A New Bill Of Rights. Why Human Rights Are So Dangerous. The threat to common law.

David Cameron intends to introduce a new “law” which will, according to the Daily Express, make clear that the UK Parliament is “supreme”.

ARTICLE |  | BY MIKE ROBINSON
David Cameron, Nick Clegg

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Editor

Cameron is using the European Convention on Human Rights as the “problem” for which his solution is to throw out the British Constitution. His intention is to give the appearance of being anti-EU in order to undermine Common Law and impose European style human rights legislation in the guise of a “new bill of rights”.
Of course, in a crass attempt to appear that he opposes such a move, the very man originally tasked with implementing a new bill of rights, Nick Clegg, is pretending that it in doing what he is doing in the way he has done it, David Cameron is “turning [his] back on a long, long British tradition of upholding human rights across the world.”

The Danger of Human Rights

The European model of “human rights” is dangerous. It is a model which we should be fighting tooth and nail to prevent taking hold in this country. It is based upon the premise that as a starting point, humans have no rights. The only rights that humans have at the end of the day are those written in legislation, whatever the source of that legislation might be.
To reiterate, then: the basis of human rights law is that humans have no rights except those the political elite decide to grace us with.
So when commentators write that human rights “are not something that can be repealed or taken away”, this is a downright lie. When they say that human rights “extend to everyone”, they only do so within the scope of the range of rights expressed in the legislation.

Common Law

Here in Britain, we have taken a different view for centuries. This is a view diametrically opposite to the European view. Here in Britain we have unlimited inalienable rights. Or at least, the only limitation on our rights is where we infringe upon someone elses. In other words this nation is built on the presumption of liberty. We can do as we please unless the law says we can’t. And by law, I mean common law. Not judge led, jury led. And not Parliamentary legislation, better known as Parliamentary whim.

The New Bill Of Rights

Any attempt to implement a new bill of rights is, then, a deliberate act of fraud by Cameron and Clegg. They are playing a game of faux opposition, not only between themselves, but with the EU as well. In doing so they intend to remove our inalienable rights and replace them with very limited, very transient “human rights”. In doing so they intend to create a “Bill of Rights” which just happens to have the same name as the 1689 Bill of Rights. Their hope is that we will soon forget the 1689 Bill of Rights, and embrace their fascist alternative.
The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

3 Responses to “A New Bill Of Rights. Why Human Rights Are So Dangerous. The threat to common law.”

  1. Anonymous says:

    I believe Cameron killed his disabled son Ivan as an offering to Lucifer. What True Englishman calls their son Ivan? Cameron is an inbred twat 5th cousin twice removed to that other inbred twat QE2. Probably both Rothschilds. How many people know that there were several attempts on Queen Victoria’s life? She was hated and hissed at in public. None of her children were sired by Albert. When will the Country/World wake up from this nightmare?

  2. fattist says:

    unalienable and inalienable . two totally different meanings,maybe the author should look up the difference. And common law is commercial in nature,bad bad journalism

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.