eurealist.co.uk

From Anne Palmer Pt one
Belmarsh detainees, and other matters. December 2004.

It was sheer folly for this country to officially adopt the European Convention on Human Rights into our law. (Shock, Horror-how could I suggest such a thing?) Prime Minister Blair was advised of the many disadvantages this would hold for us, and he was advised in particular about the loss of sovereignty if he took the course of action he was set on. We have, over the years seen for ourselves this to have been truthful and wise advice.

From the moment that people are born here in The United Kingdom of Great Britain, they have the protection of the Crown and, without uttering a word, bear allegiance to the Crown. The Crown is the continuity, the safeguard that makes this Country different from other countries. To bear “allegiance” to Government places too much power in the hands of a would be dictator. This has never before shown itself to be so patently obvious than under this present Government.

The reason that “foreign nationals” are treated differently to British nationals is that the British are sworn to defend their Queen and Country, foreign nationals are not, but there is a strong likelihood that they are sworn to defend their own particular Country. The Law Lords have found that foreign nationals should, according to the Convention on Human Rights, be treated the same as British nationals. We have seen in recent years a change in the swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen (Crown) such changes are not in accordance with our Common Law Constitution.

Under the times we live in, and the constant threat from terrorists, it appears that our present Government believes there is a need to hold foreign nationals for a longer period without charge or trial, but there surely should come a time when, (and a time limit should be made clear and according to our Constitution) if there is not enough evidence these foreign nationals should either be charged or deported from this Country. This is a government that has thrived on the “fear” of terrorism, yet left open its borders allowing any would be terrorists easy access into this Country. A serious threat should have automatically brought about the closing of borders throughout the European Union. This would have been a sensible precautionary measure for the safety not only of this Country, but also for all continental Countries-it may even have prevented the Madrid bombings, instead, terrorists as well as the people have been given free access to all countries in the EU.

If the excuse is given that charging them would/may jeopardise our security services when giving evidence, (whether on the cases above-Belmarsh- and or other cases) two questions should be asked, do we come up with evidence or are foreign nationals to be incarcerated in prison for the rest of their lives? The second question should be, what or whose “security services” are we protecting? Is it the same security bodies whose competence and integrity must surely be questionable following such flawed evidence which was presented to justify going to the terrible on-going war in Iraq?

There is no doubt what so ever, the safety of the people in this Country must be at the forefront of minds, but if there is reason to put people in Prison, there is reason to charge them. If ‘security’ are in danger because of the giving of evidence, and we have seen from the proceedings in Northern Ireland where soldiers in danger of their lives have had to give evidence certain precautions had to be made, so can our security services also be provided with that same protection? If, on the other hand through the giving of such evidence, State secrets might be in danger of becoming ‘common knowledge’, then even further precautions (held in camera) must be taken, but taken it most certainly should. One person’s freedom cannot be held against another persons freedom? Both should be judged equally surely?

The simple answer is that we should withdraw from the Convention on Human Rights. Foreign Nationals should, when found to be a danger to this Country and this Country’s own nationals, yet not enough ‘evidence to convict’, should be sent back to their own Country. There are treason and other laws already in place that are adequate to deal with British nationals that would work against this Country its laws and its Constitution. This Government has made and agreed to so many new laws, then surely they can make new laws that would deal with such a situation? As certain “Treason Laws” were repealed in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, I put forward that new up to date treason laws should be brought in. We cannot do without such laws for our Queen, Country and Constitution need more protection in ‘today’s’ world than at any other time in history.