Blog

European Court of Human Rights – Your views, Part 3

The European Court of Human Rights intervened to stop the deportation flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda.  The UK is a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.

We asked your views on:  How should the government react to the ruling by the ECHR?

Back to Part 2On to Part 4

Maureen Martin of the Christian Peoples Alliance.

“The desire for a better life is not a valid reason to illegally enter a nation and expect to be welcomed with open arms.  They must go through the process legally”

This is the now very familiar battle between the rule of law and woke social justice or asylum seekers versus economic migrants.  Nations without controlled, patrolled and hard boarders are not sovereign nations at all but merely what the USA calls sanctuaries for whosoever.  The UK government has a responsibility to its legal citizens to ensure they carefully vet whom we allow into this country, this process must be governed by the rule of law and not fuzzy feelings of social justice policies, otherwise known as the European Court of Human Rights.

The ECHR is making rulings based upon individual appeals and of course as they are all in basically the same predicament the court has ruled similarly in each case.  For one of these individuals the argument is being made that he was seeking a better life in the UK and would still be vulnerable in Rwanda.  If the vulnerability of the individual is the issue, would he be vulnerable wherever he settled? What makes Rwanda a dangerous place for him? This is not clear. In addition to which seeking a better life makes him an economic migrant and not eligible for asylum seeker status.  This must be addressed as the cry of human rights activists seems to focus on this point; it is not humane to deny someone the chance of a better life. The answer to that is if a better life is the goal, then the rule of law must be adhered to.  The desire for a better life is not a valid reason to illegally enter a nation and expect to be welcomed with open arms.  They must go through the process legally.

The UK government should pursue its mandate to protect our boarders and enforce its immigration laws and policies.  The message must be sent to other nations, human traffickers, and drug smugglers that the UK is not open for illegal immigration business. If they know that asylum seekers will be sent to another closer/bordering nation it will deter those considering making the trip across the Chanel risking their lives in the process. 

We have to look no further than the USA to ascertain that such policies are extremely effective.  During the Trump administration the Stay in Mexico Policy was instrumental in controlling the Southern border with amazing results.  The current administration has rolled out the welcome mat for whosoever resulting in record illegal immigration numbers, the highest in 97 years. We do not want the same in the UK.

Zack Stiling of the Heritage Party.

“it refuses to recognize the merit in deterring would-be asylum seekers from making the dangerous journeys across the English Channel”

The interference of the European Court of Human Rights in the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda is disgraceful, but sadly predictable. I strongly doubt that any flights will ever go ahead, because the E.C.H.R. is unlikely to relent and I do not believe the Johnson administration really cares about cracking down on illegal immigration. Having mixed a preposterous cocktail of socialism, totalitarianism and spectacular economic cretinism during its first 2½ years, who can honestly expect the Johnson government to successfully implement a genuinely conservative policy?

Through its decision to suspend the flights, the E.C.H.R. has given up the pretence of existing to protect human rights and quite openly revealed its politicized agenda. The deportations do not contravene any part of the European Convention on Human Rights and yet the Court is happy to remain silent when serious contraventions do occur in Europe (the Convention is supposed to guarantee the right to personal liberty, freedom of expression and freedom of association, all of which are disregarded by so-called public health measures and the criminalization of ‘hate speech’). All migrants do, of course, have a right to live in Britain provided they follow the correct legal procedures and satisfy at least the same criteria as are required of all native-born British citizens.

The E.C.H.R. would appear to prefer the policy mooted in May of destroying a Yorkshire village by filling it with 1500 asylum seekers, at enormous cost to the British taxpayer. By the same margin, it refuses to recognize the merit in deterring would-be asylum seekers from making the dangerous journeys across the English Channel which have already resulted in dozens of them perishing. Perhaps the E.C.H.R. prefers them dead, or maybe it just thinks British resources should be stretched even further by having coastguards posted on 24-hour dinghy-watch.

An important distinction which must be made is that the right to life is the right not to be killed, not an entitlement to be spoon-fed by Nanny Taxpayer. If we presume that the E.C.H.R. would rather claim the latter (and we must presume much, for it is being so suspiciously cagey), we can be certain that it has abandoned any interest it may have had in protecting actual human rights in favour of trying to impose costly and community-destroying socialism on countries within its jurisdiction. To suggest that working taxpayers who are struggling to make ends meet and young workers with no hope of ever buying a house should have money taken from them and given to people with no entitlement to British residence is much worse than crassly insulting.

As with the E.U., we again find ourselves being coerced into acting against our own interests by an unelected body. The best thing the government can possibly do is withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. As nice as it is to have such a convention, which looks on the surface to be so righteous and upstanding, its value is nil when existing clauses are ignored and non-existent ones are fabricated and used against us. Britain would be much better off with her own intelligently drafted human rights constitution.

Cllr Mary Lawes, The Foundation Party, Folkestone Town Council.

“We campaigned and won the right to be a sovereign nation. We must leave the ECHR and bring in a UK owned ‘Bill of Rights’”

Decisions taken by a foreign body on UK & it’s citizens, must be stopped at all costs. 

When the rights of foreigners come before the country’s own citizens it’s time to leave. This is something that should have been done at the same time as leaving the EU. We campaigned and won the right to be a sovereign nation. We must leave the ECHR and bring in a UK owned ‘Bill of Rights’. This must be agreed by the people of this country not Parliament. 

If in many years to come this country can sustain taking in large numbers of economic migrants, then great. However, the infrastructure is not in place for its own people never mind those illegally entering the UK. The country also needs to reduce the amount of work visa being issued to many countries around the world. 1,000,000 foreign nationals came to the UK on work Visa’s last year during Covid 19.

I, as a local Councillor see local people having to go back home to parents with their families in overcrowded housing condition. Families being separated and moved to other parts of the country. If you have a partner and cannot prove how long you have lived together you cannot live with them if the Council is helping them out. 

In my local town there are no private properties available to rent as London Boroughs send those on their waiting lists to us and other towns. London Borough’s pay large deposits to landlords and agents to guarantee those on their waiting lists above locals. No social housing is being built even though there is such a huge need. 

We have insufficient medical services, too few GP’s, patients unable to see a GP, too few beds in ICU units, overcrowded A&E departments. 

Schools are overcrowded and having to spend time teaching foreign children English. Children leaving primary and secondary school illiterate. Insufficient vocational education, too many children being pushed for academic education. Pushing vast numbers to university instead of training for future carpenters, electricians, bricklayers, engineers, or plumbers. 

If the country continues the way it is going, we will end up with most of the country’s citizens getting poorer with no housing, no education, mental health continuing to rocket. People dying as they would be unable to get any medical care. 

People calling for more migrants to come, pushing wages down while trying to fight for better wages and conditions for those already here, is perverse. Businesses looking for cheap labour and rubbing their hands together.  Let’s look after our own first and when we have improved our infrastructure and helped all our own then by all means put infrastructure in place and bring in those in need at an agreed number. 

This whole of Parliament has for the last 6 years been pitting people against each other on all these matters. We need to have a grown-up conversation about this country going forward but this useless Parliament are incapable of doing so. 

The people are the masters not the servants – we are stronger together. 

Back to Part 2On to Part 4

Image: detailsoriginalamended.

European Court of Human Rights – Your views, Part 2

The European Court of Human Rights intervened to stop the deportation flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda.  The UK is a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.

We asked your views on:  How should the government react to the ruling by the ECHR?

Back to Part 1 | On to Part 3

Freedom campaigner and former Brexit Party candidate Peter Sonnex.

“the ECtHR certainly had a role post WWII as human rights were consolidated and as nation states matured their domestic, accountable, justice systems. More recently, ECtHR judgements have been increasingly ignored, and therefore made irrelevant without enforcement”

I think we should leave the orbit of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the basis we have a mature domestic justice system (albeit compromised for now by the relatively recent Supreme Court construct which can be fixed…). However, leaving is not straight forward as the ECtHR is tied to our membership of the 47 nation Council of Europe (what’s that all about?), and remains a condition of the UK/EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

I worked in Whitehall for 5 years servicing UK commitments to a number of international treaties and conventions. Some were bilateral, multilateral or bound to international and supranational organisations for their administration. Clear to me was that the UK participated in, and contributed financially, to pretty much the lot!

Other countries, perhaps more discerning in their national interests, attended fewer. Some smaller state delegations were funded by non-government organisations where a vote was effectively bought to promote a particular outcome…

Special international courts may have a place where, with the agreement of affected states, domestic competence and capacity does not exist – often post conflict. The court is convened and financed for as long as it is necessary. Recent examples are for Cambodia, Former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and the Rwanda Genocide.

The Council of Europe with the ECtHR certainly had a role post WWII as human rights were consolidated and as nation states matured their domestic, accountable, justice systems. More recently, ECtHR judgements have been increasingly ignored, and therefore made irrelevant without enforcement, by Russia and Ukraine (and Italy!?) in particular.

Russia has been suspended from the Council of Europe following its further interventions in Ukraine and, oddly, is therefore no longer even required to be bound. Any future special international tribunal for Ukraine could only be constituted with the agreement of Russia…

Bottom Line: the UK should leave the ECtHR on the basis it is expensive, not accountable, and is no longer relevant, credible or effective in the promotion and defence of human rights. As with many international and supranational organisations I saw in operation, they are toothless, self-licking lollipops…

Councillor Sandy Wallace of the Scottish Libertarian Party.

“I believe to an almost religious extent in free-market economics, and accordingly, I am an enthusiast for mass economic migration….  But a government must be in control of its borders, or it is not a sovereign government”

Firstly, let’s bear in mind that the ECHR ruling was not that the deportations should be abandoned, which is beyond their legal competence (as well BTW their intellectual competence). The ECHR ruled that the deportations should not go ahead until all (British) legal avenues had been exhausted. That’s actually fair enough. It’s our own fault that we have an idiotic level of no-risk judicial oversight where activist lawyers operating pro-Bono or on left-wing crowdfunding can cause delays without risking the award of costs again them.

Short term the government should react by pressing ahead, legally, with this policy. Medium-term they should react by closing loopholes that permit this level of legal politically motivated time-wasting challenge. Long term, as with all international obligations, from the UN downwards, the UK government should consider whether or not it wishes to remove itself from them. It is a nuclear option that should not be taken lightly, but neither should it be regarded as beyond consideration.

I believe to an almost religious extent in free-market economics, and accordingly, I am an enthusiast for mass economic migration. I place no upper limit on how many migrants the UK should accept. I would be comfortable with a net positive of half a million per year if they were carefully vetted, and yes, I would joyously lock block the Green belt to enable it.  But a government must be in control of its borders, or it is not a sovereign government. I am content to see illegal immigrants deported with a life ban from entering the UK.

Opposition to illegal immigration does not require opposition to economic migrancy.

Nick Mane, local Brexiteer.

“The truth is, instead of helping poorer countries with aid and investment the EU decided to exploit it’s cheap youth and talent with an open door invitation”

The recent ruling from the European Court of Human Rights highlights some of many gargantuan evils which European Institutions, including the EU are continuing to rush headfirst to adopt.

The truth is, instead of helping poorer countries with aid and investment the EU decided to exploit it’s cheap youth and talent with an open door invitation. Mass immigration was the worst thing they could have done, just ask the EU’s abandoned, ageing rural populations and the bereaved families. Immigration was not the answer but it suited Merkel’s aspirations to import cheap labour at the cost of all Europeans to grow productivity.

Thousands drowned, countless girls raped and forced into the sex industry and thousands left to die in the Sahara dessert by crooked people traffickers. All this for immigrants who can afford people trafficker fees of £20,000, enough to build them a home in their own country.

This was sold as an humanitarian act but when did Angela Merkel ever care about all the Greek pensioners who had their pensions stripped and public servants who were thrown out of their jobs or the massive EU youth unemployment caused across Europe in the aftermath of the 2007 crisis?  The EU protected the Euro by not allowing their member states to spend on job creation, simple. They certainly never cared for high wages for their own workers, so it opened the floodgates to mass immigration, not because Merkel’s a loving, caring, matriarch but with the sole intention to import cheap labour.

All this because of Centralised, Unaccountable  Power. Nobody cares in distant, lavish offices for what happens to people in Watford or Kilmarnock! Decentralising power, taking influence and resolutions closer to the electorate has been the rallying cry across the whole of the UK for decades simply because the best people to identify and resolve issues are those closest to the issues.

Brexit was supposed to free us from EU perils, to return our supremacy of Laws and borders but Boris, being the consummate politician, tried to keep everyone happy by selling our Laws and borders out to the EU and splitting up the UK. Ultimately, we were all sold out.

So here we are, the EU caused this massive problem and as we no longer control our borders and laws, the EU is flexing it’s muscles to say they still rule us.  Our only rational way forwards might include any or all of the following :-

  • Ditch the European Human Rights Act and replace it with our own Bill.
  • Ditch European Law supremacy
  • Ditch Boris
  • Invest in the UK in sectors such as manufacturing, technologies, infrastructure.
  • Defund any legal service which chooses to cynically exploit our legal funding system
  • Create our own basic constitution to protect us from abuse of power from our own politicians. We had no choice over lockdowns, no choice in handing over sovereignty to a foreign power, no protection over police investigating the public for the ‘wrong type of thinking’.
  • Make cancel culture a criminal act, we need our history, our comedians, our freedom of speech.
  • Make the BBC impartial or defund it.

It would also be really nice if the UK has an opposition party which is capable of challenging for power, a party which is practical, capable of independent, rational, coherent thinking to fill the vacuum which is sucking us into a void of mad shouty people intent on dominating debates.

The Loony left is not only back with a vengeance, it’s now mainstream.

Back to Part 1 | On to Part 3

Image: details, original, amended.

European Court of Human Rights – Your views, Part 1

The European Court of Human Rights intervened to stop the deportation flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda.  The UK is a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.

We asked your views on:  How should the government react to the ruling by the ECHR?

On to Part 2

Les Beaumont

Les Beaumont stood for the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in Pitshanger Ward, London Borough of Ealing in May’s local elections.

“Whatever the outcome, the government should withdraw from The Convention and replace the existing UK Human Rights Act, which enshrines The Convention into British law”

As a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, the UK really has no choice but to follow The ECHR’s urgent interim measure and await its full judgement.  I’m not sure if the UK can appeal the interim order in the meantime.

Whatever the outcome, the government should withdraw from The Convention and replace the existing UK Human Rights Act, which enshrines The Convention into British law, with an Act that provides the same protections as The Convention but with the UK Supreme Court as the final arbiter.  It should also commit to enshrine any future changes to The Convention into UK law, subject to there being no jurisdictions outside the UK courts.

Having served notice of its withdrawal from The Convention, the government should urgently consider ignoring any rulings of The ECHR and rely on the rulings of the UK Supreme Court on those matters.

Brexit campaigner Georgina Guillem.

“Human Rights did not begin with the ECHR the UK has always had the reputation for setting high standards both domestically and internationally”

The ECHR has stopped the first fight of Asylum Seekers to Rwanda.  This of course should have been considered as all European institutions (EU or otherwise) will do all it can to thwart whatever the UK does to try to address this problem.  Likewise, all the do-gooders that protest.  There must be a solution to this ever-increasing problem of mostly young men arriving by boat without trying to be accepted through the right channels.  Human Rights did not begin with the ECHR the UK has always had the reputation for setting high standards both domestically and internationally.

Not to honour a treaty once signed is wrong, however the safeguard of the UK must be considered, therefore it is also wrong not to put its wellbeing first. A true Brexiteer wanted to leave the EU, all the institutions of Europe and return full sovereignty without a deal, had we done this we might not have had all this agony.  Also the Northern Ireland Mess might have been avoided.

Brexiter Jeremy Wraith who has contributed several articles to our site.

“Why did the interviewer on Sky not ask him why they did not walk into one of the British embassies in the many safe countries they crossed and ask for asylum there, France in particular?”

I watched an interview on Sky TV with the Chief Executive of the Refugee Council.  He said that the refugees have a human right to come to the UK and claim asylum here as the refugees in Palestine cannot walk into the British Embassy in Palestine to ask for asylum. Why did the interviewer on Sky not ask him why they did not walk into one of the British embassies in the many safe countries they crossed and ask for asylum there, France in particular?

I firmly believe that the UK should cancel its involvement in the ECHR as the UK is perfectly capable of defending the human rights of its own citizens.  So why are we relying on foreign bodies to dictate our human rights policies for us. 

The quicker we withdraw from many other European and EU treaties and rules the better!

“If a signatory country is prevented from deciding who can enter and, therefore, whom it can legally deport, it is no longer sovereign”

Chris Scott stood for Reform UK in the Horley Central and South Ward of Reigate & Banstead Council, in May’s local elections.

I’m no lawyer, nor even a student, so my response will be based mainly on what I’ve gleaned from media interviews and discussions since the eleventh-hour ECHR ruling on the planned Home Office deportation flight to Kigali last week.

Although there was a lack of transparency by the ECHR on which judge, or judges were hurriedly called in to rule on deportations that had just been ruled legal by our own Supreme Court – the third English court to consider the appellants’ case – I guess it was unlikely that the Home Secretary would have been prepared to flout the decision on this occasion. I wonder, however, if the Home Office lawyers were expecting it and, if so, whether Miss Patel had been warned of the probability. Flouting international law is not something one would want or expect HMG to do in haste.

The UK was, evidently, the chief author of the original convention on human rights for Europe in the aftermath of the horrific events that were revealed during and after WW2. That we should have drafted it was right and proper. We had been the only European combatant to maintain our democratic freedoms during the war and had played a major part – initially single-handed, but for the stout help of our Empire countries – in saving Europe and much of the world from tyranny.

A court, also bearing the initials ECHR, was created. But, as I understand it, the convention’s original provisions have been extended and others added to the extent that the court seems even to have become a threat to national sovereignty. If a signatory country is prevented from deciding who can enter and, therefore, whom it can legally deport, it is no longer sovereign. Based in the same campus as the European parliament in Strasbourg, one suspects that the Court’s advocates may share similar aspirations to members of the Council of Europe and Eurocrats who, for reasons of their own, wish to lessen the autonomy of the EU’s nation states.

There is, therefore, a strong argument for the UK to withdraw from the ECHR and to give precedence to a new bill of rights seven decades after we framed it. This would doubtless provoke wide international condemnation, much of it sneering and disingenuous, from countries that have in many cases come late to the table of human rights. After all, it started here in Blighty over eight centuries ago with Magna Carta. The UK should continue to hold its head high on human rights and perhaps take a new lead, as we did in 1950.

On to Part 2

Image: details, original, amended.

Podcast Episode 71 – Graham Eardley: The ECHR, N.I. Protocol & The Bruges Group

We are joined by Graham Eardley, a spokesman for The Bruges Group, as we discuss the European Court of Human Rights blocking the Government’s Rwanda plan for asylum seekers and the proposed changes to the Northern Irish Protocol. We then chat with Graham about his background and the great work of The Bruges Group.

Graham can be found on Twitter and Online.

Spreaker

iTunes


Google Podcasts


Podchaser

Podcast Addict
Deezer

Spotify


Stitcher


Castbox

No Passport Required – Wednesday 20th July #ThirdWednesday

Come and meet-up with likeminded freedom lovers, at our No Passport Required drinks at The George, Croydon on Wednesday 20th July, from 7pm. 

We will hold these in association with Dick Delingpole’s #ThirdWednesday Libertarian drinks club. 

Come and meet us at The George. 17–21 George Street, Croydon. CR0 1LA on Wednesday 20th July, from 7pm.

Facebook: https://fb.me/e/3uWcjkVor

Fight For Freedom

by Mike Swadling

In February, I attended The Freedom Association (TFA) Jillian Becker Lecture held in London. Nigel Farage gave this year’s lecture, with an introduction from TFA’s Chairman and former MEP David Campbell Bannerman and a great summary by Chief Executive Andrew Allison.

Farage, as you can expect, gave a great speech covering many topics not least of all the need to fight against Net Zero environmental policies. He stayed for a fantastic question-and-answer, and never looks better than thinking on his feet with a live audience. For me, possibly the best thing about the event was that it was great to meet up with people you know, people you’ve heard of, and new people involved in all sorts of searches for freedom, or as Nigel put it; ‘it felt like old times’.

“The Freedom Association itself has a proud history of supporting freedom in our country. It’s ten principles of a free society cover individual freedom, responsibility, the rule of law, limited government, free markets, national parliamentary democracy”

The Freedom Association itself has a proud history of supporting freedom in our country. It’s ten principles of a free society cover individual freedom, responsibility, the rule of law, limited government, free markets, national parliamentary democracy, and – something in desperate need of bringing to the fore – freedom of speech, expression, and assembly.

It is a great organisation, and I would encourage anyone to join not least for events like this but also because it’s a great way to support the fight for freedom in Britain. The event was also a great opportunity to meet people from difference parties; the Conservatives, the Reform Party, UKIP, the Heritage Party, journalists from the left and right, people from academia, and a range of activists all believing that we have a right to be free.

Events like these are also a great opportunity to make new contacts. I was busy picking up business cards from people in a variety of thinktanks who I certainly hope to persuade to be on our podcast if not at a live event. One of the greatest feelings I got from the experience was the overwhelming sense of community and comfort in not being alone in one’s beliefs.

“going to see ‘Kevin Bloody Wilson’, the Australian singing comic, at a local theatre. All the political correctness we see in life, all the push back against ‘insensitive’ jokes, suddenly disappears when you’re in a theatre full of people singing songs with names to rude for me to mention”

Social media is no substitute for real life meet-ups in the flesh, especially with a large crowd. I had a similar experience recently going to see ‘Kevin Bloody Wilson’, the Australian singing comic, at a local theatre. All the political correctness we see in life, all the push back against ‘insensitive’ jokes, suddenly disappears when you’re in a theatre full of people singing songs with names to rude for me to mention.

But things are improving on this front. We hold a regular Libertarian Drinks here in Croydon as part of Dick Dellingpole’s Third Wednesday group. They are gaining popularity across the country, and you can find your local meet-up on the website. One is due to be set up in Christopher Wilkinson’s home city of Lichfield sometime soon. What’s been excellent for us is seeing the group expand from what started as a pro-Brexit group to include some people too young to vote at the time of the referendum! As we hopefully put lockdown well and truly behind us, in real life is clearly the way forward. In the meantime, the whole Jillian Becker Lecture is now available to watch on YouTube.

This article was originally published in the Blacklist Press, February 14 Free Speech Newsletter.

It is time for the West to stand up to Putin and kick Russia out of Ukraine.

Picture: Every Night for Ukraine 022 Russian Embassy Finland.  Author: rajatonvimma /// VJ Group Random Doctors

On June 7th the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society debated the motion “It is time for the West to stand up to Putin and kick Russia out of Ukraine”.

Mike Swadling proposed the debate, and below is his speech delivered to the society.  As always with this friendly group the debate was good natured, very well opposed and drew out some great views from the audience.

“It is time for the West to stand up to Putin and kick Russia out of Ukraine”

What does this mean?

Of course, in many ways this is already government policy.  Standing up to Putin is exactly what we are doing by supporting front line states, supplying the Ukrainian government, and restricting the operation of Russia’s economy.   So in many ways it means doing exactly what we are doing today.

What it doesn’t need to mean, nor should it, is a direct armed intervention in the Ukraine with NATO forces acting directly against Russia or Russian troops. It would be unwise in the extreme to directly attack another nuclear power, unless you had already set out clearly that their actions were a line that could not be crossed.

“In a line about misjudging a military interaction with a nuclear Soviet Union as it was at the time, the good news was you only had 4 minutes to regret your mistake”

I am reminded of a line from a book I read many years ago during the Cold War, called “Nuclear War, What’s in it for you?”  In a line about misjudging a military interaction with a nuclear Soviet Union as it was at the time, the good news was you only had 4 minutes to regret your mistake.

What we are talking about here is standing up to a bully, an oppressor, and a calculated man who is in his mind making a logical choice to invade the Ukraine, and will if not stopped, go further.  Therefore, we need to stop him and push him back.  It’s worth pondering for a while, where we are at, and how we got to this position?

I’m not entirely sure why the global community has decided national borders matter more than anything else. The fact is we do care about borders, but I’d like to consider for a moment if it is the right or moral choice? 

Nations continue to trade with China as they intern millions of Uyghurs. Allegations of slave Labour and Genocide haven’t led to sanctions against leading members of the Chinese Communist Party, business leaders or the Chinese media. 

Statista the market and consumer data company lists Egypt at the top of the list of worst countries for human rights and rule of law as of 2021, and Amnesty International says “Authorities targeted human rights defenders, opposition politicians and other activists through unlawful summons, coercive questioning, extrajudicial probation measures, criminal investigations, unfair prosecutions and inclusion on a “list of terrorists”, yet we have no sanctions against them.

Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, Amnesty reported the following on Russia: “Torture and other ill-treatment in places of detention remained endemic and prosecutions of perpetrators rare. Enforced disappearances were reported in Chechnya. The authorities failed to address domestic violence. LGBTI people continued to face discrimination”, yet none of this led to sanctions. 

“What makes Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine so dangerous is the very calculated and to his mind logical nature of it.  I want to dismiss any ideas that Putin’s invasion was the act of a mad man”

The things we choose to care about, or more to the point the things we don’t choose to care about, often baffles me, but that doesn’t mean the national borders don’t matter, in fact from the reactions we see all around us we know they clearly do, and we should be profoundly concerned by the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.  What makes Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine so dangerous is the very calculated and to his mind logical nature of it.  I want to dismiss any ideas that Putin’s invasion was the act of a mad man. 

It may not have worked out well, but that is in part because of the decisive action we have taken to support the Ukrainians.  It is worth remembering when the invasion started, no one expected the Ukrainians to last out long or avoid an inevitable defeat. 

Why do I say the invasion was calculated and logical?  Well if I may, can I ask you to cask your minds back to history lessons of Alfred the Great and his sons and grandsons who united the English people, pulling together the Angles and Saxon tribes who had by that time formed into a common people on this island.  Imagine if say the Eastern Anglo tribe of East Anglia, had for some reason stayed separate. 

They had through invasion and forced separation formed a slightly different grouping of English people, with a different but recognisable language.  We had united for some hundreds of years but had just 30 years ago again separated.  Might it be logical to some that we again unite as one people, one country.

Now I’m not suggesting for one moment this is right.  All I am saying is might it seem to some uniting an English people who had been separated at a weak point in the tides of history is a reasonable thing to do.  Well this is in imperfect analogy for the Ukraine and Russia.  Their history does bear similarities. 

The Kiev Rus, the first Russians, are a recognised group from the 800s AD.  The Mongol Horde split the Kiev and Muscovite Russians.  Ukrainians then variously formed parts of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austrian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire, before Catherine the Great united the Russian People, in the Russian Empire. 

By then of course these Kiev Rus, or Ukrainians were a separate people, and Ukrainian nationalism flourished in the 19th Century.  This nationalism led in part to Starlin’s murder of an estimated 4 million Ukrainians in the famines of the 1930s.  The nations finally split again in 1991 with the break-up of the Soviet Union.  Despite this, many in Russia and more than a few in the Ukraine see the ‘Rus’ both Kiev and Muscovite as one people.

Now all this talk of Mongol Hordes and Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealths, may seem from a different era, but maybe if we again look closer to home, where we still have disputes between Protestant and Catholic football teams in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and to a lesser extent Liverpool.  We still live with the threat that the situation in Northern Ireland may become bloody again, Scotland may well vote to leave the Union.  Ireland did join and leave the union, but often people still talk of Cromwell.  Scotland joined the union and people talk of Robert the Bruce and William Wallace.  Wales, especially in Welsh speaking, Plaid Cymru voting, North Wales is separate from England because 1600 years ago our Anglo-Saxon ancestors moved to these islands.

“we have these divisions in a modern tolerant democracy like Britain.  A nation with largely one language, that built an Empire and with it the modern world.  Yet we still hark back into long history’s, Russia and the Ukraine have never really had any of our benefits, it’s no surprise history casts a long shadow there”

My point is we have these divisions in a modern tolerant democracy like Britain.  A nation with largely one language, that built an Empire and with it the modern world.  Yet we still hark back into long history’s, Russia and the Ukraine have never really had any of our benefits, it’s no surprise history casts a long shadow there.

Russia already has Belarus as a de facto vassal state.  With a 1,400 mile border, disputed territory, some of the best ports of the Black Sea, and the opportunity to ensure no foreign troops can be on the Great European Plain for a few hundred extra miles away from Moscow.  It was not the act of a mad man for Putin to invade the Ukraine.  It was from his position in Moscow quite logical.  It’s this logic that means we have to stand up to Putin, and kick Russia out of Ukraine. 

Over 20% of Kazakhstan’s population are native Russian speakers, NATO members Latvia and Estonia both have about 30% of their population as native Russian speakers. Of course these overall numbers hide regions that are majority Russian.  We know Russia has played fast and loose with Georgian independence, and threats are currently being made to Finland and Sweden.  Russia is a bully and history teaches us we must stand up to bullies.

If Mussolini had been stood up to before the invasion of Abyssinia, or Hitler in the Rhineland, Sudentonland, or Austria, the history of Europe could be very much less bloody.  Many believe the withdrawal of the ice patrol ship HMS Endurance from the Falkland Islands convinced the Argentinians to go to war. 

NATO has kept the peace in western Europe for 70 years, because bullies only understand one thing, strength, and only through strength can we ensure Putin goes no further.  How do we show that strength, how do we stand up to Putin?

So far, what I am going to imperfectly call the ‘west’, has reacted with surprising unity.  While we haven’t been able to fully wean ourselves off Russian gas, and no country was going to impoverish itself deliberately overnight, progress has none the less been made.  We have imposed meaningful sanctions against Russia as a nation and punished the plutocrats that enable the Putin regime. 

Britain as the leading military power in Europe has shown we can support the Ukraine, and the nation states on the frontline.  Whilst I won’t pretend to be a military expert the ability for relatively small arms to disrupt a large invading force must be a concern to all military powers.  Cheap domestic drones have become a feature in this war that will surely challenge future acts of aggression. 

“Weapons like the NLAW anti-tank missiles, we have been suppling will be better for being seen in battlefield conditions.  No one wants a war, but if one is happening, your military intelligence should make use of it”

Indeed this alone is a reason for our involvement in standing up to Putin.  A military only remains strong if it is engaged in or is close to the latest military actions.  No one wants to send troops to war, but we do want a military we can trust the readiness off.  British expertise is being used, and knowledge is being gained through our providing assistance.  Weapons like the NLAW anti-tank missiles, we have been suppling will be better for being seen in battlefield conditions.  No one wants a war, but if one is happening, your military intelligence should make use of it.  Incidentally we can reflect after the Jubilee weekend, it’s been reported Ukrainian soldiers shout “God save the Queen!” when using the NLAW against the Russians. 

Naval warfare has changed as ships have been seen to be more vulnerable to land-based missile attack, something that will affect activities in the Taiwan Strait for years to come.

The coming together of the Ukrainian people and their successful defence of their country sets them clearly apart as a nation from Russia.  In the medium to long term a humiliated nuclear Russia would be a concern for all, and once confined to their borders, we should look to re-engage Russia in the international community, but for now our security needs are best met by ensuring the integrity of an independent Ukraine.

There are a few areas of concern from our reaction to the war.  On the more absurd end we have seen sanctions against individual sports men and women, the refusal to play Tchaikovsky by the Cardiff Philharmonic Orchestra, and the banning of Russian media. 

“We could now be watching Putin’s propagandists having to explain the failing of the paper bear Russian army, instead by banning them, we have protected them from their own shortcomings”

Chemical Ali was a propaganda boon to the coalition during the Iraq war, Lord Haw-Haw if anything, stiffened resolve against Germany.  We could now be watching Putin’s propagandists having to explain the failing of the paper bear Russian army, instead by banning them, we have protected them from their own shortcomings.

Perhaps my biggest concern from the invasion of Ukraine has been the willingness of India to work with Russia to secure energy supplies.  With 1.36 billion people, India is by far the largest democracy in the world, and this should be celebrated.  Both to handle Putin and with the looming global threat of the Chinese Communist Party, making sure India is on the side of the good guys, on the side of the liberal democracies, is good for one billion souls and good for the globe. 

What are our next steps?  Some actions we already appear to be taking, we need to align states with NATO and other tenants of the western military alliance as ultimately security only comes through strong defence.  Winston Churchill once said “Safety and certainty in oil lie in variety, and variety alone”,we need to exploit domestic supplies of energy and encourage other countries to diversify their supplies of energy and other key commodities.

We should be forming an alliance of democracies with not just India but all countries who are set on a democratic path and open to the peaceful transition of government. The emerging global power of China and with it the Chinese Communist Party, and the regional threat of nations like Russian and Iran, is best stopped by democratic nations working together.And we need to continue to supply better and more sophisticated weapons to the Ukrainian regium.  We need to ensure the Black Sea Fleet cannot operate with impunity in the Black Sea, that Russian tanks are proven ineffective, and that Russian soldiers no longer care for the fight.  

Over 20% of Russians are from non-Russia ethnic groups, over half don’t call themselves Christian.  We should be using our considerable media skills as a nation to agitate these populations against Putin, creating problems in his own backyard. 

As we did in the Cold War, we need a range of actions, outspending, out propagandising, and out thinking our enemy.  In the 1980s, the western alliance’s actions, led to Perestroika and Glasnost in the USSR, making sure the cost of pursuing this war is greater than any benefit they could gain from winning it, can led to a newfound peace with Russia.

“Destabilising Georgia in 2008, annexation of the Crimea in 2014, further destabilising the Ukraine, involvement in Syria supporting the chemical weapon using Bashar al-Assad, and now the invasion of the Ukraine in 2022. 

Putin is using Salami tactics”

Summary

In April the UK government announced a new package of £100 million of military aid, building on the £350 million of military aid and around £400m of economic and humanitarian support that the UK has already provided.  This included additional Javelin anti-tank systems, Starstreak air defence systems, ballistic helmets, body armour and night vision goggles.  We are already standing up to Putin, we are already working to kick Russia out of Ukraine.

In the episode called ‘Grand Design’ of the Yes Prime Minister TV Series, the government’s chief scientific adviser tells Prime Minister Jim Hacker:

“Why should the Russians annex the whole of Europe? They can’t even control Afghanistan.

No, if they try anything, it will be salami tactics.

– Salami tactics? – Slice by slice.

One small piece at a time.”

Destabilising Georgia in 2008, annexation of the Crimea in 2014, further destabilising the Ukraine, involvement in Syria supporting the chemical weapon using Bashar al-Assad, and now the invasion of the Ukraine in 2022. 

Putin is using Salami tactics, we need to show him this time he has sliced off more than he can chew.

To find out more about the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society visit their Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/CoulsdonPurleyDebatingSociety/ or email them at [email protected].

A large part of this speech first appeared in the Blacklist Press, Free Speech bulletin on 9th May 2022.

A National Day

With the Jubilee weekend just gone it’s a good time to think about what we are, and how we celebrate as a nation.  The Jubilee has proved a great opportunity for local neighbourhoods to come together in street parties, for local communities to decorate town centres and hold festivals, and for the nation to celebrate as a whole.

We all know July the 4th when the USA celebrates, most of us have heard of Bastille Day, France’s national day.  Thailand, the Netherlands and Belgium all celebrate days associated with past kings as their national days.  In the case of Belgium this is more confusing as Belgium is really a country of two nations who frankly don’t get on.

Like the US, Sri Lanka, Botswana, Nigeria, Malaysia and Burma, and many others all celebrate their national day, as the day they gained independence from Britain. 

Brazil celebrates it’s independence from Portugal, most of the rest of South American national days celebrate independence from Spain.  Australia celebrates the landing of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove, New Zealand celebrates the Treaty of Waitangi, and Canada the British North America Act of 1867.  Whatever the countries reason only 2 nations in the world, the UK and Denmark don’t have national days of celebration.

As a nation, a community, we benefit from coming together and celebrating what unites us.  As a fast-changing nation we need to find opportunities to come together as one and celebrate our commonality.  What’s more with a nation with the history of the United Kingdom, a national day can be used to celebrate many of the values we as liberty lovers hold dear.

Now I should start by saying we will likely be asked to celebrate the NHS, this happens at every opportunity and to be fair it does unite many in the nation as a cause for celebration.  But a national day would go further than that.  I would propose a national day should as a starting point celebrate the ‘British Values’ as laid out in the National Curriculum.  These being:

  • Democracy
  • Rule of law
  • Individual liberty
  • Mutual respect
  • Tolerance of Those With Different Faiths And Beliefs

These already have political acceptance, are being taught in schools and are hard to disagree with, and are key British traits.  I would hope all readers of this journal could get behind them.  After a number of years of government and politicians trying to overturn a democratic vote, removing our liberty, and showing no respect for those with different beliefs on for instance medical treatments, it might be good to have these values brought to the forefront once a year.

All this leaves to decide is when do we have the day.  We already have hardly celebrated Mayday and Spring Bank Holiday days, we could simply move one of these to early September or late June / early July to give us a reasonable chance of a warm day to celebrate our nation. 

And if all else fails it’s just a better-timed excuse to have a day off, and maybe, like the Jubilee weekend raise a toast to the Queen.

Photo: Edward Orde, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

This article also appeared in Blacklist Press’ Free Speech for 1st August 2022.

Cut Through and Opportunity

Originally published in the 17th January edition of Free Speech from Blacklist Press.  Mike Swadling wrote about Partygate and the hypocrisy of the PM.  Since then we have seen fines issued. the release of Sue Gray’s report, and the revelations of Sir Keir Starmer’s curry and beer in Durham.

None of our political leaders come out well from this, and many in the public are now well and truly fed up with the whole topic.  But it did have cut through, and below are thoughts on the Cut Through and Opportunity Partygate created.

” No doubt most reading this broke lockdown rules, some even as early as the spring of 2020.  But there is a difference when the rule breakers are those that impose them”

It’s not a bad idea in a democracy to be popular as well as right.  One of the depressing things surrounding the stories of Boris Johnson and Partygate has been the number of social media posts from liberty lovers saying the story isn’t the party, instead, the story is that the rules were wrong.

They are right of course the rules were wrong.  No doubt most reading this broke lockdown rules, some even as early as the spring of 2020.  But there is a difference when the rule breakers are those that impose them.  Politics requires cut through, and often requires opportunism, Partygate gives both.

Most people in May 2020 were studiously following the rules, and they simply don’t like the hypocrisy of the PM, cabinet members, senior civil servants and their assistants, being out partying when we couldn’t get together with family to bury a loved one.  Yes the rules were wrong, but saying the rules were wrong 2 years ago doesn’t have the cut through of pointing at a ruling class laughing at us.

“John Locke wrote that ‘freedom in society means being subject only to laws made by a legislature that apply to everyone’”

There is another issue here that really matters, the Government must follow the same rules as the governed.  Magna Carta set out the need for the Monarch to follow the law as much as the commoner.  Today much the power of Monarch is effectively held in 10 Downing Street, and rather than taking their cue from Runnymede our current government seems to have looked to Versailles.  John Locke wrote(1) that ‘freedom in society means being subject only to laws made by a legislature that apply to everyone’.  The rule of law is a common enough expression, indeed according to the National Curriculum(2) it is a fundamental British value.

“can we effect change or even build a majority by saying never again can the government be able to act outside of the laws it requires us to follow?”

I firmly believe the best case for liberty is made when liberty lovers connect with a broad swath of voters and show the hypocrisy of government and the desperate need we all have to constrain it.  Can we build a majority that says all people must be free to act with complete liberty?  I doubt it.  But can we effect change or even build a majority by saying never again can the government be able to act outside of the laws it requires us to follow?  Absolutely!

References

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
  2. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/guidance-on-promoting-british-values-in-schools-published

Photo: By No 10 Official Photographer – Investigation into alleged gatherings during Covid Restrictions: Final Report, OGL 3