I have issued the Judicial Review Application in Dr Kevin Corbett (1) Stephen Morris (2) Dr Niall McCrae (3) - v – Secretary of State Health & Social Care (1) Secretary of State for Transport (2) The Lord Chancellor (3). The case no. is CO/3772/2020.
Please support my clients' Crowd Justice appeal >>> https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/the-coronavirus-act-2020/
You can also read the legal Grounds there too!
The Great Barrington conspiracy
Niall McCrae
Dr Niall McCrae is a mental health researcher and social commentator, who writes regularly for Bruges Group, Politicalite, Salisbury Review and Gateway Pundit websites. He is the author (with Robert Oulds) of ‘Moralitis: a Cultural Virus’.
Hardly the Diet of Worms, you might think. (The picture is of Martin Luther before the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, at the Diet of Worms in 1521AD)
But amidst the global crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Great Barrington Declaration has caused epic controversy. This scientists’ petition, calling for a different strategy to manage the novel coronavirus, opposes the group-think that has led to a tightening ratchet on citizens’ liberties with consequent economic carnage.
Campaigners against lockdown are derided as cranks and conspiracy theorists, in contrast to ‘the science’ and compassion of the interventionists. But now the alliance of professional and political orthodoxy is presenting a conspiracy theory of its own: the resistance to Covid constraints is a right-wing putsch against a global consensus on climate science and social progress.
Signed in a village in rural Massachusetts, the Great Barrington Declaration is a New England journey of medicine, sailing against a headwind of powerful opposition. It proposes shielding of the vulnerable, while allowing herd immunity to develop naturally among the majority who have low risk. The original signatories are no obscurantists: Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford and Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University.
However, Gabriel Scally, a member of the British government’s SAGE committee, dismissed them as ‘fringe experts’. Furthermore, he referred to a minor left-wing website, which smeared the declaration as a scheme of misanthropic motives. The launch was hosted by the American Institute of Economic Research (AIER). Founded in 1933, this think-tank is supported by Charles Koch, one of the brothers whose wealth has kept American academic conservatism alive in a hostile environment. It has been very critical of the anti-capitalist climate change movement.
Scally of SAGE tweeted: -
‘Let’s be clear where the ‘herd immunity’ let-it-rip nonsense that is the Great Barrington ‘big idea’ comes from. It is a product of the US libertarian right. The AIER’s goal is ‘promoting the ideas of pure freedom and private governance’. Covid-19 is their big chance.’
This ‘big chance’, according to the conspiracy theory, will be used to cull the population, and to enrich and empower libertarian extremists. Sounds like a new world order, doesn’t it? This is surely a classic case of projection and lack of insight by the lockdown zealots. The more that we hear from Great Barrington critics, the more it seems that Covid-19 is a tool of the climate alarmists’ agenda.
Political leaders around the world, including Boris Johnson and Democrat presidential challenger Joe Biden, are parroting the slogan ‘Build Back Better’. It’s no secret that this comes from the World Economic Forum, the masters of the universe who fuel eco-revolutionary and Marxist activism to undermine the nation state. In the ‘Great Reset’, democratic systems will be overridden by global decree (the ordinary people are too stupid to know what’s good for them). Health Secretary Matt Hancock recently promoted the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’, another WEF concept.
Absurdly, anyone mentioning the globalists’ design is mocked as a conspiracy theorist. Kevin O’Sullivan, a British TalkRadio station host, said ‘there is no Great Reset…it’s just so ridiculous’. Yet Klaus Schwab, WEF leader, openly talks of exploiting chaos to create order, described as the ‘New Normal’. Much of what’s happening today was predicted by Event 201, the desktop exercise by the WEF in 2019. We are rapidly heading towards a technocracy run by an unelected elite, controlling access to banking, travel and employment, and reducing us to digital slaves.
The Great Barrington Declaration has been attacked for countering the medico-political hegemony on Covid-19. As signatures neared two hundred thousand (mostly concerned citizens but also fifteen thousand scientists), Google magically made it disappear. After an outcry it returned, but search results are dominated by scurrilous diatribes against the sponsor and signatories. Anyone relying on Wikipedia would learn from the likes of Scottish government advisor Devi Sridhar (a social anthropologist) that it is not worth any consideration. Reddit banned it from a discussion forum.
Such censorship is what the Nazis, Stalin and Mao did to suppress science and knowledge. Is herd immunity such a reckless goal? Matt Hancock thinks so. In the House of Commons this week he rejected a rethink on the Covid regime, arguing that the Great Barrington Declaration is based on false premises. So a chap with a politics degree knows more than esteemed epidemiologists. Junior health minister Nadine Dorries, who previously practised as a nurse, tweeted ‘there is no such thing as herd immunity’.
In a measured response to Hancock’s scorn, Sunetra Gupta explained the complexity of herd immunity, which is more complex than portrayed by politicians and their scientific advisors. Kulldorff and Bhattacharya were more scathing, noting Hancock’s ignorance in using the example of malaria as evidence against herd immunity. This disease is not transmitted between human beings but by mosquito bite, and it is nothing like a virus. Oncologist Angus Dalgleish remarked: ‘it is shocking that the Health Secretary does not have a basic understanding of infectious disease epidemiology’.
Yet mainstream scientists, politicians and media continue to disparage the Great Barrington Declaration, some resorting to puerile jibes about fake signatories, as if someone signing as ‘Doctor Doolittle’ negates the support of half a million including forty thousand medical practitioners and health scientists. Suppression of a rational scientific argument is justified by Big Tech and the medical authorities by the vague notion of harm. Why is this declaration regarded as so dangerous, and who is really endangered?
“It is not..contrary to first principles of constitutional law to challenge the making of an Act, as Lord Justice Laws observed in the Thoburn case, a later Act does not override a Constitutional Act. The key Constitutional Acts which are being overridden are the Human Rights Act and still more importantly the 1689 Bill of Rights, which as it was putting into effect the new Constitution agreed in the Constitution and Convention of 1689, known as the Declaration of Right, it cannot properly be overridden by any subsequent Act without a Constitutional Convention or equivalent process, such as a referendum. The Scottish Laws long held that there is a limit to the constitutional remit of legislation and that there is in effect an over-arching constitutional structure and the Supreme Court, in the Prorogation of Parliament case, followed the Scottish decision, finding that even a Royal Prerogative decision, such as Proroguing Parliament, must be consistent with the over-arching constitutional framework. And in so far as the Coronavirus Act is not in conformity with the Human Rights Act or the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Rights 1689, it is respectfully submitted that is unconstitutional and illegal, so far as it is in breach of the English Constitution and should be null and void, but in so far as it is in breach of the Human Convention of European Rights then under the Human Rights Act the remedy is as indicated a Declaration of Incompatibility.
So far as the Regulations are concerned and there is an on-going tsunami of Regulations, most being made not under emergency legislation, but instead under the 1984 Act which does not even purport to grant powers to Ministers to override basic constitutional freedoms and liberties. The Regulations and continuing amendments should be set aside and, whereas the specific regulations have been overtaken, the legal principles remain relevant as the Government is continuing to issue a torrent of Regulations purportedly under the 1984 Act which are constitutionally improper. It is noted of course that the response to the Claimant’s case rests heavily on the decision of Mr Justice Swift in the Dolan case, for which Permission to Appeal has been granted by Lord Justice Hickinbottom, albeit the hearing before the Court of Appeal has been postponed. The fact that Permission to Appeal has been granted, it is respectfully submitted, shows that the Mr Justice Swift’s decision is challengeable and is not yet through the process of precedent an inherent part of the law.
So far as Guidance is concerned, the Government has repeatedly issued Guidance which is not an accurate or fair reflection of the Regulations that they have produced and again in the interests of constitutional propriety, the fact that they have now changed the Guidance, that was the target initially of criticism of these proceedings, does not make it a moot point, when the Government is continuing to behave in such a way.”
I have also looked again at Lord Justice Law’s Judgment on Thoburn. I thought that paragraphs 62, 63 and 69 were exceptionally well worth considering and I accordingly copy and quote them in full as follows:-
Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin) (18 February
2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/195.html
Cite as: [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), [2002] 3 WLR 247, [2003] QB 151
62. Where does this leave the constitutional position which I have stated? Mr Shrimpton would say that Factortame (No 1) was wrongly decided; and since the point was not argued, there is scope, within the limits of our law of precedent, to depart from it and to hold that implied repeal may bite on the ECA as readily as upon any other statute. I think that would be a wrong turning. My reasons are these. In the present state of its maturity the common law has come to recognise that there exist rights which should properly be classified as constitutional or fundamental: see for example such cases as Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 per Lord Hoffmann at 131, Pierson v Secretary of State [1998] AC 539, Leech [1994] QB 198, Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd. [1993] AC 534, and Witham [1998] QB 575. And from this a further insight follows. We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional" statutes. The two categories must be distinguished on a principled basis. In my opinion a constitutional statute is one which (a) conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner, or (b) enlarges or diminishes the scope of what we would now regard as fundamental constitutional rights. (a) and (b) are of necessity closely related: it is difficult to think of an instance of (a) that is not also an instance of (b). The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the HRA, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The ECA clearly belongs in this family. It incorporated the whole corpus of substantive Community rights and obligations, and gave overriding domestic effect to the judicial and administrative machinery of Community law. It may be there has never been a statute having such profound effects on so many dimensions of our daily lives. The ECA is, by force of the common law, a constitutional statute.
63.Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test: is it shown that the legislature's actual – not imputed, constructive or presumed – intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible. The ordinary rule of implied repeal does not satisfy this test. Accordingly, it has no application to constitutional statutes. I should add that in my judgment general words could not be supplemented, so as to effect a repeal or significant amendment to a constitutional statute, by reference to what was said in Parliament by the minister promoting the Bill pursuant to Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. A constitutional statute can only be repealed, or amended in a way which significantly affects its provisions touching fundamental rights or otherwise the relation between citizen and State, by unambiguous words on the face of the later statute.
This year, on the 3rd October 2020, we had a bare AGM rather than our full conference because of the Coronavirus Lockdown Regulations, which meant that the hotel could not allow us to have a meeting of more than 30.
This made it impractical to do what we had planned to do, which was to takeover a country house hotel which specialises in providing conference facilities. We now intend to use this for our Spring Conference.
We therefore returned to the hotel that we have used on many occasions before, the Hilton at Leicester, who were as helpful as the Regulations allowed them to be, but still the atmosphere was quite strange.
Even with our much reduced numbers we still were the major contingent in the hotel, which was largely empty. The usual buffet service in the restaurant was banned and instead we had to be served seated and also in the bar, with a maximum seating together of six.
On the evening after our conference and dinner, although we spread ourselves out, we were spread out over several tables, but obviously in one group and were told by the bar manager that one of the other guests had threatened to call the police!
Which draws me on to an interesting observation. It was the few white guests apart from ourselves who were scurrying around with masks and furtive looks! All too “timorous cowering beasties”!
Still more disgracefully many of them had even got their young and often very young children masked, showing all too clearly that brave words of Rule Britannia are far too optimistic about the British, as it seems that, given half a chance, they are more than happy to be slaves and do whatever they are told, however bizarre and irrational!
Despite the difficulties we had a good AGM and focussed on the electoral challenges and opportunities in May next year as we are aiming, not only to stand in as many Mayoral Elections as we can manage, but also in as many Police Commissioner Elections.
Both types of elections are Supplementary Vote systems, which is the voting system that enabled us to win the Mayoralty in Doncaster. For standing in the Mayoralty Election we get a full mailshot of every registered elector in the whole Region or local authority. We also get the opportunity to be elected for a position of real power and influence in a way that most other elections do not.
Much of the same is true of the Police Commissioner Elections, although there is not a booklet in that case.
With our mind on the Police Commissioner Elections we adopted some more resolutions to mandate our Police Commissioners to require Chief Constables to grant gun licenses to all suitable citizens for the purpose of defending their homes - now that most police forces have proved themselves unwilling or unable to protect homeowners!
These commitments, coupled with our previous commitments on law and order, now make the English Democrats easily the foremost party in England of all parties on the issue of Law and Order.
I am looking forward very much to seeing the impact on our Police Commissioner vote next year!
