The End of Trials without Juries

The Great Charter of Freedoms otherwise known as Magna Carter is a parchment that is yet again under attack from Nu Labour’s progressive agenda.

Today marks a break with almost 800 years of a real form of Human Rights, as Labour has managed to do away with the right to a jury in criminal trials.

This is a very dangerous precept and it is on the constitutional back of a push for 42 day detention. A jury is an unashamed tool of democracy and key for it to function - as the common people are given the duty to sit and act as counter balance to the whims of the ever increasing power of judges.

Labour, ideologically claims to be the party of the people, however it has ceded all power to the Liberal intelligentsia, who believes it has a right to trump our basic inalienable Rights and preside over all decision making. This goes far beyond a soft paternalism, but acts as an overarching State intent on quenching its thirst for power by seizing and centralising public authority.

Most commentary is on how corrupt and morally bankrupt our MPs are and how awful Gordon Brown is as a Prime Minster, however the most menacing threat to our security is Jack Straw. His philosophical tract is one deep rooted in Socialism, which will cease at nothing until all our traditional pillars of society are, firstly undermined, then shattered into oblivion like that of an ancient tribe millennia ago.

He is blind to the dangers of dismantling society out some misplaced quest to see Britain ushered into a Socialist utopia. I have always stated that the Left’s foundational principles have completely misread the Human Condition and that their contorted view of Man has and will continue to have damaging consequences, until the true forces of Conservatism rise again.

Although, what amazes me is this move to hide the criminal process from the public and place sole power to our extremely liberal judiciary. What type of criminal will receive a harsh punishment: a pedophile; a rapist; a drug dealer; or a murderer - I’m assuming not, just a slap on the wrist and more money ploughed into ‘reforming’ them.

It is more likely that Thought Crimes, which do not agree with the Liberal consensus are those that will be handed the most severe punishments. How about Christians who are having their rights taken away through ‘equality laws’; or parents who wish to smack their children; or perhaps global warming deniers (akin to holocaust deniers these day.)

Fundamentally, Labour is causing society to break down because they are not letting us, the People, the chance to participate in it. From not allowing us a vote over the EU treaty; having a general election; the right to religious freedoms; and the right to have a family free from State scrutiny. The list could go on and on.

When Maggie said there is no such thing as society, Labour secretly echoed these distorted sentiments. If placing the individual at the heart of a neo-liberal agenda had caused an atomised society in the 80’s and 90’s then Nu Labour by using the State as a political weapon in the 00’s has dismantled what was left of Society.

Let’s rise up and call for a general election so we can be judge, jury and executioner on Nu Labour and their failed socially engineered project.

ID cards are much more philosphical than they are economic failures

The great ID card debate, yet again triggered by the trial run in Manchester this week, is being fought by the Conservatives on the wrong premise - that of ‘cost’ to the tax payer.

Yes, the scheme will costs billions and is a complete waste of public money in the current climate, but the very notion of compulsory ID cards is far more philosophical and ideological than they currently make out.

The arguments used by Jackboot Jacqui that ID cards will help combat cyber crime, fraud and illegal immigration is tosh. I say this on firstly a very practical level that anyone and everything can be cracked, copied, stolen, forged - nothing is fully proof. If humans designed it then it is bound to have faults. If anything, ID cards will trigger a black market for people’s biological and physiological data.

On to the ideological, however and we begin to see how at odds this Labour Government is with individual autonomy and personal regulation. For starters, ID cards are not the same as passports because we as individuals exercise our right, granted by our Monarch, of safe passage to a foreign land. Passports, therefore act as a way of external control; in short - a freedom to leave this nation and frequent another. Again, this is your own choice, I am not compelled to leave these lands with a passport.

ID cards work on the completely opposing vision, they are to keep people in and to control them. By making them compulsory, it will be illegal for you not to have one, you have no choice/freedom in the matter. For you to have free movement in your own country you would have to have this ID card, when surely your birth right should be free and unhindered passage in the land of your birth. So it is not a case of needing an identification to leave (a passport) but identification to move within your own boarders.

This corralling and controlling device is utterly against British Liberty and it beggars belief that a British political party is even considering this totalitarian endeavour.

The same principle is applied to a driving license, we only have one if we want to drive a car, those who do not, shouldn’t be forced to get one - you have a choice. While having a driving license is sensible, having an ID card with biometric data is not, as any choice in the matter is strangled at birth. Imagine ID tagging babies the moment they come out of the womb, it would be like Auschwitz - Hair/eyes/blood/finger prints - it’s a complete invasion of human dignity not to mention liberty.

Taking finger prints should be if you are found guilty of a crime, so when we hear stories of the police storing finger prints of innocent people and will continue to keep this information for years to come, it undermines the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty. This appears against the backdrop of allowing criminals the vote on the grounds of their human rights. What about UK citizens and their rights to a free and non-coerced life in their homeland?

There are also schools which have taken to finger printing their pupils in cases of stolen library books, with a more widespread agenda to roll this out for the register and school meals. We will make our children feel like barcodes not young citizens.

In addition, the underhand ‘co-opting’ of new students to be imposed with an ID card scheme in return for a student bank account smacks of blatant blackmail as it looks to dictate to impressionable young people who may not know their full rights as citizens.

Jackboot’s rationality is that: "We want to be able to prevent those here illegally from benefiting from the privileges of Britain.” How about for a start not letting a flood of people to enter the UK every day. We could tighten our boarder police force; make it more difficult for unqualified migrants to enter the UK; and abandon this failed multicultural mission.

This lunacy is compounded by people who clearly hate this country and wish to see it destroyed being found not guilty in our biased-liberal courts system. Or if they are found guilty, but complain on the grounds of their human rights at the EU court they are as a result set free.

Without going too populist with headlines such as ‘Big Brother State’ and ‘CCTV capital of the world’, the UK does have large philosophical issues to discuss; if the ruling elite really does think that a free and democratic citizen needs to be compelled to receive an ID card at their own expense, then we really do need a revival of civic debate on such a constitutional and intrinsic position.

My Political leanings so far...

I just retook the Political Compass test for the fourth time in as many years (I appear to be heading in a more authoritarian manner!) While the other chart is the latest EU poll regarding how you should vote come June 4th; however the questions are appalling - too many are leading or loaded questions, which give a skewed account of your political sensibilities.

For instance, one question is: Should the EU speak with one voice on foreign matters? I said yes, not out of any desire to see the EU power base to grow further, but more out of practicality for example when the UK wants to go to war, but France is too scared. Although the preceding question is: Do you think the EU should have a fully functioning army? In short, they both infer the same political outcome.

Also, being socially liberal, but economically right wing will alter and misrepresent the x-axis which highlights both positions on a single line.

Its only saving grace is that it allows you to select or de-select certain criteria at the end, so you can see how you fair on specific issues raised during this rather closed questionnaire.

GCSE Parenting - State institutionalised parenthood that will destroy the Family

Why does the Liberal/Left civil partnership insist on the State running our whole lives? The latest example of this is giving a GCSE equivalent certificate for teenage parenting.

They have already destroyed what it means to be a father by allowing women and their offspring married to the State through over-supporting single parents over married couples and getting the man’s name off the birth certificate. Now they seek to become mothers to these children as well as Fathers - this really is a Brave New World.

I can’t fathom this Left wing idea of institutionalising parenthood - surely the family is a private institution and should have little tampering with by the overarching State? These kids shouldn’t need to take a course, which proscribes through modules how to be a parent, as it will no doubt come from a Lib/Left post-modern view point of how to raise a child, which has already led to the problem children we currently have fathering their own offspring.

The result will be that no sense of discipline will be instilled because of the anti-smacking laws; the absurd notion of children’s rights trumping parental commonsense; the support for children to keep underage sexual activity secret from their parents; and the idea that parents should be their kid’s friends over teaching them right from wrong.

The problem lies with this utter parasitic obsession of Left wing policy makers that everyone must have ‘qualifications’ in order to be equal. This stems from the skewed ideological belief in ‘equality’. So it goes: ‘We all must be the same to be equal’.

In this county we have people from a different era doing their jobs perfectly well, but have no ‘qualification’ other than their apprenticeships and 40 years practical service up against people competing for the same jobs who have all the ‘qualifications’ in the world, but no practical skills, or even the soft skills needed for the world of work. This crusade to be appear equal is destroying UK business and young people’s careers. Now the Left want to do this to people’s families as well.

It begs the question: Will we soon all need the State’s approved parental GCSE to be allow to reproduce? The course is only a D to G worth of a GCSE, what does that hope to achieve? It is completely pointless.

The breakdown of traditional family life has led parents not educating their children in the ‘private’ sphere on how to be a parent. As a result, we are currently witnessing almost three generations who have had no such life lessons.

The Mail is correct in saying that by devising this course it sends out a message that getting pregnant at 15 is an achievement and an academic qualification is the correct way in supporting this decision.

This is State-sponsored ticket to welfare dependency!

Furthermore, education confers respectability, so by having this course it will infer that underage sex and pregnancy is the social norm and the respectable thing to be doing - hey you’ve got a piece of paper congratulating you on doing it!

The solution to all this mess isn’t the ‘State’s guide to parenthood’, rather we need a seizing back of power from children to adults. That means abolishing the idea of liberal children’s rights - which are to have the right to do/question anything they like. We need a children’s rights system that resembles moral and social rights, which are both public (a right to an education) and private (parents taking responsibility in educating their kids right from wrong)

We also need a seismic shift away from uniform ‘qualification’ culture. Every child has a talent that shouldn’t be standardised and our education system should reflect all talents.

This can be done through the rebirth of apprenticeships; a return to grammar school type selection; lowering the school leaving age so kids can leave pursue other talents, which are not necessarily connected with academic performance as some aren’t wired that way; and finally a strong sense of civic duty through a modern style national service - not necessarily military drills, but authoritarian and disciplinary in nature.

For example, tasks which revolve around the military idea that if one person fails the whole team fail. Over time this would increase team work and interaction, therefore breaking the atomised youth who has an outlook only for himself.

However, this can only happen if the State is curtailed significantly, so that other private institutions can be given a chance to show their social worth be they religious organisations, the family unit, charities or local businesses.

Hannan calls for a 'Revolutionary' turning of the political wheel

I heard a stellar speech from Daniel Hannan MEP at Ascot today. He has the apt nuances to deliver the Conservative message far beyond its ideological boarders. This is in stark contrast when I have heard David Cameron speak, as he appears insincere and at times disingenuous; while Mr. Hannan fills any room with an eloquence that is not only clear, but resoundingly powerful to the heart and mind.

The impression he left on me most was his use of the term ‘revolution’. This politically loaded word stimulates any archaic Socialist or woolly-minded Liberal, however Hannan described Britain needing a revolution so to ‘turn the wheel’ of current public policy. He uses the term in the more practical and technical definition as an act of ‘rotational motion.’

In short, a complete turn around from the ever increased encroachment of centralising tendencies of New Labour and the EU to the ultra-devolution of political power.

This was a call to arms not just against the undemocratic European project but also the clunking hand of Whitehall administration. At his most strongest he produced a sound political synergy between the EU regulation running our lives and voter apathy by explaining that people do not vote because they feel their vote is meaningless. The UK’s decision making abilities are seized from the elected officials, which are then rented out in the form of competing technocracies and ‘quangocracies’ under the New Labour Mis-Government.

His examples are the Treasury doesn’t run the economy - the FSA does; The Department for Schools doesn’t run education - the LEAs do; we don’t control our agricultural or fishing rights - the unelected EU Commission do; even our weekly bin collections are sent down via unaccountable EU diktats.

He gave an example of when he took his child to school and heard other parents complaining about the booster seats directive enforced upon all children under a certain height. Anyone would be forgiven for thinking we lived under Communist rule whose State production figures were down on last year, so Stalin demands we all must buy a useless piece of crappy plastic to protect our children as to re-inflate the economy.

Again, he asked ‘why vote?’ when the people you elect have no decision making powers, as we cede this to back-room deals in Brussels.

He repeatedly made the point that the mother of modern democracy (UK) has withered beyond all recognition due to the undemocratic nature of the EU. He gives a blistering example of the lady who replaced replaced Lord Mandy as Trade Commissar - sorry Commissioner, Baroness Ashton.

She has never stood for a democratic election in her life, as she knows she would lose. She received only two cheers when appearing before the Commission during her ‘coronation’ - the first for declaring that she would be the first woman to do the job (who cares what she is!) The second for claiming she had single handedly navigated the Lords away from ever allowing a referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty! Is this the resultant modern day British Democracy?!

Mr. Hannan spoke about the EU’s obsession with technocrats over elected representation - the sneer for the common man. The point made was that the man who solely labours on one task becomes blind to all others that are around him.

There was also the mention of Gordon Brown not bringing the stimulus packages and the ‘Bail Out’ to a House of Commons votes so amendments could be made, let alone before the House to discuss. This was an announcement akin to the USSR’s declaration of yet another ‘5 year economic plan’. Mr. Hannan posed the question MPs should be asking themselves: Why are we even here then? We might as well go home.

Even the Obama led administration had to go before the US Congress three times to get theirs approved, which shows the democratic process alive and well; he has even won an election with a legitimate mandate from the American people.

The UK does not live in a democracy if we can not challenge, amend or give advise to our governors - this is pure tyranny.

Leaving the speech to one side, I feel Daniel Hannan sees his duty as protecting the UK against the EU, despite calls for this fine statesman to be brought into the Westminster fold. I do hate the cliche, ‘If you can’t beat them join them’, however I say this with a twist. if Hannan wasn’t in the EU Parliament who would be protecting the British interest.?

If 85% of our Laws do come from Brussels then I want to see Mr. Hannan help to make each a better one for Britain, because being an MP would give him absolutely no decision making abilities at all, which he profoundly explained to the audience today.

A call for the Separation of Church and (EU) State

It has come to my attention that there is a serious breach of English liberty regarding the separation of Church and State. In the Telegraph last week, it reported on one in the long line of EU directives that will force faith schools to accept non-believers and the push for Churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies.

Within the article Dan Hannan MEP, said that the EU shouldn’t be allow to rule on how churches are governed. This allows me to question the perceived view of why we have a separation of Church and State. In Europe, it is fundamentally in place to protect the State from active religious interference at the expense all other voices.

However, in the US it is often viewed as the protection of the Church against the all pervasive tentacles of the State, which highlights the American philosophy that the State can not be trusted with the regulation of individual freedom, both in thought and action. In this European case, it is apt to adopt the American view that the Church should be free from the State’s interference, notably a foreign power’s (EU).

This ‘second’ phase of the Enlightenment is disturbing as it appears to have no regard for people’s religious liberty and has entered into a game of ‘rights’ trumping other ‘rights’. We have reached an era where moral relativism has reduced all claims to ‘rights’ of equal merit (through a twisted view and misrepresentation of egalitarianism)

At a time when the more conservative ideals of the right to private property and the protection of that property is being eroded (see the G20 demonstrations), we have a further assault on our personal consciousness.

The EU has become a dangerous enemy of Faith, but also of Human Reason. It’s obsession with control and overregulation of our lives with French or German translated legal gibberish reeks of yet another Socialist experiment. The EU is making us look less human - it is destroying our Democracy - via its low turn outs on election day; an unelected Commission; and it’s closed door deals and lack of accountability.

This is coupled with the attacks on the right to religious liberty; the right to generate and accumulate wealth and to spend it how we see fit. We need a new compact that sees the Church separated from EU super-State for its own protection.

Bravo! Mr. Montgomerie - A powerful call for 21st social Conservatism

Like arguments, it is very hard to blog about things you agree with. If two people agree you always nod and smile and move on as there’s little point of patting each other on the back on how good their argument is. However, I feel that praise has to be heaped upon Tim Montgomerie’s piece in the Telegraph today.

His vision of a new chapter of moral Conservatism is one that Edmund Burke’s ghost agrees with fundamentally. Tim’s article rests on the premise that: “Social reform is the missing ingredient of modern conservatism,” and quite rightly so. For too long the party has been contaminated by crude laissez-faire reductionism, which has poured its way into our social fabric and left it stained for the past 30 years.

Yes, the cleansing of a creeping Socialism needed to be stopped. Maggie and Reagan should be congratulated on killing this dangerous entity; however their economic coup and subsequent trend for 3 decades was not matched by a Conservative rebalancing of the social sphere.

Tim is right that these include: the end of the Liberal’s blind eye on family breakdown; crime; benefit culture; and the total failure of our education system under New Labour - the latter of which I sadly am a product of. Although this point of the article is for the battle within the conservative ranks, not the liberal detractors.

The point couldn’t be clearer that: “Without a moral purpose, a political party will never inspire.” Just as Maggie offered hope to millions with her economic revolution, so a social rejuvenation must be the sceptre that taken up but 21st Conservatism.

Tim notes that: “Conservatives need to articulate a moral ambition.” Again eloquently written and highlights that Labour, often to the layman in the street, is perceived has rallying to a higher purpose or an ideal that is meant to help all - something which is often a vote winning.

As Conservatives, we all need to steal this ideological ground from Labour, forget DC running to the centre as that will only lead to stagnant politics. The battle will be how much can new conservative initiatives can inspire and help the average person and nurse the nation back to social health. Cameron is courting the idealism that is associated with the NHS, but perhaps he should modify his approach and call for a social NHS on conservative terms - ‘Staterun’, but small state run - as it must oil the gears to get society moving again.

This task however isn’t just to convince the electorate, but the more social liberal wing of the party, which is of a formidable size. That task has started today, courtesy of Tim Montgomerie’s article - may this be the first of many a rally cry.