BREXIT - BEFUDDLED AND BE-JUDGED!

BREXIT - BEFUDDLED AND BE-JUDGED!

The High Court of Justice of England and Wales has made a preliminary and sensational ruling on how Brexit must be approached. The case, in addition to being politically significant, is of course legally and constitutionally significant as the High Court did pull out all the stops knowing that that was the case, with no less than three of the most senior judges in the England and Wales jurisdiction sitting on the case; the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Sales. The case itself is :- The Queen on the application of (1) Gina Miller & (2) Deir Tozetti Dos Santos – and – The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. It can be found on the court website here:- https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf


The case is worth reading if you are at all interested in the law of Constitution. 

There is however a potted summary here for those less interested in legal details >>>

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/summary-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf


Here is the text of the Summary:-


“R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

Summary of the judgment of the Divisional Court


References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment.


The Question


1. The issue before the court is whether, as a matter of UK constitutional law, the Government is entitled to give notice of a decision to leave the European Union under Article 50 by exercise of the Crown’s prerogative powers and without reference to Parliament. This is a pure question of law. The court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the European Union: that is a political issue.


2. It is accepted by all sides that this legal question is properly before the court and justiciable: under the UK constitution, it is one for the court to decide [5]. It turns on the extent of the Crown’s powers under its prerogative [explained at 24-29]. The Government accepts that neither the European Union Referendum Act 2015 nor any other Act of Parliament confers on it statutory authority (as distinct from the Crown’s prerogative power) to give notice under Article 50 [67-72, 76 and 105-108].


3. On 1 January 1973 the United Kingdom joined what were then the European Communities, including the European Economic Community. Parliament passed the European Communities Act 1973 (1972 Act) to allow that to happen since it was a condition of membership that Community law should be given effect in the domestic law of the United Kingdom and primary legislation was required to achieve this [1 and 36-54]. The European Communities have now become the European Union.


4. Pursuant to the European Union Referendum Act 2015 a referendum was held on 23 June 2016 on the question whether the United Kingdom should leave or remain in the European Union. The answer given was that the UK should leave [2].

 
5. The process for withdrawal is governed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which states that once a Member State gives notice to withdraw there is a two-year period in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement. If no agreement is reached in this time then, subject only to agreement to an extension of time with the European Council acting unanimously, the EU Treaties shall cease to apply to that State. The Government accepts that a notice under Article 50 cannot be withdrawn once it has been given. It also accepts that Article 50 does not allow a conditional notice to be given: a notice cannot be qualified by stating that Parliament is required to approve any withdrawal agreement made in the course of Article 50 negotiations [9-17].


6. Therefore, once notice is given under Article 50, some rights under EU law as incorporated into domestic law by the 1972 Act would inevitably be lost once the Article 50 withdrawal process is completed [57-66].



The Constitutional principles


7. The most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses. As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown – i.e. the Government of the day – cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament. This principle is of critical importance and sets the context for the general rule on which the Government seeks to rely – that normally the conduct of international relations and the making and unmaking of treaties are taken to be matters falling within the scope of the Crown’s prerogative powers. That general rule exists precisely because the exercise of such prerogative powers has not effect on domestic law, including as laid down by Parliament in legislation [18-36].


8. In the present case, however, the Government accepts, and indeed positively contends, that if notice is given under Article 50 it will inevitably have the effect of changing domestic law. Those elements of EU law which Parliament has made part of domestic law by enactment of the 1972 Act will in due course cease to have effect [76-80].


9. The central contention of the Government in the present case is that Parliament must be taken to have intended when it enacted the 1972 Act that the Crown would retain its prerogative power to effect a withdrawal from the Community Treaties (now the EU Treaties), and thereby intended that the Crown should have the power to choose whether EU law should continue to have effect in the domestic law of the UK or not [76-81].


Conclusion


10. The Court does not accept the argument put forward by the Government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 Act to support it. In the judgment of the Court the argument is contrary both to the language used by Parliament in the 1972 Act and to the fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament and the absence of any entitlement on the part of the Crown to change domestic law by the exercise of its prerogative powers [82-94, 97-104]. The Court expressly accepts the principal argument of the claimants [95-96].


11. For the reasons set out in the judgment, we decide that the Government does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.



This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document.”

Following the release of this Judgment there has been an attack on the political and demographic origins of the three Judges, all three of whom are the product of Labour’s Lord Derry Irvine “Reforms” to the selection and promotion of the judiciary. Lord Irvine expressly said these had been engineered to “ensure that no-one with reactionary views could be appointed or promoted within the judiciary”. This expressed objective has clearly been achieved with these three judges. The


Lord Chief Justice background as an active Europhile was amply exposed in the Daily Mail article here >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3903436/Enemies-people-Fury-touch-judges-defied-17-4m-Brexit-voters-trigger-constitutional-crisis.html


In the original version of the article, the Daily Mail also reported the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton as being the first “openly gay” senior Judge and also as having married his boyfriend in “a traditional Jewish marriage ceremony”.


Lord Justice Sales was exposed as being one of Lord Irvine’s personal protégées.

So it appears that we can be reasonably confident of the personal views and political prejudices of all three judges!


From a lawyer’s point of view there was therefore, particularly with the Lord Chief Justice, good grounds for applying the approach which was adopted by the House of Lords in the Pinochet case to Lord Hoffman who had ruled based on his own political prejudices. The case can be found here>>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990115/pino01.htm


The most extraordinary aspect of this fiasco is that any reasonably competent country solicitor would have advised the Government that where a challenge was being made to legal rights to take action (in this case the Government giving notice under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty) the obvious thing to do is to get on with it and give the Notice.


This of course would have made it pointless continuing with the court case. The Notice would already have been accepted by the European Union and the process of leaving the EU would therefore be underway regardless of what any court had to say. In such cases the courts are very unwilling to give rulings on what are described as “moot points”. It follows that the fiasco is a product of delay and incompetence within the May Government.


Turning back to the Judgment, it is a Judgment that is more dubious on previous legal authority than it sounds as it is phrased in what has been described as “muscular” language. I would also respectfully suggest it seems to be over certain of its legal position. This is however partly a result of the incompetence of the Attorney General in agreeing that the case was “justiciable”.


As an example of arguments that show that the Judgment is more dubious than it seems, see here for an academic analysis >>> https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/11/04/the-high-courts-judgment-in-miller-a-brief-comment/


Here is the text of the article:-


“The High Court’s judgment in Miller: A brief comment


The following short comment on the High Court’s judgment in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) was published on the Judicial Power Project’s website and is reproduced here with permission. The piece is part of a collection of short commentaries published by the Judicial Power Project; the full collection can be accessed here. I will be publishing a more detailed piece on Miller in due course.


Some of today’s press coverage of the judgment in Miller, accusing judges of acting undemocratically, is deplorable. It is entirely right and proper that the Court should determine the legal extent of executive authority. That is an axiomatic judicial function in a democracy founded on the rule of law. But what of the content of the decision?


The judgment is striking in its muscularity. The Court considered the Government case to be so weak that it judged it untenable before even considering the claimant’s arguments in detail. The Government’s case, said the Court, was ‘flawed’ at a ‘basic level’. Reading the judgment, one might be forgiven for thinking that the Government had advanced a heterodox argument of outlandish proportions. In fact, it was simply asserting that it could use a prerogative power to begin negotiations on the international plane. None of this is to deny the subtlety of the issues to which that contention gives rise concerning the relationship between EU and domestic law, and the role played by the European Communities Act 1972 in mediating that relationship. But as John Finnis has shown, the Government’s position is far from unarguable.


Once the Divisional Court had accepted — contrary to Finnis’s view — that EU law rights are to be considered domestic statutory rights enacted by Parliament, its focus inevitably shifted to the question whether the ECA was to be read as having displaced the Government’s ability to use the prerogative to begin the Article 50 process. In concluding that the ECA had indeed produced such an effect, the Court engaged in a highly creative process of statutory interpretation that involved relying upon the ECA’s status as a ‘constitutional statute’; treating the Act’s ‘constitutional status’ as evidence of Parliament’s intention — a view that is in tension with Laws LJ’s analysis in Thoburn; invoking certain ‘background constitutional principles’ that are relevant to statutory interpretation; and asserting that those principles are particularly relevant to the construction of constitutional statutes.


My point, in this short comment, is not to assess the correctness of the court’s conclusion on this matter. Rather, it is to observe that that conclusion — and the reasoning on which it is based — is highly contestable. Perhaps, therefore, the most surprising aspect of Miller is that the confident certainty of the terms in which the judgment is framed obscures almost entirely the complexity and contestability of the questions to which it gives rise, concerning the selection, content and interaction of the constitutional principles that form the prism through which the ECA falls to be examined.”


The core of the Judgment is that the central institution within the Constitution is the Crown in Parliament. Here is a section of the Judgment well worth quoting and bearing in mind.


“ The principles of constitutional law: the sovereignty of Parliament and the prerogative powers of the Crown

The United Kingdom constitution
 
18. The United Kingdom does not have a constitution to be found entirely in a written document. This does not mean there is an absence of a constitution or constitutional law. On the contrary, the United Kingdom has its own form of constitutional law, as recognised in each of the jurisdictions of the four constituent nations. Some of it is written, in the form of statutes which have particular constitutional importance (as we explain at paragraphs 43-44). Some of it is reflected in fundamental rules of law recognised by both Parliament and the courts. There are established and well-recognised legal rules which govern the exercise of public power and which distribute decision-making authority between different entities in the state and define the extent of their respective powers. The United Kingdom is a constitutional democracy framed by legal rules and subject to the rule of law. The courts have a constitutional duty fundamental to the rule of law in a democratic state to enforce rules of constitutional law in the same way as the courts enforce other laws.
 
19. In these proceedings, this court is called upon to apply the constitutional law of the United Kingdom to determine whether the Crown has prerogative powers to give notice under Article 50 to trigger the process for withdrawal from the European Union. The law we were taken to was primarily the law of England and Wales, with some reference to the position in the other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although this court only has jurisdiction to apply the law of England and Wales, we note that no-one in these proceedings has suggested that such parts of constitutional law in Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to the interaction between statute and the Crown’s prerogative powers as are relevant to determine the outcome in this case are any different from the law of England and Wales on that topic. Accordingly, for ease of reference and in view of the general constitutional importance of this case we will refer to UK constitutional law.
 
The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament
 
20. It is common ground that the most fundamental rule of UK constitutional law is that the Crown in Parliament is sovereign and that legislation enacted by the Crown with the consent of both Houses of Parliament is supreme (we will use the familiar shorthand and refer simply to Parliament). Parliament can, by enactment of primary legislation, change the law of the land in any way it chooses. There is no superior form of law than primary legislation, save only where Parliament has itself made provision to allow that to happen. The ECA 1972, which confers precedence on EU law, is the sole example of this.
 
21. But even then Parliament remains sovereign and supreme, and has continuing power to remove the authority given to other law by earlier primary legislation. Put shortly, Parliament has power to repeal the ECA 1972 if it wishes.
 
22. In what is still the leading account, An Introduction to the Law of the Constitution by the constitutional jurist Professor A.V. Dicey, he explains that the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament has:

“the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law … as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.”

(p. 38 of the 8th edition, 1915, the last edition by Dicey himself; and see chapter 1 generally).

Amongst other things, this has the corollary that it cannot be said that a law is invalid as being opposed to the opinion of the electorate, since as a matter of law:

“The judges know nothing about any will of the people except in so far as that will is expressed by an Act of Parliament, and would never suffer the validity of a statute to be questioned on the ground of its having been passed or being kept alive in opposition to the wishes of the electors.” (ibid. pp. 57 and 72).
 
23. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty has been recognised many times in leading cases of the highest authority. Since the principle is common ground in these proceedings it is only necessary to cite the speech of Lord Bingham of Cornhill in R (Jackson) v Attorney General[2005] UKHL 56; [2006] 1 AC 262 at para. [9]:

“The bedrock of the British constitution is … the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament …”.
 
 The Crown’s prerogative powers
 
24. The extent of the powers of the Crown under its prerogative (often called the royal prerogative) are delineated by UK constitutional law. These prerogative powers constitute the residue of legal authority left in the hands of the Crown. As Lord Reid said in Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75, at 101:

“The prerogative is really a relic of a past age, not lost by disuse, but only available for a case not covered by statute.”
 
25. An important aspect of the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is that primary legislation is not subject to displacement by the Crown through the exercise of its prerogative powers. But the constitutional limits on the prerogative powers of the Crown are more extensive than this. The Crown has only those prerogative powers recognised by the common law and their exercise only produces legal effects within boundaries so recognised. Outside those boundaries the Crown has no power to alter the law of the land, whether it be common law or contained in legislation.
 
26. This subordination of the Crown (i.e. the executive government) to law is the foundation of the rule of law in the United Kingdom. It has its roots well before the war between the Crown and Parliament in the seventeenth century but was decisively confirmed in the settlement arrived at with the Glorious Revolution in 1688 and has been recognised ever since.
 
27. Sir Edward Coke reports the considered view of himself and the senior judges of the time in The Case of Proclamations (1610) 12 Co. Rep. 74, that:

“the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm”

and that:

“the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him.”
 
28. The position was confirmed in the first two parts of section 1 of the Bill of Rights 1688:

“Suspending power – That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall.

Late dispensing power – That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regall authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.”
 
29. The legal position was summarised by the Privy Council in The Zamora [1916] 2 AC 77, at 90:

“The idea that the King in Council, or indeed any branch of the Executive, has power to prescribe or alter the law to be administered by Courts of law in this country is out of harmony with the principles of our Constitution. It is true that, under a number of modern statutes, various branches of the Executive have power to make rules having the force of statutes, but all such rules derive their validity from the statute which creates the power, and not from the executive body by which they are made. No one would contend that the prerogative involves any power to prescribe or alter the law administered in Courts of Common Law or Equity…”

These principles are not only well settled but are also common ground. It is therefore not necessary to explain them further.”

This approach is, to be fair, consistent with the way our Constitution Law has developed. I have previously commented that democracy is very much a bolt-on to the oligarchic principles of the British Constitution. No clearer statement of that could really be sought from any legal Judgment.

In a genuine democracy it is the “People” and the “Nation” which is sovereign, not some constitutional construct like the “Crown in Parliament”. In a genuine democracy the “Crown in Parliament” would be seen to be the delegates of the People not their masters. The People within a democracy are “citizens” not “subjects”. The United States Constitution has a greater aspiration towards being democratic than our constitution which is why there is reference to “we the People…” and court cases are brought in the name of “the People” against the accused rather than as here “the Crown” against the accused.


So what we have in this case is a strongly worded logical Judgment based on the traditional unpinning of the Constitution arising out of the English Bill of Rights and 1689 Glorious Revolution, not on the theory of democracy or any ideas of nationhood.


It looks to me from the Judgment as if the Government may also have failed to argue a distinction between directly applicable EU rights that arise through the EU system and are directly applied as a result of the European Communities Act and have agreed that those rights are the same in essence as rights arising from either Common Law or Statute. Those are the rights which previous cases have upheld as being outside the power of the Royal prerogative to change.


That being the case it may well be that the Supreme Court next month will rule to uphold this Judgment. If that is the case then be in no doubt that the giving of notice under Article 50 will require primary legislation to go through Parliament. That is an Act to be passed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords and to be given Royal Assent and to be implemented by an Order from the Privy Council.


Such legislation to become an Act of Parliament will be subject to all sorts of quibbles and delaying tactics by the Remainers who form a huge majority of Members of Parliament and Peers. It follows that we look like we are entering a major constitutional crisis at least equivalent to that of Lloyd George’s budget in 1911, which, combined with the Irish Question, got us perilously close to civil war with the then Leader of the Conservative Party involved in smuggling arms!


There is also the tempting question to Tories of whether the Conservatives can get electoral advantage by wrong-footing Labour into outright opposition to such a bill and then being able to get a two thirds majority in the House of Commons for a snap election under the Fixed Terms Parliament Act!


As a postscript would the Conservatives campaigning for a mandate to trigger the Article 50 notice be temptingly likely to achieve Theresa May’s aim of destroying UKIP?


It will also be interesting to see if Labour can actually survive as a Party outside of the metropolitan areas on a ticket of opposing Brexit when a vast majority of their voters in much of the rest of England voted to Leave in June’s EU Referendum!

Five reasons for English Independence (of many!)

I was recently challenged for reasons to justify our call for English Independence. In reply I drew these up.

What do you think?

Five reasons for English Independence (of many!):-

1. Democratic Self Government - the natural state for a modern democratic nation >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/my-evidence-to-mckaywlq-commission.html ; and

2. Fiscal autonomy - to end the "Barnett Formula" subsidies which the HofL report of 2009 stated were then over £49 Billion per year >>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldbarnett/139/139.pdf; and

3. End "Barnett Consequentials" ie For every £10 Billion spent by the UK in England on a Capital project a further £1 Billion has to be given to Scotland eg HS2 £50Billion = £5 Billion bunce! and

4. Prevent Unionist plans to beak up England into "Regions" because "England is too big"! eg >>> http://stv.tv/news/politics/1371867-gordon-brown-sets-out-vision-of-more-federal-constitution/ and >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/my-submissions-to-local-government.html

5. Dissolution of the UK equals automatic and immediate exit from the EU >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/uk-to-be-python-esque-dead-parrot-after.html

Muslim protester found guilty of racist abuse crime!

This intriguing item appeared on the BBC website on Friday, 28th October.

Race relations worker guilty of racist abuse at refugee rally

Here is what it said:-

“A race relations worker has been convicted of racially abusing a group of Scots at a rally to welcome Syrian refugees to Scotland.

Shafiq Mohammed, 50, was also found guilty of resisting arrest at a demonstration in Monkton, South Ayrshire, on 15 November 2015.

The former Scottish Refugee Council worker broke through a police cordon to verbally abuse a woman and three men.

The rally took place hours after the Paris terrorist attacks.

Ayr Sheriff Court heard how tempers flared among members of the Scottish Defence League and pro-refugee demonstrators.

It followed 150 refugees being granted emergency accommodation at the Ayrshire town's Adamton Country House Hotel.

Mohammed denied behaving in a racially aggravated manner which was intended to cause alarm and distress.

He claimed the four witnesses had conspired to make up the allegations against him.

Sheriff Robert Weir QC found him guilty on both charges and sentence was deferred.

The court heard Mohammed had previously worked for property firm Orchard & Shipman, which has been paid more than £60m to house refugees in Scotland.

He is currently involved in the Asylum Seeker Housing (ASH) Project - an organisation campaigning on asylum seeker housing issues in the west of Scotland.”
Here is the link to the original >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37803531

So it sounds like we should congratulate the Scottish Police and the Scottish Prosecution service for doing their duty in arresting and in prosecuting this man. If only the police and CPS in England could be relied upon to similarly do their duty when aggressive anti-English racists are active here in England!


The law is quite clear that anti-Englishness (or anti-Scottishness) is just as illegal as any other so call “hate crime”. The difference in treatment is simply a political matter not a legal one.


Here is the section 4A of the Public Order Act which is what “Shafiq” appears to have been convicted of.


“4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(b)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)F2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.”

Click here for the original>>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A


So what sort of sentence has the Judge deferred the sentencing process in order to consider social workers' reports? Such deferral means that the Judge is considering imprisonment. Here is the relevant section of the CPS sentencing guidelines:-

“Sentencing

Prosecutors have a duty to present all relevant material to allow the court to pass sentence in accordance with the law. Racial or religious aggravation makes an offence more serious and the court has a duty to take this into account when it sentences a defendant.

Prosecutors must neither minimise nor omit relevant and admissible evidence of racial or religious aggravation.

Prosecutors should also make sure that they are aware of the guideline cases to assist the court in sentencing, in particular R v Kelly & Donnelly [2001] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 73 CA which adopted the majority of recommendations made to the Court of Appeal by the Sentencing Advisory Panel Advice No 4.

The Court of Appeal endorsed the following approach:

the court should first decide on the appropriate sentence without the element of racial or religious aggravation, but including any other aggravating or mitigating features;

the sentence should then be enhanced to take account of the racial or religious aggravation;

if the offence itself merits custody, that sentence should be enhanced by an appropriate amount to reflect the degree of racial or religious aggravation;

the judge should say publicly what the appropriate sentence would have been without the racial or religious aggravation.

Although the original guidance applies to offences charged as specific racially aggravated offences and to all other offences where section 145 Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies, it should also be taken as applying to religiously aggravated offences, following the amendment to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.”

Click here for original >>> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

What all this shows is that it is possible to get Leftist agitators arrested, charged and convicted but much more effort by English Nationalists is required in making the police arrest and charge those guilty of any illegal anti-English behaviour here in England.

Then we might have our multiculturalist opponents writing many more items like this one:-

Support Shafiq Fundraiser - THIS SUNDAY

"The Glad Cafe and Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees

Support Shafiq Fundraiser - Sunday 22nd May 2016

An evening of music with Robin Adams, Kathryn Joseph, Alasdair Roberts, DJ Kwaby and others,

Featuring previews from the new album REFUGEE 

Alasdair Roberts + Kathryn Joseph + Robin Adams + DJ Kwaby + more

Sunday 22 May 19:30 £5.00 minimum donation

Entry Requirements: Over 18s only

Line up • Alasdair Roberts • Kathryn Joseph • Robin Adams • DJ Kwaby • more

Shafiq needs your support - legal, moral, financial and physical!

On 15th November 2015, Shafiq Mohammed was arrested at an anti-racist demonstration in support of refugees. He is awaiting trial, charged with Racially Aggravated Breach of the Peace and Resisting Arrest (details below).

Here is how you can help

Witnesses — URGENTLY NEEDED. His lawyer is seeking witnesses. If you saw Shafiq at any point during the demonstration, please get in touch. Contact the lawyer, John Harper of McClure Collins.

Email: john@mcclurecollins.com

Telephone: 0141 423 7181

Several people were filming and taking photos. These could be valuable evidence. Please use your networks to find anyone who might be able to help.

Messages — In circumstances like these, messages of support, from individuals and/ or organisations can make a big difference to an individual’s morale. Please send messages of support to: contact@supportshafiq.scot

Financial — His campaign will need financial support. In particular, legal support is not cheap and will need to be paid for. Please use the Paypal button below to send any donations.

Send cheques to GCtWR, C/o FBU, 52 St Enoch Square, Glasgow G1 4AA

At the courtroom — He will need support on the day of his trial, both inside and outside the courtroom. Given SDL members will be witnesses against him, they are likely to organise some sort of presence. We need to outnumber them substantially. The trial date has been re-set for Tuesday 9 June 2016. We will let you know the time when we have it.

Support Shafiq Mohammed

On Sunday November 15, at the demonstration in Monkton to support the refugees being housed in Adamton Country House Hotel and against the Scottish Defence League (SDL) who had declared their intention to demonstrate in the village, one of the anti-racist demonstrators was arrested. He was Shafiq Mohammed, one of the few black faces there. He was kept overnight in police cells in Kilmarnock and then appeared on the Monday afternoon at Ayr Sheriff Court. Shafiq has been charged with racially aggravated breach of the peace and resisting arrest. Apparently one of the SDL women accused him of calling her child a "white bastard" and the police chose to act on it. He has pled not guilty and John Harper of McClure Collins is representing him.

Due to the rough treatment he received when being arrested, he suffered a burst blood vessel in his eye and permanent facial injuries. The handcuffs caused severe cuts and grazing encircling his wrists. In custody, as a result of indicating his dietary requirement for halal food, he was given 4 cereal bars to eat in 24 hours.

Shafiq is a respected professional advocate and consultant in the area of race relations. He has worked for Orchard & Shipman, Ypeople, Migrant Help and the Scottish Refugee Council. He currently gives advice to and is a crucial part of the Asylum Seeker Housing (ASH) Project, an organisation which campaigns on asylum seeker housing issues in the West of Scotland. He has no previous history with the police and indeed this was the first ant-racist, pro-refugee demonstration he had ever attended, having previously been concerned his attendance at such events would compromise his professional standing.

He is understandably deeply distressed. Bad enough being put through this but more so, having suffered racist abuse all his life, to be attending a demonstration against racism and to be accused by the racists of racism and have the police act upon it, is beyond irony. In his case it is unbearable. Further a conviction for racially aggravated breach of the peace could have a particularly detrimental effect on his career.

We cannot allow the SDL to get away with this tactic of picking out individuals from counter demonstrations and making false accusations against them, even more so, if they are black. Support Shafiq Mohammed.

Jock Morris
Chairperson
Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees”


Click here for original article>>> http://www.supportshafiq.scot/

 
We English nationalists need to take note that the reason that the Scottish Police, Prosecution Service and Courts are taking a more even handed approach to anti-Scottishness is political. Their police authority and those that are appointed to head the prosecution service and in charge of the appointments and promotion systems for the judiciary are all dominated by the Scottish National Party.

So another lesson for English nationalists is that we also need to get people elected to the one similar position that is feasible here in England – Police and Crime Commissioners! Then we too could order the police to be far more robust with the Shafiq’s and Jock Morris’s in their relevant police force areas!

THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS COME SECOND IN BATLEY AND SPEN BY-ELECTION!

Here is our press release:-

THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS COME SECOND IN BATLEY AND SPEN BY-ELECTION!

The English Democrats are pleased to announce that our candidate, Therese Hirst, came second in Batley and Spen which is a constituency where the English Democrats have never previously stood. Despite this we easily beat the BNP which had previously stood on many occasions and even once had two councillors in the constituency.

By contrast Labour had hundreds of activists canvassing and campaigning for weeks. They pulled in many of their high profile figures, including Jeremy Corbyn. They even had their Scottish Leader, Kezia Dugdale, come down from Glasgow with a coach load of activists! Labour also spent up to the maximum permitted by-election spend of £100,000, paying up to £5.71 per vote! Even so they had a dramatically reduced vote, despite also their established brand and their longstanding political dominance in Kirklees.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “I heartily congratulate Therese Hirst on the campaign and on her coming second in the Batley and Spen by-election. It often seemed that the media were resolutely hostile to the English Democrats and to the English Cause, but Therese rose magnificently to the occasion. I was also very pleased that Therese’s response to the election results was to mimic Arnold Schwarzenegger’s famous film comment of “I’ll be back!”

I am looking forward to seeing whether we can beat Labour next time in the General Election when the boundary changes reduce their incumbency advantage and also when their spending is limited to the General Election’s £10,000 maximum!”

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

Twitter: @RobinTilbrook

Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org

Party Twitter: @EnglishDemocrat

Supporting VotetoLeave.EU

Key facts about the English Democrats

The English Democrats launched in 2002 and are the only campaigning English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8th largest contingent of candidates in England. In the October 2016 Batley & Spen, Westminster parliamentary, By-election we came second and easily beat all three British national parties.

Labour’s soap starlet “no-platforms” all other candidates in Parliamentary By-election

Below is my recent press release regarding the Batley & Spen By-election

Labour’s soap starlet “no-platforms” all other candidates in By-election.

Tracy Brabin’s campaign team have refused to take part in the only independently organised hustings during the Batley & Spen By-election. The hustings was being organised by the Workers of England Union. Tracy Brabin’s team responded to the Union that they were refusing to allow their candidate to appear on the same “platform” as any other candidate in the By-election. The Workers of England Union report this on their website>>> Batley and Spen: Labour shows contempt for Democracy | Workers of England Union

https://workersofenglandunion.wordpress.com/2016/10/15/batley-and-spen-labour-shows-contempt-for-democracy/

The English Democrats’ view is that not only is this appallingly arrogant and all too typical of Labour apparatchiks sense of entitlement and ownership of areas unfortunate enough to be Labour One Party State Areas, but it is also deeply disrespectful and contemptuous of their electorate.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “Labour’s lightweight London based EastEnders soap opera starlet candidate for the Batley & Spen By-election and Remainer has been adding to Labour’s reputation as a Party unwilling to engage in democratic debate and mired in a smug sense of its own entitlement.

Remainers like Tracy Brabin have been caught making outrageous slurs on the over 118,000 electors in Kirklees and more than 50% across England who voted for Brexit. They claim as Labour’s new Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, apparently said at their recent Party Conference that Brexit voters are “stupid and racist”. Tracy Brabin and her election team have now demonstrated not only contempt for anyone with a different opinion to theirs, but also their unwillingness to engage in proper debate in their eagerness to behave like Left-wing Student Union activists in “no-platforming” their opponents.”

Robin Tilbrook added:- “The sooner Labour is driven out of England just as it is being driven out of Scotland the better!” Labour is morally and ideologically bankrupt and bitterly opposed to the interests of the English Nation”.

Tracy Brabin fails to condemn Labour Councillor’s violent attack on English Democrats’ campaign stall in Batley

This is our Press Release on Tracy Brabin’s failure as the Labour Candidate for Batley & Spen to condemn Amanda Stubley’s attack on the English Democrats’ stall on Saturday, 8th October.

Tracy Brabin fails to condemn Labour Councillor’s violent attack on English Democrats’ campaign stall in Batley

The English Democrats Chairman, Robin Tilbrook, wrote to Tracy Brabin’s team on the 11th October asking for the London based EastEnders soap opera starlet and Labour Party candidate for Batley & Spen, and Remainer, to condemn the violent attack by one of her fellow Party members in Batley on the English Democrats’ stall. Despite being politely requested to do so Ms Brabin has failed to respond either appropriately or at all.


Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “I find it despicable that Ms Brabin has not condemned the appalling behaviour of Councillor Amanda Stubley’s of Batley East who attacked the English Democrats campaign stall on Saturday, 8th October. I assume since it is part of the usual repertoire of Labour dirty tricks in a Labour area when they are challenged that she condones Councillor Stubley’s disgraceful behaviour.”


Robin continued:- “Here is what I wrote to Ms Brabin and her election team:-



Dear Miss Brabin

Re: Conduct of Councillor Amanda Stubley – Batley East Ward – 8th October in Market Place, Batley

The above named Councillor Stubley attacked our campaign stall at about 1.00 p.m. on Saturday and during the attack stated that she supported Jeremy Corbyn’s “anti-Semitic” policies and claimed that Batley is her town. The implication was that no other political parties were allowed in the town. Furthermore she claimed that she was the Batley East Councillor in Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council “for life”. Councillor Stubley claimed that the English Democrats are “Racists” for supporting Leaving the EU and for campaigning for England’s rights.

I respectfully invite you to repudiate the comments and actions of Councillor Stubley and join with me in calling for her to be prosecuted for Breach of the Peace, the Public Order Act offences of using Threatening, Abusive and Offensive language, Criminal Damage and Attempted Criminal Damage together with Electoral Offences in interfering with other candidates during an election and making false statements about them.

Labour Councillor attacks the English Democrats’ campaign stall in Batley

This is our press release following our successful day of action in Batley on Saturday during which we were attacked by the Labour Councillor for Batley East, who bizarrely admitted on camera that she supported Corbyn’s anti-Semitic policy – Repeatedly!


Here is our press release:-

Labour Councillor attacks the English Democrats’ campaign stall in Batley

On Saturday the 8th October the English Democrats had a stall with banners and leaflets and a public address system set up in the Market Place, Batley. We were getting a good reception from the public and were being filmed by TV reporters for Channel 4 when we were attacked by Councillor Amanda Stubley of Batley East Ward, Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council.

The Councillor used threatening, abusive and insulting language against the English Democrats, telling us that we are “racists” for campaigning for England and to Leave the EU. She said we should get out of her town and that as a Labour Councillor she was entitled to her seat in the Council for life. She proceeded to try to break up our stall and pop our balloons. Ms Stubley was hysterical with rage that the English Democrats would dare to challenge her entitlement and Labour’s ownership of Batley.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “I have made a statement to the police and pressed charges. We will now have to wait and see if the Crown Prosecution Service charge Councillor Stubley with offences. I would expect these to be under the Public Order Act, Electoral offences, criminal damage and Breach of the Peace. It is always amazing to see how much Labour apparatchiks think that they own politics in Labour One Party State areas like Kirklees, even though the Berlin Wall came down decades ago now!”

Robin continued:- “I have confirmed to the police that I will attend court to give evidence in any prosecution brought against Councillor Stubley. Labour activists need to be taught that they cannot act in such a disgraceful and aggressive manner without facing justice.” 






I might add that Ms Stubley also went off at one point to go into a nearby shop saying that she was going to call "12 taxis" to get us driven off. Shortly afterwards there arrived various taxis driven by what looked like aggressive muslim/pakistani men - shades of Labour in Rotherham?