Saturday, 14 May 2011

Who will stand me bail?

(Wolfers' note: I had intended to write about this a couple of days ago, but real life and Blogger throwing a complete Benny prevented this. I notice some comments that were here have disappeared. It wasn't me wot deleted them, a big boy did it and ran away.)

Well, looks like I could be in some trouble here.

THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties.

What? Really? You must forgive me, I'm completely not in slightest surprised by this.

A chap called Bernard Connolly, an economist, was sacked in '95 for being critical of the single currency. This has been held to be legal.

The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to "protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the Brussels bureaucracy.
 The court called the Connolly book  "aggressive, derogatory and insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and "ultimately peace".

Oh, wow. This is what they mean by the phrase 'post-democratic'.

Hang on, let's look at the date here. 1995. This was sixteen years ago. For the better part of two decades this has been their plan, the complete eradication of any dissent to their manifest destiny, to their, dare I say it, divine right?

Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer obviously thinks it is their divine right to do what they want:

However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that Mr Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to extreme blasphemy, and therefore not protected speech.

Blasphemy? Give me a God-damned break, will you?

Make no mistake, these are dangerous, dangerous people. They care not for our safety and security, nor do they care for the nation states of Europe, they care only for their controlling every aspect of life in our continent.

But that's not all, oh no:

Mr Connolly, who has been told to pay the European Commission's legal costs, said the proceedings did not amount to a fair hearing. He said: "We're back to the Star Chamber and Acts of Attainder: the rights of defendants are not respected or guaranteed in any way; the offence of seditious libel has been resurrected."

Not only do we have our right to freedom of expression taken from us, we also have to pay them to take it from us, stamp all over it, take a dump on it and set it alight in the street. Nice.

Oh, you want more? How about this?

Mr Colomer wrote in his opinion last November that a landmark British case on free speech had "no foundation or relevance" in European law, suggesting that the European Court was unwilling to give much consideration to British legal tradition.

Yeah, how'd you like them apples? Anyone who tells you that we need to be in Europe and not run by it is either lying to you or an idiot. Probably both.

But, hang on, Wolfers, I hear you say, our rights are protected:



1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

Oh, well that's OK then. Because it is quite clear. Oh, hang on. . .

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

So, basically, we have the freedom of expression, unless they say we don't.

This doesn't even make me angry any more, it just makes me very, very frightened.

1 comment: