One of the ways that the judges fiddle the legal system to benefit their masters is to deliberatly misinterpret the law knowing that unless the individual can then get leave from the British government to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, that the law in the UK will remain in breach of the ECHR.
This has happened to me. I applied to take a case to the ECHR and the British government applied to the ECHR under a provision of the courts proceedings to have the case struck out.
The case was not struck out on its merits, the case was struck out simply because the British government did not want the issue involved, which was BNP access to council properties during elections, to get a hearing in the ECHR.
This is how the government and the judges rig the system.
The case below is probably the second most farsical case I have ever had to read.
The judges have both misapplied the law, as the public as a group are not capable of being harassed, but have also ignored case after case of ECHR case law which states quite clearly that anything which upsets, disturbs or offends the public as a group is within the bounds of free speech.
This case is simply a joke.
What will be quite interesting though is the full judgement.
It appears that the judges have stated that the actions of an individual can constitute harrasment against a section of the public.
The fact that the harassment act states that groups can also come under the act, means that the UAF, Lancaster Unity and its activists can now be found guilty of harassment if they harass the BNP or its members.
This could also apply to magazines such as Searchlight that print repeated stories about an individual, and also to trades unions that deliver leafets to slander BNP members in elections.
The extension of the act in this case to assert that acts in public classified as harassment that are not related to specific individuals but to sections of the public, means that the act can now be used to close down those groups that target individuals or sections of the public in public.
The harasment acts are not acts that the BNP has used in the past against the UAF, Searchlight or Lancaster Unity - but this judgement appears to extend the remit of the acts to now directly cover the UAF and its public campaigns against indivduals in the BNP or to events which the BNP has been involved in.
I will suggest that from now on the next time a UAF demonstration seeks to target a BNP individual or meeting that we film the demonstration and then seek to have the individuals arrested for breach of the harassment act and for causing distress to the BNP members present at the meeting, as the right to attend political meetings and organise political meetings is one of the primary and most protected rights in the ECHR.
This judgement is absurd, but the fact is that it may have extended the parameters of the law to now enable us to close down the UAF, Lancaster Unity and Searchlight on the grounds that those groups repeatedly target specific individuals in the BNP causing them distress.
The harassment act has been extended vastly in recent years to cover the activities of the animal rights people, and therefore the case law should now be being used against the UAF, Searchlight and Lancaster Unity whose anti-BNP activities are in breach of the act.
Whilst it is legitimate to protest in a democracy, it is not legitimate or legal to seek to prevent people organising politically, to target individuals with the intent to cause them distress, incite violence against them or cause them problems at work or to seek to prevent a political party and its activists organising political private and public events.
For example the UAF state that their demonstration targeting the RWB is designed to stop the event. This is unlawful.
The Lancaster Unity site put up posts that incite people to ring hotels and venues and to put pressure on the owners of those establishments to cancel BNP meetings, this is also unlawful.
The UAF organise demonstations to stop the BNP attending events and meetings and this is also unlawful.
This case may be the key that finally locks down the UAF, Lancaster Unity and Searchlight as so far they have been allowed to evade the law, but this case now appears to extend the remit of the case law.
BNP activist loses appeal
A BNP activist found guilty of harassment after putting up posters of three convicted killers with the description "illegal immigrant murder scum" has lost an appeal against his conviction.
Andrew Kendall, 32, from Fairfax Drive, Westcliff, claimed he was legally entitled to use the posters, which he put up in Southend High Street in February 2007, to promote his party's views on immigration and crime.
But two senior judges at the High Court in London yesterday ruled Kendall was rightly found guilty by Southend magistrates.
Kendall was appealing against his conviction after he was given an 18-month conditional discharge for causing harassment, alarm or distress.
Mr Justice Keith said while it was accurate to say the three men were illegal immigrants, they had been convicted of manslaughter, and not murder.
The judges also said Kendall should have known his actions might distress the public.
Saturday, 28 June 2008
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I agree. We should film them every time they disrupt the public.
I note that LUAF today deny being racist. Obviously Searchlight had a different opinion when they split ways due (amongst other things) to the UAF demanding a black leader!
Post a Comment