The Law of the Land and Alien Law – a summary of CIB’s meeting, 15th March

On March 15th, the Campaign for an Independent Britain organised a meeting in the House of Lords to discuss the issue of alien legal systems in the UK.

We would like to thank Lord Pearson of Rannoch for arranging the venue and also our two visiting speakers, Anne Marie Waters of Sharia Watch and Torquil Dick-Erikson of Save British Justice.

Our Chairman, Edward Spalton, opened the meeting, introducing the speakers and the subject in question. What bound together the two subjects of Sharia law  and the European Arrest Warrant was their insistence “on imposing alien law and making it superior to our own law of the land. For some reason, which  I cannot fathom, there are presently and have been for two generations  now, many of our leading fellow countrymen and women who think so little of their own people, land and culture that they are willing to submit it to one or other or both of these projects.

Anne Marie explained that the problem with Sharia Law  was that, because the state does not enforce it and it thus has no legal validity in official UK Law, in reality, for many Muslims, particularly women, the situation is very different. “Most Muslims do not make an active choice to be Muslims, they are born in to their religion.  Their family life, community life, is inextricably bound up in the religion.” Islamic law – i.e., Sharia – is therefore the code by which they are bound and unofficially, in spite of its lack of formal legal status. This is a particular concern when it comes to family law.

In Sharia family law, a wife is worth less than her husband.  She cannot divorce of her volition, even if she subject to violence and abuse.  Her testimony in a family law dispute is worth only half of her husband’s.  This is intended to make it as difficult as possible for women to ‘win’ in any family law dispute.  The reason for this is simply because the Koran deems women to be worth less than men.  Furthermore, in Sharia law, the best interests of the child do not come first – again in defiance of the standards, principles, and spirit of British law.  The best interests of the child do not come first in sharia because Islam deems that children are the property of their fathers, who has sole power over their lives.  Mothers have no input and no rights.” To put it simply. these Sharia courts, for all their lack of official status, are still making decisions which have a huge impact on the lives of women and children in particular.

She concluded “We must stop pretending that there is nothing specific to Sharia that should worry us.  There is. It is a system predicated on male dominance, on violent punishment, on arbitrary whims of clerics, and on complete disregard for the humanity and rights of children.  Sharia is not compatible with Britain; it’s not compatible with our social values, our legal principles, or who we are as a nation.  Its practice should therefore not be permitted.  The fundamental principles of British law should instead be upheld as supreme.”

Torquil began by warning us that it still appears to be the Government’s intention to keep us invovled with the EU’s justice system on Brexit. Britain will try to remain in European Union security organisations and systems such as Europol – the EU’s law enforcement agency – and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) after Brexit. These are the words of Amber Rudd, the current Home Secretary.

He went on to explain the fundamental differences between UK law and that of the EU. In your humble scribe’s opinion, this was one of the clearest explanations of the incompatibilities of the two systems that he has ever heard.  At the heart of Magna Carta was its commitment to individual freedom – a determination to limit the power of the king and to avoid the concentration of power into too few hands. Almost at the same time, on the Continent, Pope Innocent III was  setting up the Inquisition, which sought to “unify the functions of accusation and judgement, into the same hands, those of the Inquisitor. The function of defender was kept quite separate. With the Inquisition the dice were loaded in favour of the accuser.”

Although ironically it was Napoleon’s armies which finally destroyed the power of the Inquisition in Spain, “Napoleon was a law-giver. His codes underlie many of Europe’s laws to this day. Unfortunately he did not adopt the English system, derived from Magna Carta, which aimed to limit the power of the State over the individual. Instead he adopted and adapted the essential methods of the inquisition. Continental European criminal-law systems are called ‘inquisitorial’ to this day. He adapted the system by re-orienting it, from the service of the Church to the service of the State.”

Of particular interest was Torquil’s  debunking of the myth that Continental law must be OK because all EU member states have signed the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR “does not contemplate what we in Britain would consider a right of Habeas Corpus. All it says, in article 6 is that a prisoner has a right to a public hearing before an impartial tribunal in a ‘reasonable’ time. But nowhere does it define what is ‘reasonable’.”

In the UK, a prisoner must appear in a public court within hours, or at most, a few days (with the exception of certain terrorist offences, but on much of the Continent, “for many EU states, under their Napoleonic-inquisitorial jurisdictions, it is considered ‘reasonable’ to keep a prisoner under lock and key with no public hearing for six months, extensible by three months at a time. These are the terms of the Commission’s Corpus Juris proposal for an embryo single uniform criminal code to cover the whole of Europe, including the British Isles.” Torquil mentioned Andrew Symeou, who spent nearly a year in a Greek prison on trumped-up charges as a result of being served with a European Arrest Warrant.  Torquil went on to ask “why do the European courts need to be able to keep a prisoner in prison for so long before formally charging him? There is a simple reason. In Britain, the Habeas Corpus right to a speedy public hearing after arrest ensures that the investigators have to find some pretty solid EVIDENCE of a prima facie case to answer BEFORE they arrest someone. This is based on Magna Carta’s article 38. It seems to us to be mere common sense.

On the continent, in contrast, they only need a suspicion, based on mere clues or what we would consider to be very flimsy and insufficient evidence, in order to arrest and imprison a person. They can then seek EVIDENCE AFTER they have arrested him. And of course it is quite “reasonable” for them to say that this can take months. This is the official reason. Of course there may also be other reasons, derived from the historic roots of their system in the Inquisition. In the bad old days they used the rack and thumbscrews, but nowadays they may be hoping that the harshness of unpredictably lengthy prison conditions will induce the prisoner to CONFESS.”

He proposed withdrawing from the ECHR as well as from participation in the EAW. We were able to cooperate with police forces within the EU before the EAW came into being and he urged that the UK should withdraw at once from the EAW, and replace it with an arrangement similar to that which prevailed before the EAW was brought in.”

Although criminal law may seem an esoteric issue, given how few of us are likely to find ourselves being charged with an offence, it is actually very important. “Criminal law is the basis of State power, and seizing control of the criminal law is essential if one is to take over an existing State, or to build a new State, as the EU seeks to do.  Why? Because the essential distinguishing feature of any State is the ability to use violent coercion on the bodies of the citizens – legally….Different peoples with different value-systems have different ideas of Right and Wrong, what is Justice and what is Injustice. We see this with crystal clarity when we consider Sharia law. But in any case, the criminal laws are the handle for regulating State power over the individual.  It is therefore in the criminal laws that the safeguards of our FREEDOM are to be found.”

So Brexit will not truly be Brexit unless we are free of the power of an alien legal system. “The two systems cannot co-exist in the same state. One must prevail.” These same comments could equally apply to Sharia Law as well.

The talks were followed by a lively question-and-answer session. 

Edward’s introduction can be downloaded here

Anne Marie’s speech can be  downloaded here

and Torquil’s speech can be downloaded here.

Brexit means…..?

We now have less than three months to wait until Mrs May will invoke Article 50 and we formally begin the process of leaving the EU.  This means we will finally see her “Brexit means Brexit ” statement fleshed out, although it is doubtful if we will know all the detail by the end of March, especially as there are likely to be a good few twists and turns between the invocation of Article 50 and Independence Day.

During 2017 the Campaign for an Independent Britain will continue to fight for the best possible Brexit deal, working alongside other like-minded individuals and organisations. We will let you more as our plans develop, but here are a few guidelines which we believe will help ensure Brexit is successful.

Firstly, Brexit DOES NOT mean a trade-off between single market access and free movement of people from the EU. If the Government is considering remaining in the European Economic Area (EEA) – possibly by re-joining EFTA, the European Free Trade Area – as an interim position, the “four freedoms” of the Single Market are not indivisible for a non-EU country, in spite of claims to the contrary by the likes of Guy Verhofstadt, the former Belgian Prime Minister.

Iceland suspended free movement of capital following its banking crisis and, as has been pointed out on this website and elsewhere, Liechtenstein imposed restrictions on free movement of people over 20 years ago. Readers may remember that David Cameron’s “deal”  included a so-called “emergency brake”  – an agreement with the other 27 member states that if we voted to remain in the EU, we could restrict the in-work benefits paid to migrants for four years.

All Mr Cameron was doing was asking permission to apply Article 112 of the EEA agreement. Outside the EU, if we took the EFTA route, we wouldn’t have to ask the 27 member states and could impose far tougher restrictions than merely restricting benefits. Like Liechtenstein, we could drastically limit the numbers too. Liechtenstein has done nothing more than making use of an article in an existing agreement. We could do the same if the government chooses to go down the EFTA route.

Of course, we do not know if this is Mrs May’s plan, but it is inconceivable, given the number of on-line articles and research papers which have addressed this subject, that she and her advisers are not aware of Article 112 and Liechtenstein’s use of it. It is high time that the canard of the indivisibility of the “four freedoms” was laid to rest once and for all.

So what else does Brexit mean?

Firstly, freedom from the European Court of Justice. UK law and its courts must be the final arbiter of British justice.  We should pull out of participation in the European Arrest Warrant, which has resulted in UK residents being sent for trial abroad on hearsay evidence.  Furthermore, Brexit must lead to the return of trial by jury and other features of our historic legal system which have gradually been eroded by our membership of the EU.

Next, Freedom from any involvement with the European Defence Agency and an independent foreign policy. We should obviously work together with the EU where it is mutually beneficial so to do, but we should  not be involved with the EU’s empire building in the Balkans or former soviet republics such as the Ukraine.

Brexit must mean an end to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). As John Ashworth has argued, the concept of “Community waters”, the quota system, and the ridiculous amount of fish caught by boats from other EU member states in what are our national waters by right is a disgrace that has cost thousands of jobs in the fishing industry. The opportunity to revive our coastal communities through a well-designed fishing policy on similar lines to the Faroese scheme must not be passed over.

A replacement to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) must also be designed. Unlike the CFP, which hardly benefits any UK fishermen at all (apart from those who have bought quota and then re-sell for profit), the CAP’s single farm payment is a lifeline for many in the agricultural sector. As an interim measure, a single payment system managed in Westminster rather than Brussels may be the answer, but looking further ahead, something more imaginative is essential as the CAP, initially designed to support small French farmers, has never been a good way to manage farming in the UK.

Finally, Brexit means not only taking the UK out of the EU but taking the EU out of the hearts of UK citizens. Schoolchildren and students have suffered years of indoctrination through pro-EU propaganda.  They will be the biggest beneficiaries of Brexit, but as anyone who has taken part in debates on the EU in schools and universities has discovered,  most of them don’t realise it at the moment.

So there will be much to keep us in the Campaign for an Independent Britain busy as 2017 approaches. On that note, may we wish all our members and supporters a Happy New Year.

 

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

So said the angels when they announced the birth of our Lord to the shepherds on the hills outside Bethlehem over 2,000 years ago. And in that spirit at this festive time of year I thought I should break off from the more angst-ridden feelings I might have and instead offer some well-meant advice, whether the recipients want it or not.

The truth is that over the past few days, I’ve come to the conclusion that I am mightily glad that I am not a Supreme Court Judge. Having watched some of the proceedings earlier this month and read some of the submissions (not all I will admit), it is clear to me that the issues with which they are asked to grapple are complex indeed. Complex enough to give anyone indigestion over their Xmas pud.

Now to me the overall issues are quite straightforward. Governments have routinely agreed to European Union (and before that EEC) treaties using the royal prerogative, so I can see no good reason why they cannot repeal those same treaties in the same way.

No doubt the devil is in the detail. Which is how all those highly paid lawyers make such a fat living, and good luck to them.

No, the advice I wish to give is more about presentation than about content. We all know that the law needs to be applied impartially, without fear or favour and that justice needs to be seen to be done. On such a highly fraught issues as triggering Article 50 this is going to be difficult.

There is undoubtedly a worry, perhaps even a fear, abroad that the wealthy, well connected elites who want us to stay in the European Union are going to use their wealth and connections to try to achieve those ends. If the judges are going to have their ruling accepted they need to lay that ghost to rest.

It was for this reason that I thought it a shame that all the judges are sitting on this case. It is usual for only some of the judges to sit on a case. That would have been quite in order and would have raised little or no comment. But instead we have all of them sitting – including two about whom questions have been raised. That alone smacks of sticking two fingers up to the concerned members of the public and is not a good start.

When the judgment comes I would suggest that it should be written in clear and precise English. If there are any precedents, they need to be explained. If there is any legal jargon, that needs to be explained. This document is going to be pored over by far more people than normally read legal judgments, Many of those folks, like me, are not lawyers and may struggle to understand fully complex legal jargon. If justice is to be seen to be done, this judgment will need to be delivered in plain English.

Having looked at some other cases relating to the EU, that in itself is going to be a difficult and demanding job. But if it is not done that way then whichever side loses may well feel that they have somehow been hoodwinked by clever lawyers, and that is not going to help anyone.

Merry Christmas!

The tyranny of the majority

(This letter was sent by our Chairman to several local papers in the Midlands)

6th December 2016

Sir,

“The Tyranny of the Majority” is Sir John Major’s complaint of the EU referendum result. He, Tony Blair and friends are seeking to overturn it by the old EU trick of sending people to vote again until they give the “right” answer – that is, one favourable to the EU, which then becomes our lord and master for another forty years or so.

Looking across the Atlantic, we see the remarkable victory of Mr. Trump. The Albany Atlas and Argus once described a presidential candidate as “a slang-whanging stump speaker of which all parties are ashamed”. But that was Abraham Lincoln!

Mr. Trump won in spite of such widely held opinions about him. He did not win a majority of popular votes but a majority in the Electoral College where votes are apportioned to states so that the influence of the most populous states is moderated in this enormous country. It is one of the checks and balances which the Founding Fathers built into the constitution. They also provided that each state should have two Senators – from the smallest to the largest.

Considering all the fuss which the Americans have since made about spreading democracy around the world – often at the point of a gun – it is remarkable how little their Founding Fathers had to say about it. They were classically educated men and knew that all previous democracies had ended in dictatorship or disaster.

So to them “democracy” was a politically incorrect word, meaning more or less what “populism”means to Guardian readers today. As John Smith of Roanoke Virginia put it “Too democratical a constitution and we have but exchanged King George for King Numbers” . Sir John Major appears to agree. Except he does not want King George but Emperor Jean-Claude Juncker, his heirs and successors to rule over us.

Most people agree that Tony Blair politicised the civil service. He also did the same to the administration of justice to fit the EU mould. Nobody was clamouring for a Supreme Court but our previous arrangement with Law Lords, who also sat in the House of Lords, did not fit the Napoleonic model. New Labour aspired to “ continental-style Ministry of Justice” and simply imposed it. But our Supreme Court is, in fact, subordinate to the so-called European Court of Justice.

Long live Emperor Jean-Claude! His predecessor, Senhor Barroso ( the erstwhile Marxist now promoted to glory with Goldman Sachs) said the EU was an empire and he was in a position to know! Major, Blair and company are its faithful subjects.

Yours faithfully

Edward Spalton

When is a conflict of interest not a conflict of interest?

There has been a good deal of comment recently about the coming Supreme Court case regarding Article 50. I thought it might be worth looking at the background to see if it illuminates the current situation.

To recap: The case is going to be heard by the Supreme Court – a group of 11 extremely senior judges who have the duty of deciding on the point of law under discussion without personal prejudice or bias. But one judge, Lady Hale, has already questioned – in a speech in Kuala Lumpur of all places – if Article 50 could be passed by a simple Act of Parliament or if “it would have to be a comprehensive replacement of the 1972 act.” All before she has heard a word of evidence in the case.

Lord Neuberger, meanwhile, is married to Angela Holdsworth, whose views about Leave voters are perhaps best described as “robust”. She has also commented on the point of law at issued saying “It seems unlikely that a PM could trigger Article 50 without Parliament’s approval.”

The Supreme Court responded to suggestions that Neuberger and Hale might care to step aside in this case by saying that it was “absolutely confident that no breach of the code of conduct had occurred”.

Well, maybe.

But the point about a conflict of interest is not whether anything improper was done behind closed doors – which can be difficult to prove  – but whether a reasonable person might conclude that some improper might have been done.

In legal terms, the test case here is the 1924 action of Rex vs Sussex Justices. The clerk of the court in a case of a motoring charge retired with the magistrates, taking with him all the documentation. It was the clerk’s job to answer any questions that the magistrates had about the documentation while they considered their verdict. The defendant was found guilty. But it later tranpired that the clerk also worked for the firm of solicitors who were suing the defendant in the civil courts.

Unsurprisingly the defendant appealed on the grounds that the clerk had a conflict of interest. The clerk and magistrates explained that the clerk had taken no part in the decision and had not even been asked any questions. Hearing the appeal, Lord Chief Justice Hewart accepted that the neither the clerk nor the magistrates had acted improperly nor had they intended to act improperly. But that, he said, was not the point.

Hewart declared in words that have resounded through the British legal system ever since that “it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.”

Turning to our present case, one could accept that Lady Hale was merely musing on hypothetical questions while on a break in Kuala Lumpur. One could accept that Lord Neuberger will not be cowed by an angry wife glaring at him across the breakfast table. But that is not the point. As Lord Hewart said “even a suspicion” is enough.

And yet our Europhile Establishment seems determined to plough ahead and allow these two folks to decide on the issue no matter what they or their close relatives may have said or believe.

So, to return to my original question, “when is a conflict of interest not a conflict of interest?” The answer appears to be “when it favours the cause of the European Union.”

Mrs May must suspend the EAW now

By Torquil Dick-Erikson (c) 2016

In April 1997, at a specially convened seminar in Spain, the EU Commission unveiled its “Corpus Juris project”, for a single system of criminal law for the whole of the EU, based entirely on Napoleonic-inquisitorial principles. At that stage it was nothing more than an embryonic criminal code, but had it been inflicted on us, it would have swept away our own Magna Carta-based system, in particular our Trial by Jury and Lay Magistrates (art. 26.1), our Habeas Corpus (art. 20.3.g) and our protection against double jeopardy (art. 27.2). I happened to be among 141 European jurists invited to attend, as guests of the Commission. I was included in the Italian delegation, as a last-minute replacement. The head of the Italian delegation had read an article I had published in an Italian law journal and had been impressed enough to invite me to come along and fill an empty slot.

Since then, I have been following subsequent developments in the area of European criminal law, including the introduction of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the establishment of its own paramilitary, lethally armed, police force, the European Gendarmerie Force (EGF). Six national gendarmeries are currently being trained and drilled side by side, in a location in Northern Italy, to weld them into a single European corps. They will then be deployed all over the European Union, in any state with its “consent” (art. 6.3 Treaty of Velsen, signed by EGF participant states).

In 2012, when she was Home Secretary, Mrs May said of the Eurogendarmerie, “Of course” we will call upon them, “onto British soil”,  “if we see the need”. Since she became Prime Minister, I can find no evidence that she has ever disowned this statement. What is more, no one, apart from Christopher Gill and myself, has been calling on Mrs May to refuse unevidenced European Arrest Warrants with immediate effect.

Mrs May has insisted that “Brexit means Brexit”. If she is serious about this, EU authorities must no longer be allowed to arrest and deport people from Britain at their whim – i.e., without shewing any substantive evidence.  The EAW legislation specifically states that the authority issuing an EAW should not provide any indication of evidence of a prima facie case and the country receiving a EAW is not allowed to ask for any evidence but has to trust the requesting country blindly. Past experience shows that we cannot do this as their systems of criminal justice are totally different from our own. They allow a suspect to be arrested and kept in prison for many months “pending investigation”, with no right to a public hearing nor obligation on the prosecution to exhibit any evidence during this time..

We live in a country that has been remarkably favoured – partly due to our island location, partly because of the protection provided by what was once the world’s most powerful navy. We have thus been spared the violent changes which our continental friends have seen to their governments within living memory.

For them, the concept of heavily-armed paramilitary police like the EGF is quite familiar. They see them every day on their streets. They will be less concerned that we would have been that policing in the EU will eventually look like, feel like, and be like a military occupation by a hostile armed foreign force.

In this year’s referendum campaign, little was made of the vast difference between the UK’s criminal justice and policing systems and those on the Continent. At first glance, it hardly seems like a winning argument as most people in the UK have never been before a court of law, do not have a criminal record and do not expect to. This is to miss the point.  We have had such a long and unbroken history of peaceful constitutional development that we have forgotten that, at the end of the day, criminal law is actually the handle granting complete control over a State and all its inhabitants.

Criminal law means police, handcuffs and prisons. It means the physically forceful, enforcement powers of the State over the citizens. It is under the criminal law that the State can (or cannot) send its officers into your home, breaking down the door, hauling you out of your bed and off to a prison. The State holds a monopoly of legal, even lethal, force over the citizens, and the exercise of this power is regulated by the criminal law. In our country, the State has exercised this power in a considerably more benign way than across the Channel. For 800 years its powers in England have been limited by Magna Carta. On the continent they have been enlarged and deepened by the Inquisition, with methods as adopted and adapted by Napoleon.

It is therefore critical, if Brexit is to mean Brexit, that the inevitable co-operation that will be needed between the UK and the EU on matters of criminal justice must grant no concessions to any aspect of EU criminal justice which violates basic safeguards of our own historic system. Any arrangement must include a repudiation of the European Arrest Warrant and the solemn undertaking that there will never ever be any invitation for the EGF or any other armed EU body to set foot on UK soil.

If the EAW is properly presented as “Arrest and lengthy imprisonment on no evidence and with no right to a public hearing for many months”, which is what it is, but which was not made clear when Parliament voted to reconfirm it in November 2012, it will be very hard for opponents to argue against its immediate suspension, as from NOW. And procedurally a case can surely be made for Parliament to reverse its earlier decision, with immediate effect. We could have remained opted out from the EAW without violating any part of the Lisbon Treaty.

If the government suspended the acceptance of unevidenced EAWs with immediate effect, this would show that Mrs May really is serious when she says “Brexit means Brexit”.

Unfortunately, last week’s online Express carries articles showing that the government is actually going in the opposite direction. I quote:- “Britain will remain a part of Europol despite our exit from the bloc,” Policing Minister Brandon Lewis has told Parliament. This is not only “until we leave”, for He added: “The Government is exploring options for cooperation with Europol once the UK has left the EU.”

We must remember that Europol is not just an extension of Interpol; it is the embryo of what Helmuth Kohl called “a European FBI”. Once they get their boots on our soil we shall never be able to get rid of them, except by force, for they will only take orders from Brussels. The government surely has a duty not to let matters reach a state of armed confrontation. If we get signed up to Europol’s extended powers as is now suggested, and  we remain subject to the EU’s power to have any of us arrested and transported with no questions asked, we shall be always under the heel of Brussels. If Brexit means Brexit, this is unacceptable

This matter must be publicised, far and wide, beyond just the readership of the online Daily Express. The people must be told!

Brexiteers in Parliament, of whatever party, should raise their voices and demand that Mrs May must:

1) give a solemn assurance that we shall never ever under any circumstances whatsoever allow armed EU units to set foot on British soil;

2) suspend with immediate effect any unevidenced EAWs that are received in Britain.