eurealist.co.uk

The Telegraph today reports that Islamic extremists who incite violence or praise suicide attacks in Britain could face charges of treason. The head of the anti-terrorism department at the Crown Prosecution Service will meet senior officers at Scotland Yard this week to discuss what charges could be brought against preachers whose endorsement of the suicide attacks could incite further acts of terrorism.

I can not see the government allowing treason laws to be used, Tony Blair abolished the death penalty for treason along with 1795 act of treason in 1998, one of his first acts when he was elected. We would now have to refer to the Treason Act 1351. Although certain people have inquired for the reason the 1795 act was abolished the government do not seem to be able to give an answer, the debates in parliament at the time, were about abolishing the death penalty for treason, the abolition of the 1795 act was just tacked onto the end of the bill which was passed without debate.

The reason the government will not like this sort of legal action is because it would raise all sorts of questions relating to the EU, the question could be asked if it is treason to preach against the state, is it then not reasonable to assume that it is also treasonable to undermine the power of the state by allowing our laws to be dictated from outside. Would for instance those privy councillors who have taken an oath to uphold our constitution be in the firing line for signing treaties which have the affect of removing power from our parliament, or by using the royal prerogative in an innovative manner.

Who for instance is the a biggest traitor Omar Bakri Mohammed or Peter Mandelson one of them see his religion as greater than the state, and therefore recognises a higher authority than the British crown, and the other who was a privy councillor and took an oath to protect the British crown and serve only this state, has gone off to Brussels and taken another oath to serve another master. Both are guilty (if that is the correct term) of serving a system that does not accept the British crown as being the highest authority in the land. Accepted one of them gives support to people who will make bombs and blow up people, but that is a different matter, if we are going to use treason as the basis for a prosecution and not any other law, then it must be on the basis of not accepting the British Crown, it must be on the basis of working for a higher authority against the Crown.

The definition of treason is the act of betraying; betrayal of a trust undertaken by or reposed in anyone; a breach of faith, treachery. High Treason or Treason Proper is the violation of a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or to the state, “if a man do levy war against our lord the kink in his realm” and “if a man be adherent to the kings enemies in his realm giving them aid an comfort in his realm or elsewhere.

As Omar Bakri Mohammed said he would not report to the police if he knew people were planning a (treasonable) offence if that is how terrorism is defined, then I would have thought that he would not himself be committing treason, he would however be committing the offence of misprision that is when a person knows that treason is being planned or committed and does not report it imidiatly. This has been attempted when some people issued writs against government ministers for treason. In each case the attempts were ignored by the legal systems.

Where neither the primacy of the nation nor the authority of a sovereign is recognised, against whom is treason committed, recently the liberal internationalist ideas have been so successful that treason has an old-fashioned ring to it, along with the very idea of patriotism. It would be a bit rich at this stage when the very idea of the nation state is laughed at by internationalist, to suddenly commit someone to trial with a charge of treason against the nation state.

If treason is the conscious decision to act in a way which will weaken the integrity of the nation state, then our politicians are as guilty of committing treason as are Muslim clerics. Is not the abrogation of the sovereignty of the nation state by immersement in larger political entities and through the signing of treaties which restrict the opportunity for national self-determination also treason.

Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome is irreconcilable with the Oath of Allegiance. There is an absolute constitutional case that there is no statute authority for the executive acts that have bound the UK to the EEC, this is contrary to the interests of the Crown and people.

The High Court of Great Britain disallowed an Act which was passed by our House of Commons and House of Lords and received the Royal Assent. This Act was the Shipping Act of 1988. The High Court referred the case to the European Court. This was the first case in the history of parliament that an Act passed by both houses of parliament with the Royal Assent and the regulations under it have been set aside. A British Court has interfered with an act of parliament in the interests of a foreign court. Is this not High Treason.

If we are having to go back to the Treason Act 1351to find laws that can punish a Muslim cleric, then why not go back a bit further to the Magna Charta, or indeed why not two years before to 1353 when Edward III by his statute of Praemunire forbade appeals being made to foreign courts. Or even less far into antiquity to Richard II who came to the throne in 1377 and issued a Statute of Praemunire which stated that anyone who procures from Rome or any other place any thing which touches the King, against him or his Crown or realm and all those aiding and abetting them shall be out of the King’s protection. Blackstone, states that Praemunire is “introducing a foreign power into the land and creating an Imperium in Imperio [State within a State] by paying obedience to other processes which constitutionally belong to the King alone.

All of which means that today’s politicians will not want to open the particular can of worms by allowing a prosecution under any treason act unless they are exempt.