The genie is out of the bottle

Monday 13 May 2013

I rarely read the Boris Johnson effluvia, not least because I don't think a fully-paid up politician should have a column in a newspaper – or take money from newspapers. The media is supposed to be scrutinising politicians, not employing them.

Even more bizarre is the practice of his employer taking his column, for which it has paid the man, and then treating it as news as a statement from "the London Mayor" (illustrated above). This is wrong. He was writing in his capacity as an employee of a business called the Telegraph Media Group Ltd.

It also says very little for the news values of this business that it chooses to headline the claim by its employee that "this country's workers are plagued by 'sloth' and under-perform compared with their foreign rivals" – something which is dead easy to write when you are getting £250,000 a year for writing a crappy column for the Telegraph Media Group Ltd, on top of your Mayor's salary of £143,911 plus expenses (£11,445.93 last year).

However, far more interesting – insofar as anything Johnson says is interesting – is the bit tucked in at the end of the news piece where we learn that The Great Man thinks that the EU will only take us seriously on renegotiation, "if they think we will invoke Article 50, and pull out, if we fail to get what we want".

Never mind that this dismal creature cannot actually think straight. If he was not too grand to read the Booker column, he could have learned that the only way to get what we want is to invoke Article 50. Like Samuel Johnson, who observed of a woman preaching that it was like a dog walking on his hind legs. "It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all". So it is with Boris and Article 50.

However, it is hugely entertaining to find that the groupescules are squeaking with rage at my references to Article 50, and have been particularly active this weekend in condemnation of Booker and myself, as well as polluting the Booker comments.

However, they are too late. The genie is out of the bottle, and we even have the loss-making Guardian pick up the overpaid Boris and his reference to Article 50, while even John Redwood has discovered it and Farage has joined in the fun in the Daily Star.

Farage is accusing Mr Cameron of trying to obscure the truth of what would be involved if Britain was to leave the EU. He says that, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, a country wishing to withdraw had to action Article 50 of the treaty, which then provided for a two-year "period of grace" while negotiations took place.

"He isn't haggling, he is wriggling," Farage says. "The Prime Minister is obscuring the truth. One can only imagine it is to fool his own backbenchers because it doesn't fool our friends on the Continent".

This has even made ITV News, which has former Conservative Cabinet minister Lord Forsyth adding to Cameron's disquiet, by saying that the prime minister is "wrong" to think he can renegotiate Britain's EU membership.

"David Cameron is thinking he can persuade the golf club to play tennis, and his negotiating position is impossible because he is saying, 'If I don't succeed, I will continue to play golf'", Forsyth says.

With the agencies also picking up the Farage quote, Article 50 is now spreading far and wide, even to be found in the Ellesmere Port Pioneer and (here's real fame for you), the Solihull News.

Despite all this, Mr Cameron, embarking on a three-day trip to the US, is complaining about people discussing a "hypothetical" referendum. There isn't going to be one tomorrow, he says, so, "What matters is making sure that we do everything we can to reform the EU, make it more flexible, more open, more competitive".

The poor man also wants to "improve Britain's relations with the EU, change those relations so that when we have the referendum before the end of 2017 we give the British public a real choice, a proper choice".

But the real choice, the proper choice, is Article 50, and it isn't going to go away. Much as the groupescules hate it, it is now part of the political discourse.

Richard North 13/05/2013

Vote Lab/Lib/Con you condone treason.

Firstly:      The Magna Carta is for all time.
Secondly:  We cannot be governed by a foreign power.
Thirdly:     This country belongs to the people, no Govt can give it away without our consent.
Fourthly:   Heath's treason rendered his Govt and all successive Govt's Unlawful Assemblies...that includes this Coalition because none of them rectified his treacherous behaviour. He openly lied to the British people.

We have never been in the EU because no laws can come from a treasonous act.

What part don't Politicians get, if the people can work it out, why can't they, that's why you will never get a proper debate on this con and nor will a Politician answer your emails on it?

Vote Lab/Lib/Con you condone treason.

 

FCO 30/1048: Heath knew it was treason

 

Lord Henley, Citizenship & Treason

Lest we forget

 

inquisitor2012
Yesterday 10:56 AM

Nigel Farage attacks Ken Clarke for calling Ukip voters racists - Telegraph

inquisitor2012
Yesterday 10:56 AM

Lest we forget:
""We'll negotiate withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs"
Tony Blair, British Labour Prime Minister since 1997. Personal election manifestos for Beaconsfield and Sedgefield in 1982 and 1983.
The labour party, has not been serving the WORKER since Kinnock et al tasted the £gravy train
"The fusion of economic functions would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State" Jean Monnet, founder of the European Movement. April 1952
"[My] real goal [is to draw on] the consequences of the single currency and create a political Europe." Romano Prodi, EU Commission President. Interview in the Financial Times, April 1999.
Two more revealing quotations:
"As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum." — Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Taoiseach, 123http://www.brugesgroup.com/...
"In this area, we need much more - let's call it coordination and cooperation to soothe British feelings - than before. [The real destination] will have to be described in different language."Gerhard Schröder, German Chancellor from 1998 who does NOT dye his hair. Interview, 2002, acknowledging misgivings among the British electorate about the euro's political underpinnings.http://www.liebreich.com/LDC/HTML/Eur...
From the outset, the EU was about SCREWING the electorate:
"No government dependent upon a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifice that any adequate plan [to build the EU] must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously into their abandonment of their traditional economic defences..."Lord (Peter) Thorneycroft, Privy Councillor, Conservative Party Chairman 1975-1981. Chairman of 'Design For Europe' Committee, 1947, quoted by Bill Jamieson in Britain Beyond Europe.
A vote for the LibLabCon
Is a vote for european dictatorship... a vote for the rule of the elite... a vote for the supranational sovereignty of a global intellectual and financial elite... for global warming £scams, for foreign aid, for debt and mass immigration
A vote for the LibLabCons is a vote for the destruction of europe... for the pattern is clear
Mass immigration coupled with off shoring of jobs, debt with foreign aid.... the destructive pattern is unmistakable.
Save GB, stop voting for HER enemies.
50 + years of this... don't you think we deserve better???

Lord Henley, Citizenship & Treason

Lord Henley, Citizenship & Treason

By Lincs Patriot on Aug 14, 2012 | In Constitution & Laws, Treason

Lord Henley
The House of Lords
ThePalace of Westminster
London
SW1A 0PW
27th June 2012
Ref Citizenship
My Lord
Just what sort of a blithering idiot are you? Let me start with the basics
(a) To be a citizen you must live in a republic.
(b) If you live in a Kingdom you are a subject of the King or Queen.
(c) The United Kingdom is just that a Kingdom.
(d) I was born in England a subject of the Kings neither you nor anyone else on this planet can change that.
(e) To attempt to remove the status of being one of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II subjects is for you to commit High Treason against the English Constitutional and Common Law.
(f) The repeal of the death penalty for treason by Blair makes it more likely for treason to occur. It places the Crown and Constitution at grave risk, the Common Law has no matter what those in the Palace of Westminster say struck down the repeal of the death penalty for treason, as you may one day discover to your cost.
(g) John Major committed an act of High Treason when he attempted the Constitutional impossibility of making Her Majesty a citizen of Europe.
(h) By your ruling if Queen Elizabeth declared she is not a European citizen WHICH SHE IS NOT you would be required to make your Queen a stateless person, do that and her subjects will open the Tower just for you rest assured your blood would redden the block.
(i) What part of “No foreign prince, person, pre-late, state, or potentate? Hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm do you not understand?
(j) Parliament is required to administer this Kingdom within the guidelines set by the English Constitutional and Common Law Higher Law. To attempt to rule outside these guidelines is High Treason.
(k) Parliament is the housewife of the Kingdom, you collect our taxes and pay the bills buy new hospitals roads and the other essentials to make this Kingdom function, but like my wife you sure as hell do not have authority to sell the Kingdom or give it away, whilst I am at work. Our membership of the EU is void and of no effect because under English Constitutional and Common Law anything else is High Treason.
(l) All law imposed upon this Kingdom from Europe, the drawing out of this Kingdom of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II subjects to be tried in a foreign court, are an affront to Her Majesty’s Honour and Dignity as Queen of England and are acts of High Treason, more properly known as a Praemunire.
(m) If you can find a government lawyer, who knows or understands the English Constitutional and Common Law, which I doubt. He will tell you, you are all in the Palace of Westminster gallows bait, apart from those select few we will send to the block. After a fair trial of course.
Respectfully submitted.
Albert Burgess
Cc Queen Elizabeth II

Illegal to change any of our Common Law

It is proposed by Government to change nine parts of our long standing Common Law and English Constitution. This is a reminder to all politicians who as temporary occupants of Parliament, wish to alter any part of our long standing Common Law Constitution allegedly for the Succession to the Crown Bill whose purpose is, in reality, purely to comply with the EU Equality Act. The Treason Acts protect ALL parts of our Common Law Constitution and they CANNOT BE REPEALED. AT ALL. EVER. They are for ALL TIME.Our Common Law is for all time and is beyond the reach of Parliament. Though it is believed that some parts were allegedly repealed under previous Governments, they continue to remain in full force. It is High Treason to try in any way whatsoever, to subvert, alter or destroy our hundreds of years old Common Law Constitution. They are there to protect our ancient laws and they are why Britain went to WAR twice to protect them. All of the people in this country - including ALL those we pay to serve in our present Parliament - are there to protect our Constitution at all times.

Just remember we know this.

IMMIGRATION TO BRITAIN IS ILLEGAL - AND HIGH TREASON

OPEN LETTER TO THE HOME SECRETARY

Dear Home Secretary

IMMIGRATION TO BRITAIN IS ILLEGAL - AND HIGH TREASON

You have admitted Government’s impotence under EU law, in preventing new waves of immigration to Britain from Bulgaria and Romania. As Home Secretary, it is your job to ensure Britain is not overrun by foreign nationals, the deportation of illegal immigrants and that those who remain play their part in our country’s survival under so many European edicts. Unfortunately you fail catastrophically on all counts.

Untold numbers continue to flood in, illegal immigrants disappear into the woodwork and most of the others are reported to come here only for Britain’s free handouts and benefits for their burgeoning families. But you have overlooked one thing. Britain is not and never has been part of the European Union.

When he signed the European Communities Act in 1972, Edward Heath knowingly and wilfully deceived and betrayed the British people into the hands of a foreign power. His High Treason failed to become binding because treason cannot do that. His government immediately became an unlawful assembly because a treasonous government is not lawful. And as each successive government has failed to reverse his treachery as they were free to do, they too have each been treasonous, thus unlawful assemblies.

No law or other binding obligation can result from treason or an unlawful assembly. British law stands as it was before the 1972 Act.

Britain is therefore not a part of the EU as all Treaties are null and void. Not only have you failed in your official responsibilities, but in refusing to act in the interest of your country to which you swore an oath of allegiance before taking your Parliamentary seat, you are in failing to control immigration to our country, very clearly a major part of the problem. That too, is High Treason.

Yours sincerely,

Rex Poulton

r.poulton1@tiscali.co.uk

FCO 30/1048: Heath knew it was treason

FCO 30/1048: Heath knew it was treason

This classified government document dated April 1971 remained secret until it was released under the 30 year rule. It proves Heath's government knew the 1972 EEC Treaty would lead to the loss of sovereignty, and was therefore treason. They had a stunningly accurate picture of the EU, which never was the EEC (an Economic Community), expecting Britain to be abolished after the turn of the century.

The authors, all civil servants or ministers, are very pro EU, their intent is clearly to conceal the loss of sovereignty. But they understood perfectly it would all be abolished.

In public Heath's government all lied the treaty would not affect our sovereignty. This includes Douglas Hurd, still an active senior Conservative, who is also both a liar and a traitor, a point we put to him at the Conservative Conference in Blackpool. He assured us his connections in the legal profession would ensure he was never convicted.

Here are just a few of the damning sentences:

Parliament controlled

11. Membership of the Communities will involve us in extensive limitations upon our freedom of action.

For the first time. Parliament is binding its successors.

Increasing loss of sovereignty

The loss of external sovereignty will however increase as the Community develops, according to the intention of the preamble to the Treaty of Rome "to establish the foundations of an even closer union among the European peoples ".

Small threats to sovereignty, like Burgess, Blunt and Maclean's selling secrets to the Russians, attract 30 year jail sentences. The penalty for actually loosing even small parts of it until 1998 was "to hang by the neck until dead."

King Charles 1st was executed for treason that was, by comparison, relatively minor.

Lord Haw Haw (�Germany Calling� - William Joyce) was hanged for treason on 3^rd January 1946. His efforts on behalf of Germany were tiny by comparison with Edward Heath�s.

Our law subservient

12. (ii) The power of the European Court to consider the extent to which a UK statute is compatible with Community Law will indirectly involve an innovation for us, as the European Court's decisions will be binding on our courts which might then have to rule on the validity or applicability of the United Kingdom statute.

The writ of a foreign power is not allowed under the British Constitution, which Heath was breaking.

Predicting monetary and military union

18..but it will be in the British interest after accession to encourage the development of the Community toward an effectively harmonised economic, fiscal and monetary system and a fairly closely coordinated and consistent foreign and defence policy. If it came to do so then essential aspects of sovereignty both internal and external would indeed increasingly be transferred to the Community itself.

No withdrawal, sovereignty diminished

22. Even with the most dramatic development of the Community the major member states can hardly lose the "last resort" ability to withdraw in much less than three decades. The Community's development could produce before then a period in which the political practicability of withdrawal was doubtful. If the point should ever be reached at which inability to renounce the Treaty (and with it the degeneration of the national institutions which could opt for such a policy) was clear, then sovereignty, external, parliamentary and practical would indeed be diminished.

Disinformation

After entry there would be a major responsibility on HMG and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures or unfavourable economic developments to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community.

Transfer of the Executive

24 (ii) The transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government.

Erosion of sovereignty

24 (v) ...The more the Community is developed ... the more Parliamentary sovereignty will be eroded. ...The right ... to withdraw will remain for a very considerable time. ...The sovereignty of the State will surely remain unchallenged for this century at least.

The EU Bureaucracy will rule

25. The impact of entry upon sovereignty is closely related to the blurring of distinctions between domestic political and foreign affairs, to the greater political responsibility of the bureaucracy of the Community and the lack of effective democratic control.

The writers understanding of the future of the EU was bang on. They wanted the bureaucracy to take over from the democracy. The loss of sovereignty was desirable for them, legally traitors working deep inside our government.

With thanks to David Barnby. Who got the original documents. David Noakes. 07974 437 097

Insidious Common Purpose

This comment just in from a reader.......I would say it is totally correct!

=============================================================================================

I have never been a supporter of Common Purposes. I have seen evidence of the darker side of this organisation which trains people to go beyond their designated authority, irrespective of the law, which in general would restrict such activities as being Ultra Vires.

Common Purpose is an insidious organisation and its status as British charity is under server question and criticism. Common Purpose claims that it runs leadership development programmes across the UK. It was founded in 1989 by its current Chief Executive, Julia Middleton,with an aim is to improve the way organisations and society work together by developing all kinds of leaders through a programme of diverse challenges and approaches!

However I have been unable to find any highly qualified personnel possessing a publicly acknowledged degree of skill that would be required to fulfill the role of "trainers of leaders"

Besides there is no evidence that Common Purposes has had a positive impact on society since its founding in 1989. In fact it would be fair to state that the opposite is the case.......administrative matters certainly appear to be getting worse rather then better!

Common Purpose is a danger to the public and people need to start paying more attention to what is going on at a local level, especially in RCTBC, the police, civil service, NHS etc etc.

Such is the concern over the influence of Common Purpose that a number of UK national newspapers ran stories implying that Common Purpose had exerted improper influence over the Leveson Inquiry. The Daily Mail claimed that "like some giant octopus, Common Purpose's tentacles appear to reach into every cranny of the inner sanctums of Westminster, Whitehall and academia.

The Sun reported quoted Conservative MP Philip Davies as saying "the way Common Purpose has managed to get itself into the Establishment is quite extraordinary.

On 25 November, The Daily Telegraph characterized Common Purpose as a secretive Fabian organisation.

Whatever the press and other concerned parties may conclude, you can be sure of one thing, and that is that Common Purpose does not stand for the best public interests, rather for those of a selective, clandestine, tightly knit band of pseudo-intellectual flibbertigibbets, that would wish to see the citizens of this nation as nothing more than sheep!

Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers?

Prof. Richard Parncutt: Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers?

Posted: December 24, 2012 by tallbloke in Analysis, climate, flames, Incompetence, Legal, Uncertainty

166

Hat tip to Richard Tol for alerting me to this nice example of eco-fascist thinking from Richard Parncutt, a Professor at the University of Graz, Austria. Parncutt, an expert on the psychology of music, originally from Australia, has an interesting take on combining the precautionary principle with David Hume’s John Stewart Mill’s philosophy of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ (in this case the as yet unborn), and Adolf Hitler’s ‘final solution’ and its potential application to ‘the denier problem’. Richard Tol wryly refers to Parncutt’s DeSmogBlog denier list link as ‘Death Row’. I’m one of those on it.

UPDATE: I’m behind the curve, having been away for a week, Jo Nova already has a big discussion going on this story, as does WUWT.

UPDATE 2: Prof. Parncutt has taken down and re-written his death-penalty for sceptics manifesto. See the new version here.

Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers?

An objective argument…a conservative conclusionRichard Parncutt : last updated 25 October 2012

The smiling face of fascism.
Professor Richard Parncutt
parncutt(at)uni-graz.at

In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.

For years, hard-nosed scientists have been predicting global warming (GW) and its devastating consequences. For a reputable summary of arguments for and against GW, see skepticalscience.com
Some accounts are clearly exaggerated (more). But given the inherent uncertainty surrounding climatic predictions, even exaggerated accounts must be considered possible, albeit with a low probability. Consider this: If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.
When the earth’s temperature rises on average by more than two degrees, interactions between different consequences of global warming (reduction in the area of arable land, unexpected crop failures, extinction of diverse plant and animal species) combined with increasing populations mean that hundreds of millions of people may die from starvation or disease in future famines. Moreover, an unknown number may die from wars over diminishing resources (more). Even if that does not happen, thousands of plants and animals will become extinct. Islands, shorelines and coastal communities will disappear.
So far, the political response to the threat of GW has been lots of talk and little action (more). But action is urgently needed. We are in a very real sense talking about something similar to the end of the world. What will it take to get people to sit up and listen?

Much more would have happened by now if not for the GW deniers. An amazing number of people still believe that GW is a story made up by scientists with ulterior motives. For a long list of climate change deniers and their stories see desmogblog. The opinions of everyday GW deniers are evidently being driven by influential GW deniers who have a lot to lose if GW is taken seriously, such as executives in transnational oil corporations.
Of course it is possible that scientists are just making it up for their own benefit. The trouble with that argument is that scientists who publish fake data or deliberately set out to mislead people about GW have a lot to lose and nothing to win. When scientists fake data and are caught, that usually means the end of their career. It’s not the kind of risk that a scientist would like to take. It is possible someone is paying the scientists behind the scences to publish environmental doomsday stories, but again the argument is problematic: there is simply no money in environmental doomsday stories (just like there is no money in writing internet pages like this one). And here is why: It has been clear for a long time that the cost of reducing GW to a manageable amount (whatever that is) will be enormous, and the costs incurred by not doing that or doing it too late will be many times greater. The main problem is that no-one wants to pay this money. As a rule, those who make money out of ignoring GW would rather leave this problem for our children and grandchildren to deal with. (How kind of them!) In this situation, a corrupt scientist can certainly earn a lot of money by publishing research that plays down the importance of GW, so that those who profit from ignoring it can continue their environmentally unfriendly activities – and presumably many scientists have already done so. But there is no money in publishing the uncomfortable truth about GW, except for the ordinary rewards that ordinary scientists get for publishing good research reports.
The problem gets even more uncomfortable when you consider the broader context. Even without GW (or ignoring the small amount that has happened so far), a billion people are living in poverty right now. Every five seconds a child is dying of hunger (more).The United Nations and diverse NGOs are trying to solve this problem, and making some progress. But political forces in the other direction are stronger. The strongest of these political forces is GW denial.
The death penalty
In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.
I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon.
Even mass murderers should not be executed, in my opinion. Consider the politically motivated murder of 77 people in Norway in 2011. Of course the murderer does not deserve to live, and there is not the slightest doubt that he is guilty. But if the Norwegian government killed him, that would just increase the number of dead to 78. It would not bring the dead back to life. In fact, it would not achieve anything positive at all. I respect the families and friends of the victims if they feel differently about that. I am simply presenting what seems to me to be a logical argument.
GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.
My estimate of “hundreds of millions” is based on diverse scientific publications about GW. There are three important things to notice about those publications, in general. First, their authors are qualified to do the research. In general they worked hard and more than full-time for at least ten years before being in a position to participate credibly in research of that kind. They are not just writing stuff off their heads. Second, they do not generally stand to gain or lose anything if their research concludes that GW will be more or less serious than currently thought. They have a different motivation: they want their research to be published in a good academic journal so that people will read it and it will improve their career chances. As a rule that depends only on the quality of the research. Third, the authors of different studies are generally working independently of each other in different countries, universities and disciplines. If so many unbiased people independently come to a similar conclusion, the probability that that conclusion is wrong is negligible.
For decades, the tobacco lobby denied that cigarette smoking was linked to cancer, at the same time as countless research projects were presenting evidence to the contrary. How many deaths did tobacco denialism cause? Globally, lung cancer due to smoking claims one million lives per year. A significant proportion of these deaths is due to tobacco denialists who slowed attempts to slow down the rate of smoking. Those individuals may individually be responsible for tens or even hundreds of thousands of deaths.
I don’t think that mass murderers of the usual kind, such Breivik, should face the death penalty. Nor do I think tobacco denialists are guilty enough to warrant the death penalty, in spite of the enormous number of deaths that resulted more or less directly from tobacco denialism. GW is different. With high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths. For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers. More generally, I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths
Consider the following scenario. A suicidal genius develops the means to destroy most of the world’s population. A heroic woman turns up (could also be a man, if you prefer) and kills the villain just in time. Just like one of those superheroes comics. Even Amnesty International joins in congratulating the heroine. What else can they do? They are glad to be alive themselves.
From this example, it is clear that there is a dividing line somewhere between murders for which the death penalty is appropriate and murders for which it is inappropriate. I am proposing to make that dividing line concrete at about one million people. I wish to claim that it is generally ok to kill someone in order to save one million people. Similarly, the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for GW deniers who are so influential that one million future deaths can with high probability be traced to their personal actions. Please note also that I am only talking about prevention of future deaths – not punishment or revenge after the event.
That raises the interesting question of whether and how the Pope and his closest advisers should be punished for their consistent stand against contraception in the form of condoms. It has been clear for decades that condoms are the best way to slow the spread of AIDS, which has so far claimed 30 million innocent lives. The number of people dying of AIDS would have been much smaller if the Catholic Church had changed its position on contraception in the 1980s, or any time since then. Because it did not, millions have died unnecessarily. There is a clear causal relationship between the Vatican’s continuing active discouragement of the use of condoms and the spead of AIDS, especially in Africa. We are talking about millions of deaths, so according to the principle I have proposed, the Pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death. I am talking about the current Pope, because his continuing refusal to make a significant change to the church’s position on contraception (more) will certainly result in millions of further unnecessary deaths from AIDS in the future. Since many of these deaths could be prevented relatively easily simply by changing the position of the Catholic church, which incidentally is one of the most influential political powers in Africa and elsewhere, we are talking about something remarkably similar to premeditated mass murder. Not the same, because the church does not want the affected people to die. But the numbers of people involved are so enormous that at some level it doesn’t matter any more whether the murder is premeditated or not. The position of the church is presumably also racist: if those dying from AIDS were not predominately black, the church would presumably have changed its position on contraception long ago. Just imagine 30 million white people dying from AIDS in Europe or North America, and you will see what I mean.
What about holocaust deniers? The Nazi holocaust was the worst crime in human history, for two reasons: the enormous number of murdered people and the automation of the murder process. Those who deny the holocaust certainly belong behind bars. The death penalty would be too much for them, because holocaust deniers are not directly causing the deaths of other people. The holocaust is in the past, not the future. Those who died in the holocaust cannot be brought back to life.
Counterarguments
In self defence, both the Catholic church and the GW deniers would point out straight away that they don’t intend to kill anyone. The Catholic church is merely of the opinion that contraception is generally a bad thing. The GW deniers are simply of the opinion that the GW scientists are wrong. Both groups are enjoying their freedom of speech and perhaps they sincerely believe what they are claiming. They can certainly cite lots of evidence (you can find evidence for just about anything if you look hard enough).
Another counterargument is that we can never be sure that the predicted GW will happen, or that its effects will be as severe as predicted. But this is not a strong argument. The courts are used to dealing with uncertainty. Even at the conclusion of a murder trial, there is generally some remaining uncertainty about the guilt of the accused, even if the court pretends that there is not. Courts must rely on eye-witness reports, but memories can be distorted and witnesses can have ulterior motives. That is why there are so many reports of executions of innocent people. In the case of GW, the case is clearer. Even if the prediction of hundreds of millions of deaths turns out to be exaggerated, the more moderate prediction of tens of millions will not.
For the purpose of argument, let’s give the GW deniers the benefit of the doubt and imagine that the scientists are wrong with a high probability, say 90%. If they are right, some 100 million people will die as a direct result of GW. Probably more like a billion, but this is a conservative estimate. If the probability of that happening is only 10%, then effectively “only” 10 million people will die. These are the numbers that GW deniers are playing with while exercising their “freedom of speech”. The number that the Catholics are playing with are an order of magnitude smaller, but still horrendously large. Since these figures exceed the arbitrary limit of one million that I am proposing, it follows that the death penalty might be an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers and possibly also the Pope. It also follows for example that George W. Bush and Tony Blair should not face the death penalty for the Iraq war, since it “only” claimed about 100 000 lives since 2003 (more).
Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I am simply presenting a logical argument. I am neither a politician nor a lawyer. I am just thinking aloud about an important problem.
Lawyers will see this situation differently, of course. According to current law you cannot exact a criminal sentence of murder on someone for deaths that have not yet happened, and might not happen if – despite GW deniers – governments and people act to stop GW. Even conspiracy to murder depends on intent to murder, which clearly does not exist in this case. Then there is the question of in which judicial system someone could be tried and prosecuted. Given that the alleged victims of the criminal act are not confined to the country in which the GW denier lives, but are all over the world, then only an international court (perhaps the International Criminal Court) would do. I guess that right now there is no existing law, either national or international, under which such a prosecution could be pursued. Given the overriding importance of GW (just about everything else that we hold dear depends on it), I am proposing with this text a legal change that will make the criminal trial of GW deniers possible.
In such a trial, ignorance of scientific research would be no excuse. There is clear evidence that unprotected sex is causing the deaths of ten millions, and that GW deniers are causing the deaths of hundreds of millions. This evidence is freely available and constantly in the media. If the legal change that I am envisaging comes about, a future court of law will not accept the claim that the culprits simply did not know about this research.
Consequences
If my argument is correct, it has clear political consequences. Here is a scenario for what might happen if my argument is broadly accepted, both democratically and politically.

• The universal declaration of human rights and every national constitution would be amended to include the rights of future generations. Incidentally, that would also make national debts illegal, because they oblige future generations to pay them. Getting rid of national debts would in turn solve an important aspect of the “global financial crisis” (more), which currently belongs to the list of common excuses for not investing money in the prevention of GW.
• The proposed legal change would be announced and widely publicized for an extended period before it came into force. During that time, GW deniers would have a chance to change their ways and escape punishment.
• The police would start to identify the most influential GW deniers who had not responded to the changed legal situation. These individuals would then be charged and brought to justice.

If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death. The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) – using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives.
Outlook
Right now, in the year 2012, these ideas will seem quite crazy to most people. People will be saying that Parncutt has finally lost it. But there is already enough evidence on the table to allow me to make the following prediction: If someone found this document in the year 2050 and published it, it would find general support and admiration. People would say I was courageous to write the truth, for a change. Who knows, perhaps the Pope would even turn me into a saint. Presumably there will still be a Pope, and maybe by then he will even have realised that condoms are not such a bad thing! And by the way 2050 is rather soon. Most people reading this text will still be alive then.
I don’t want to be a saint. I would just like my grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the human race in general, to enjoy the world that I have enjoyed, as much as I have enjoyed it. And to achieve that goal I think it is justified for a few heads to roll. Does that make me crazy? I don’t think so. I am certainly far less crazy than those people today who are in favor of the death penalty for everyday cases of murder, in my opinion. And like them I have freedom of speech, which is a very valuable thing.
This page is inspired by the project Establishing Crimes Against Future Generations by the World Future Council. Please support the work of the World Future Council!
The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the author. I thank John Sloboda for suggestions, and further suggestions are welcome._____________________________________________________________________________
Richard Parncutt, Centre for Systematic Musicology, Faculty of Humanities, University of Graz

 

 

 

 

 

Edward Heath committed High Treason

Edward Heath committed High Treason, the most heinous crime in British law against each and every one of us when he knowingly and wilfully deceived and betrayed the British people into the hands of a foreign power by his signing of the European Communities Act in 1972. His treasonous signature did not become binding as treason cannot do that and the parliament of the day also immediately became an unlawful assembly.

No parliament can bind a successor. Thus each following parliament was free to reverse his treachery. None did however. Instead, each one wilfully continued the pretence of his treasonous act. They still do. Only more forcefully now than ever before. They even give away all our money to the EU on the whim of this pretence.

No law or other binding obligation can result from a treasonous act or from an unlawful assembly. Thus no legislation enacted since 1972 actually became legally effective. It has remained bad law. Bad law is not law. Therefore British law stands as it was immediately before the 1972 Act was signed. Our Constitutional and Common Law as at 1972, prevail. No EU Treaty has therefore come into effect and each is null and void. We are not part of the EU.

The present parliament is also an unlawful assembly. So anything Her Majesty has signed since 1972 has no effect. She is still sovereign, Britain is still ours. No post-1972 statute is lawful (i.e. speeding, parking and other on the spot criminalisation's). The EU has no jurisdiction here in Britain whatsoever because the people have not consented or allowed it.

A MATTER OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

You learn something new every day.

From: LOMAS

Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:50 AM

Subject: A MATTER OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

Dear Editor,

A MATTER OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

One finds it hard to believe that a leading national newspaper such as the Daily Mail should publish an article on an essential subject of national importance written by a professional journalist, in this instance Michael Thornton, who clearly has no understanding of our Constitution and the role of the monarchy; unless of course the object of the article was to deliberately deceive.

In the article Michael Thornton ponders on whether or not Prince Charles should be Crowned King following the demise of the Queen or whether he should step aside making way for William. According to our system of constitutional monarchy that decision lies not in the hands of the monarchy or Parliament but in the hands of the people who decide who they want in a national election known as the coronation.

It is now so long since we had a coronation that few people know what it is all about and how it proceeds. In the event there is a great deal of protocol and pageantry of course, baggage that has accumulated down through the centuries, but apart from that, in principle, the procedure is basically quite simple. On the day of the coronation people drawn by invitation from every facet of society whose obligation it is to represent the people, assemble at the appointed place, traditionally Westminster Abbey. Traditionally the person to be crowned is the first in line of royal ascent, as the Crown passes to the first in line of royal ascent on the death or abdication of the previous monarch.

The coronation ceremony is the confirmation of that inheritance but there can be no confirmation until the people through their representatives assembled have verbally expressed their consent. The Archbishop of Canterbury brings forward the sovereign who at that time wears only a plain robe without regalia and asks all present if they accept the person before them to be their lawful monarch. It is then for those assembled to cry yea or nay. It is this vital aspect of the coronation that makes it an election, for if the people had no choice or say in the matter the question would be irrelevant. The people have the lawful right to reject the first in line and choose a sibling providing the person of their choice is in the line of royal ascent. It is recorded that Henry VIII always spoke of his coronation as being his election. Once the sovereign has been publicly accepted by the people the monarch then takes the coronation oath and swears not to rule or reign over the people but to 'govern' the nation according to the people's laws and customs.

Because since the days of George III aspiring politicians have sought to play down the lawful role of the people's monarch and have hidden the true meaning of the coronation and its importance, the people by and large have no understanding of what our constitutional monarchy and this nation is all about. This nation is not about Parliament and the people, it is about the people and their elected monarch, Parliament being no more than a temporary administration and legislature with no powers of its own what so ever, and governments are no more than delegated authorities subordinate to the people by sworn obligation to the people's elected sovereign as being the official Governor of the nation, a political office much the same as the President of the United States of America.

Under the prevailing political circumstances it would seem however that none of this is any longer relevant as in 1972 the Conservative Party then in government signed an article of national capitulation with the then European Economic Community which surrendered the sovereignty of the nation and the constitutional supremacy of the people's Crown to an unelected and unaccountable foreign political power. As clearly there can be no sovereign head of state in a country that is no longer sovereign and no governor of a nation that is no longer self governing the British monarchy was at that time effectively terminated.

This was confirmed in the case of the Merchant Shipping Act 1983 when the government of the day was brought to heel and the country heavily fined for having defied the supremacy of the European Commission. Later, in the case of the Metric Martyrs who defied the supremacy of European law and attempted to exercise their lawful right to sell their wares in traditional measurements according the our sovereign laws as promised them by the Queen in her coronation oath, the presiding judge dismissed their claim on the grounds that we had agreed in 1972 to surrender our national sovereignty to the EEC. Further confirmation of the termination of the monarchy came following the signing of the Maastricht Treaty when Prime Minister John Major announced in the Commons that the Queen had been made a citizen of the EU. Clearly no one can be both monarch and citizen at the same time.

With this regard it would seem that the British people are living under a delusion created by a sinister smoke and mirrors system backed by charades such as the Queen's silver jubilee and all upheld and perpetuated by the national press. Presently it is a case of 'oh what a web we weave', but all could be rectified if the national press jointly decided to be honest with the people and tell them the truth and so halt the progress down the slippery slope to anarchy on which the nation has embarked. Alas, recent events suggest that such an action would be highly unlikely.

Yours Faithfully, Bob Lomas. The Magna Society.

1907 PHOTO This one needs to circulate
I think this is one email that needs to be forwarded until every
Canadian with a computer receives it.
The year is 1907, one hundred and 3+ years ago.

                                    READ PRINT UNDER PICTURE!

Wilfrid Laurier ideas on Immigrants and being a Canadian in 1907.

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes a Canadian and assimilates himself to us,
he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else,
for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed,
or birthplace, or origin.
But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet a Canadian, and nothing but a Canadian...
There can be no divided allegiance here.
Any man who says he is a Canadian, but something else also, isn't a Canadian at all.
We have room for but one flag, the Canadian flag...
And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the Canadian people.'
Wilfrid Laurier 1907

Every Canadian citizen needs to read this!

KEEP THIS MOVING