government has stated that the law will help its authorities in the fight against terrorism and crime.

By this statement, one can assume that the law would target members of Britain’s Muslim communities in particular, as with the Government’s PREVENT strategy, which has previously targeted children as young as five.

However, on Wednesday, the 12 December 2016, the European Court of Justice ruled that governments must not (be permitted to) indiscriminately collect and retain people’s emails and electronic communications.

Presumably, this is because instruments like this, are intended to drive through all citizens’ Universal Human Rights laws, including the right to privacy and data protection rights.

The UK government is said to be disappointed — of course, it would be!

Via the Home Office, it has also stated that the Government intends to appeal the ruling.

Some years ago, the UK Government announced plans to repeal and water down the Human Rights Act, and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.

This is entirely a Tory plan, led by Charlie Elphicke, that does not have the full support of any of the other major political parties in the UK.

In Elphicke’s version of a British (nee Tory) Bill of Rights, the law would allow the Government to avoid its Human Rights obligations; to respect the rights and freedoms of man and woman, effectively placing it (the Government) above the law.

It would also allow the Government to tell the judiciary how to apply this proposed law. Alan Richards explains it in some considerable well researched detail here:

https://thinkinglegally.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/conservative-bill-of-rights-the-state-v-the-people/

 

In what is, or should be considered, equally as suspicious and contemptible, the Government also proposes to free itself from its Human Rights commitments against foreign nationals and war crimes, including acts of genocide.

In response to the UK Government’s proposed derogation of the from the European Convention on Human Rights regarding military operations, the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has called for evidence and submissions.

This proposal, is designed to negate, and deny culpability, of the Government and military personnel, in Human Rights abuses; including, acts of rendition, funding of terror (White Helmets), regime change of foreign heads of state (Libya, Iraq etc), and other covert operations.

—–

The JCHR’s call for submissions (of no more than 3,000 words) are invited from interested groups and individuals, focusing on the following issues:

  • What evidence supports the Government’s view that “our legal system has been abused to level false charges against our troops on an industrial scale”?
  • What evidence supports the Government’s view that the extra-territorial applicability of the ECHR undermines the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces?
  • Are the substantive requirements of Article 15 ECHR likely to be satisfied in the circumstances in which the Government intends to derogate?
  • Are there alternatives to derogation which would achieve the Government’s objective of protecting the armed forces against unfounded legal claims?
  • Are there any wider implications of the UK derogating from the extra-territorial application of the Convention in military operations, such as effects on other countries or on the European system for the collective enforcement of human rights?
  • Should the derogating measures be contained in primary legislation?
  • Is it appropriate for the Ministry of Defence to have lead responsibility for a policy the purpose of which is to protect the MoD from legal claims?

 

Interested parties can submit views through the Government’s proposed derogation from the ECHR inquiry page.

—–

Source: Link above.

 

Ultimately, the Government’s intentions here, which are both to repeal and lessen the impact of the HRA (including judgments of the European Courts of Justice and Human Rights); and excuse its humanitarian duties and abuses whilst involved in military operations abroad, are to make itself less accountable to and diminish the rights and freedoms of British citizens, as well as those who are or become victims of the Ministry of Defence’s interests and actions in other countries.

If you allow this to happen, kiss goodbye to whatever delusional thread of liberty you thought you ever had in the first place.

 

By Jason Lee, of the family: Schumann.

 

%d bloggers like this: