There are some encouraging signs in the UK for a change. Thursday, Parliament will vote on whether to defy the European Court of Human Rights and refuse to allow convicted prisoners to vote in elections. The PM is allowing all the Coalition MPs the privilege to vote their conscience on the issue.
From the Daily Mail:
At least seven new cases are being lodged against Britain at the European Court of Human Rights every day, causing a huge backlog and a massive bill for UK taxpayers.
The Daily Mail estimates the bill to British taxpayers to be two BILLION pounds. The Conservative patriot MP Dominic Raab says enough is enough:
Tory MP Dominic Raab said the figures underlined the need for ministers to take decisive action to assert Britain’s sovereignty over the court.
Mr Raab, a former international lawyer, said: ‘We’ve seen a surge in litigation against Britain as Strasbourg rewrites UK law – a field day for criminals avoiding deportation or suing the prison service, and a nightmare for the British taxpayer.
The UK who gave the world trial by jury and due process need not be lectured by an foreign court with no political legitimacy! But the voice of sovereignty may be rising:
Hundreds of MPs are expected to vote against the idea, which breaches the long- standing principle of British law that criminals sacrifice the right to vote when they commit offences.
In a related front, Conservative Home reports that Policy Exchange has come out for the UK’s withdrawal from the ECHR, arguing in a 84 page report that the ECHR is unnecessary and lacks legitimacy. Policy Exchange is a libertarian/conservative think tank in the UK with a stellar list of endorsements.
Here’s a small summary for the press of this report:
“The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg no longer fulfils the function for which is was founded with judges both there and in the UK stretching the text of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to make it apply in situations where core human rights are not at stake. Judges too often now see their role as making, not interpreting. The Strasbourg court also fail to take sufficient account of the cultural and other differences between countries – such as the conflict between the Convention’s “right to privacy” and the British tradition of freedom of the press. The 47 Strasbourg judges also enjoy virtually no democratic legitimacy and are poorly qualified compared to Britain’s own senior judiciary.”
Perhaps England is Rising at last! Your fight is our fight against the forces of globalism. Go with God as you fight the good fight.
Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders
About Elwood Sanders
Elwood "Sandy" Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia's first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)
- Web |
- More Posts (1938)
