Deano
DID YOU KNOW THAT MOST LAWS ARE INTRODUCED WITHOUT EVER SEEING A DEBATING CHAMBER? OR, WHEN THEY DO, WITHOUT MOST OF THE POLITICIANS EVEN READING THEM?
http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/csft-25.jpg
'Another key route for these impositions is what is known in Britain as "secondary legislation". Again, it's a tedious title with a fuse fitted and a timing device going tick, tick, tick. Beware the boring and banal, it's often a nuclear weapon disguised as a carrot cake.
As I have been saying for years, most people don't have opinions based on detailed knowledge or understanding, they have an "image" of what the situation is. This image comes from hearing, mostly half-hearing, mantras chanted incessantly by politicians, "journalists" and academics. So they get the impression that for something to become law it has to be subject to debate by elected people in national parliaments or local councils.
Not so.'
If you were asked to sign a document without reading it you would be immediately suspicious of the guy with the pen in his hand. You would insist on reading the content before you put your name to it and so make a commitment to support what it said.
You would, therefore, from the system's point of view, make a really bad Member of Congress or Member of Parliament.
Their job is to vote for reams and reams of legislation that fundamentally affects the lives of everyone without even reading it. Not here and there, now and then, but every day. It's called 'democracy', apparently.
For example, Congressman Ron Paul from Texas told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act passed on October 27th, 2001 in the wake of 9/11. Yet, this Act vastly increased the power of the Executive and removed a stream of basic freedoms from the people.
No matter. The voting fodder on Capitol Hill still agreed to support it without even knowing what it said. These are your representatives, ladies and gentlemen. Brains and backbones do not a politician make.
The Maastricht Treaty that handed over massive powers from Britain to Brussels and the European Union in 1992 was another major bill not read by most of the people who voted it into law. A government minister at the time, Kenneth Clarke, even admitted in a BBC interview that he hadn't read the bill while going around supporting it.
This is happening in a period of human history when it is vital to study every word and nuance of proposed legislation because what we are seeing is no less than the covert introduction of the fascist state in country after country. Indeed, to anyone who does bother to track such matters, it is often not even covert now much of the time.
All this came to mind this week when I read the background to a bill currently going through the UK Parliament called the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. Behind its boring title lies the power for the British government to make basically whatever laws it likes without any vote in Parliament.
Cambridge Law Professor, John Spencer, has called it as the 'abolition of parliament' Bill. Its powers can be used to detain people for years, impose house arrest, and give the police expanded powers of arrest and interrogation. The Bill would allow the government to set up new courts and change the law on immigration, nationality, divorce, inheritance and the appointment of judges without any debate in Parliament.
You can read the bill by clicking here -
http://www.publications.Parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/en/06111x--.htm
and here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html
Even for those who do bother to read this covert dynamite will find themselves in a maze of civil servant-speak calculated to confuse and mislead. This is one of the ways they hide what it all really means. For instance, this is an example of the technique taken from this 'reform' bill:
Subsections (4) and (5) are transitional provisions. They deal with consultation which has taken place before the date on which these clauses come into force. If any consultation is undertaken before subsection (4) comes into force, and that consultation would to any extent satisfy any of the requirements of clause 11 (if the consultation had taken place after it comes into force), those requirements are, to that extent, taken to have been satisfied. It is not necessary therefore to repeat the consultation. Subsection (5) applies specifically where the power in the 2001 Act has been repealed at the time an order is to be made. In those circumstances, where proposals for an order under clause 1 of this Bill are the same as proposals for an order under section 1 of the 2001 Act and those proposals have been consulted upon under that Act, then consultation will be taken to have been satisfied for the purposes of this clause (even where the proposals hav! e been varied following consultation under the 2001 Act and it was appropriate that no further consultation be undertaken). This means that such proposals do not need to be consulted on again where an order was going to be made under the 2001 Act but is now going to be made under clause 1 of this Bill.'
The trick is to hide major legislative changes within mind-numbing gobbledegook like this and it's a method of manipulation used all over the world.
When the laws are subsequently used in ways that supporters of a bill did not understand, they say: 'I didn't vote for that'.
'Ah, yes, you did, sir', comes the reply, 'it's all here in clause 8, section 4, subsection 3, paragraph two':
'Under the powers of the bill, like those in the 2001 act, what happens in such circumstances, depends on what government can do in the given circumstances in relation to this bill. Likes and dislikes can be taken into account. The wording of this clause can be reformed as required to indicate the powers thus contained.'
So what does that mean?, we ask.
'Well, sir, read it again where I have highlighted the most relevant wording':
Under the powers of the bill, like those in the 2001 act, what happens in such circumstances, depends on what the government can do in the given circumstances in relation to this bill. Whatever the circumstances allowed in clause 8, subsection 3, this clause can override it and every other law. Likes and dislikes can be taken into account. The wording of this clause can be reformed as required to indicate the powers thus contained.'
That may all seem far fetched, but it is so close to what really happens, I can tell you, because within the fuzzy wording of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill it says, in effect, that ... 'The government can do whatever it likes'. Or, not far short anyway.
A report in the London Times by Daniel Finkelstein, headed 'How I woke up to a nightmare plot to steal centuries of law and liberty', captures the true meaning of this fascist bill:
'Now I know what I am about to tell you is difficult to believe (Why isn't this on the front pages? Where's the big political row?), but I promise you that it is true. The extraordinary Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, currently before the House, gives ministers power to amend, repeal or replace any legislation simply by making an order and without having to bring a Bill before Parliament. The House of Lords Constitution Committee says the Bill is "of first-class constitutional significance" and fears that it could "markedly alter the respective and long standing roles of minister and Parliament in the legislative process".'
Put simply, it is the end of Parliament, just as, in the United States, we have effectively had the end of Congress since 9/11. And when there is no elected body that represents the peoples' freedoms and interests, you are left with a dictatorship. And we have been - with more to come unless we cease to sit by and allow it.
The few who are currently questioning this bill (the few who have read any of it) are told there are 'safeguards'. One, is that the Prime Monster (no spelling error) and his ministers can only impose a burden "proportionate to the benefit expected to be gained". But hold on. Who decides that? Er, the Prime Monster and his ministers.
What they are saying is 'trust us' with ultimate power because we will never use it against the wrong people. This is the same government that passed laws to 'stop terrorists' while ensuring in the wording that it could apply to anyone they choose to target, including little old ladies with a banner protesting at mass slaughter. Of course, what has happened was as predictable as Blair's next lie. 'Anti-terrorism' laws have been used in the most outrageous manner to stop peaceful protest and arrest those protesting.
This included a woman, arrested, charged and given a criminal record, for simply standing at the Cenotaph war memorial in London reading out the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq - see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=371004&in_page_id=1770.
One opposition Member of Parliament said of the law used in the case:
was sold to us on the basis that it was to prevent terrorist acts against this House and has now been used to convict a young lady, Maya Evans, for reading out a list of British soldiers killed in action in Iraq by the Cenotaph.'
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill that gives the government sweeping powers to make whatever laws it chooses is being sold as just a means of improving administrative efficiency.
Maya Anne Evans, 25, a vegan cook from Hastings, was found guilty of breaching Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act - by peacefully reading out the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq..
http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/csft-25.jpg
'Another key route for these impositions is what is known in Britain as "secondary legislation". Again, it's a tedious title with a fuse fitted and a timing device going tick, tick, tick. Beware the boring and banal, it's often a nuclear weapon disguised as a carrot cake.
As I have been saying for years, most people don't have opinions based on detailed knowledge or understanding, they have an "image" of what the situation is. This image comes from hearing, mostly half-hearing, mantras chanted incessantly by politicians, "journalists" and academics. So they get the impression that for something to become law it has to be subject to debate by elected people in national parliaments or local councils.
Not so.'
If you were asked to sign a document without reading it you would be immediately suspicious of the guy with the pen in his hand. You would insist on reading the content before you put your name to it and so make a commitment to support what it said.
You would, therefore, from the system's point of view, make a really bad Member of Congress or Member of Parliament.
Their job is to vote for reams and reams of legislation that fundamentally affects the lives of everyone without even reading it. Not here and there, now and then, but every day. It's called 'democracy', apparently.
For example, Congressman Ron Paul from Texas told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act passed on October 27th, 2001 in the wake of 9/11. Yet, this Act vastly increased the power of the Executive and removed a stream of basic freedoms from the people.
No matter. The voting fodder on Capitol Hill still agreed to support it without even knowing what it said. These are your representatives, ladies and gentlemen. Brains and backbones do not a politician make.
The Maastricht Treaty that handed over massive powers from Britain to Brussels and the European Union in 1992 was another major bill not read by most of the people who voted it into law. A government minister at the time, Kenneth Clarke, even admitted in a BBC interview that he hadn't read the bill while going around supporting it.
This is happening in a period of human history when it is vital to study every word and nuance of proposed legislation because what we are seeing is no less than the covert introduction of the fascist state in country after country. Indeed, to anyone who does bother to track such matters, it is often not even covert now much of the time.
All this came to mind this week when I read the background to a bill currently going through the UK Parliament called the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. Behind its boring title lies the power for the British government to make basically whatever laws it likes without any vote in Parliament.
Cambridge Law Professor, John Spencer, has called it as the 'abolition of parliament' Bill. Its powers can be used to detain people for years, impose house arrest, and give the police expanded powers of arrest and interrogation. The Bill would allow the government to set up new courts and change the law on immigration, nationality, divorce, inheritance and the appointment of judges without any debate in Parliament.
You can read the bill by clicking here -
http://www.publications.Parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/en/06111x--.htm
and here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html
Even for those who do bother to read this covert dynamite will find themselves in a maze of civil servant-speak calculated to confuse and mislead. This is one of the ways they hide what it all really means. For instance, this is an example of the technique taken from this 'reform' bill:
Subsections (4) and (5) are transitional provisions. They deal with consultation which has taken place before the date on which these clauses come into force. If any consultation is undertaken before subsection (4) comes into force, and that consultation would to any extent satisfy any of the requirements of clause 11 (if the consultation had taken place after it comes into force), those requirements are, to that extent, taken to have been satisfied. It is not necessary therefore to repeat the consultation. Subsection (5) applies specifically where the power in the 2001 Act has been repealed at the time an order is to be made. In those circumstances, where proposals for an order under clause 1 of this Bill are the same as proposals for an order under section 1 of the 2001 Act and those proposals have been consulted upon under that Act, then consultation will be taken to have been satisfied for the purposes of this clause (even where the proposals hav! e been varied following consultation under the 2001 Act and it was appropriate that no further consultation be undertaken). This means that such proposals do not need to be consulted on again where an order was going to be made under the 2001 Act but is now going to be made under clause 1 of this Bill.'
The trick is to hide major legislative changes within mind-numbing gobbledegook like this and it's a method of manipulation used all over the world.
When the laws are subsequently used in ways that supporters of a bill did not understand, they say: 'I didn't vote for that'.
'Ah, yes, you did, sir', comes the reply, 'it's all here in clause 8, section 4, subsection 3, paragraph two':
'Under the powers of the bill, like those in the 2001 act, what happens in such circumstances, depends on what government can do in the given circumstances in relation to this bill. Likes and dislikes can be taken into account. The wording of this clause can be reformed as required to indicate the powers thus contained.'
So what does that mean?, we ask.
'Well, sir, read it again where I have highlighted the most relevant wording':
Under the powers of the bill, like those in the 2001 act, what happens in such circumstances, depends on what the government can do in the given circumstances in relation to this bill. Whatever the circumstances allowed in clause 8, subsection 3, this clause can override it and every other law. Likes and dislikes can be taken into account. The wording of this clause can be reformed as required to indicate the powers thus contained.'
That may all seem far fetched, but it is so close to what really happens, I can tell you, because within the fuzzy wording of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill it says, in effect, that ... 'The government can do whatever it likes'. Or, not far short anyway.
A report in the London Times by Daniel Finkelstein, headed 'How I woke up to a nightmare plot to steal centuries of law and liberty', captures the true meaning of this fascist bill:
'Now I know what I am about to tell you is difficult to believe (Why isn't this on the front pages? Where's the big political row?), but I promise you that it is true. The extraordinary Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, currently before the House, gives ministers power to amend, repeal or replace any legislation simply by making an order and without having to bring a Bill before Parliament. The House of Lords Constitution Committee says the Bill is "of first-class constitutional significance" and fears that it could "markedly alter the respective and long standing roles of minister and Parliament in the legislative process".'
Put simply, it is the end of Parliament, just as, in the United States, we have effectively had the end of Congress since 9/11. And when there is no elected body that represents the peoples' freedoms and interests, you are left with a dictatorship. And we have been - with more to come unless we cease to sit by and allow it.
The few who are currently questioning this bill (the few who have read any of it) are told there are 'safeguards'. One, is that the Prime Monster (no spelling error) and his ministers can only impose a burden "proportionate to the benefit expected to be gained". But hold on. Who decides that? Er, the Prime Monster and his ministers.
What they are saying is 'trust us' with ultimate power because we will never use it against the wrong people. This is the same government that passed laws to 'stop terrorists' while ensuring in the wording that it could apply to anyone they choose to target, including little old ladies with a banner protesting at mass slaughter. Of course, what has happened was as predictable as Blair's next lie. 'Anti-terrorism' laws have been used in the most outrageous manner to stop peaceful protest and arrest those protesting.
This included a woman, arrested, charged and given a criminal record, for simply standing at the Cenotaph war memorial in London reading out the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq - see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=371004&in_page_id=1770.
One opposition Member of Parliament said of the law used in the case:
was sold to us on the basis that it was to prevent terrorist acts against this House and has now been used to convict a young lady, Maya Evans, for reading out a list of British soldiers killed in action in Iraq by the Cenotaph.'
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill that gives the government sweeping powers to make whatever laws it chooses is being sold as just a means of improving administrative efficiency.
Maya Anne Evans, 25, a vegan cook from Hastings, was found guilty of breaching Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act - by peacefully reading out the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq..
