Hijacked by the Grandees of the Human Rights Culture

On 11 March 2012, Michael Pinto-Duschinsky told Sunday Politics’ host, Andrew Neil, that he was resigning from a commission set up to examine the need for a British bill of rights.

He explained:

"After one year it is now clear that it HAS BEEN INTENDED ALL ALONG TO ISSUE A REPORT IN FAVOUR OF THE STATUS QUO. We have actually considered the question of parliamentary sovereignty only once in the whole year that we have been in existence…

The commission answers to Ken Clarke. He and Nick Clegg set it up and selected the chairman. His civil servants run the commission and staffing. His hands are everywhere… HE (CLARKE) IS FOLLOWING THE AGENDA OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ESTABLISHMENT, which is well represented on the commission. In doing so he is sidelining not only parliament but also the prime minister, and I consider that disloyal.”

This followed Pinto-Duschinsky’s revelatory article in The Mail on Sunday which said:

“I know what the abuse of human rights really means. It is certainly not the kind of nonsense we hear so much about today, parents smacking children, the eviction of travellers from illegal encampments or the deportation of foreign criminals in breach of their supposed ‘right to a family life’.

Yet these are the conflicts that have occupied debate over human rights law in recent years, with the British Parliament endlessly accused of defying the European Court of Human Rights.

The conflict was seen at its most stark over the question of voting rights for prisoners, something which has been demanded by Strasbourg but overwhelmingly rejected by the House of Commons. It was in February last year after a Commons vote on the matter that David Cameron set up an eight-strong commission which was asked to examine the implementation of a British Bill of Rights, which would reconcile human rights legislation with British law.

As a political scientist with a long record in studying the development of democratic institutions, I was asked to be part of this commission, whose chairman is the former civil servant Sir Leigh Lewis.

Initially, I had high hopes, believing we could achieve a synthesis between human rights and the democratic will of Parliament. But it has become obvious that SOME OF THE PREDOMINANT MEMBERS ON THE COMMISSION WERE NOT REMOTELY INTERESTED IN SUCH AN OUTCOME. ALL THEY WANTED TO DO WAS UPHOLD THE STATUS QUO AND ENSURE THAT THE INFLUENCE OF PARLIAMENT CONTINUED TO BE IGNORED.

Effectively, THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN HIJACKED BY THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS AND THE GRANDEES OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CULTURE. The views of the Prime Minister and his senior Tory colleagues count for almost nothing. The truth is that the body has taken little trouble to be in touch with the impulses of the British people…

It even refused to include a question about the role of the Strasbourg court in our questionnaire. It also wouldn’t ask the public about the Prime Minister’s statement that decisions should be made in Parliament rather than in the courts. That is why my position has become intolerable and I have taken the most difficult decision in my life: to resign from the commission.

I had tried strenuously to ensure that the commission gave heed to the views of Parliament, but I HAVE FOUND MYSELF SIDELINED, BULLIED, MARGINALISED AND IGNORED.

The whole affair has made a farce not only of democracy but also of genuine human rights. It seems that THOSE LEADING MEMBERS OF THE FASHIONABLE HUMAN RIGHTS CULTURE ARE NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN TACKLING REAL HUMANITARIAN ABUSES or instances of true political oppression. Instead, THEY REVEL IN DEMONSTRATING THE SUPERIORITY OF THE BRITISH AND EUROPEAN JUDICIARY OVER OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

I find utterly intolerable this perversion of human rights – which treats the issue as nothing more than an arena for political power games. In my work on the commission, I was determined to see that Parliament had the ability to override decisions by the European Court of Human Rights – such as prisoners’ votes or rulings stopping the deportation of foreign criminals. But to my despair, THE COMMISSION WAS MANAGED IN A MANNER THAT ENSURED THE RIGID ORTHODOXY OF SUBMISSION TO STRASBOURG PREVAILED – despite my views and those of other Conservative appointees.

When I tried to raise the question of Parliamentary sovereignty with Sir Leigh, he not only refused but even took me into a basement room of the House of Lords TO WARN ME THAT I WOULD BE CONSIDERED A MAVERICK WITHOUT INFLUENCE IF I PERSISTED IN MY DEMAND.

In the same vein, when the commission, four months after its establishment, put out a paper for public consultation on a British Bill of Rights, it deliberately left out any reference to David Cameron’s statement on the need to uphold Parliamentary sovereignty on key political decisions such as prisoners’ voting rights.

This was typical. The opinions of the Prime Minister were treated with contempt while THOSE OF HIS EUROPHILE CABINET JUNIOR COLLEAGUES, ESPECIALLY KEN CLARKE AND NICK CLEGG, CARRIED MUCH MORE WEIGHT. In fact, in December, MEMBERS WERE SUMMONED TO A MEETING WITH KEN CLARKE AND TOLD TO DEFER ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT PARLIAMENT OVERRIDING STRASBOURG AND IGNORE ANY ‘AGITATION’ FROM THE COMMONS ON THE ISSUE.

This meeting was a dramatic illustration of THE LOW PRIORITY GIVEN TO THE BASIS OF OUR DEMOCRACY – THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Similarly, the commission regularly heard evidence from human rights groups, which of course have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, yet proceeded to ignore MPs and peers who wanted to curb the power of the human rights court.

This is why I’ve had enough. I can no longer put up with THE SNEERING, CONTEMPTUOUS ATTITUDE OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS BRIGADE TOWARDS THE CONCEPT OF PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY.

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS NOT A FORM OF TYRANNY OR ‘MOB RULE’, AS THEY CONDESCENDINGLY SEEM TO BELIEVE, BUT IS A BULWARK OF FREEDOM, as is clearly demonstrated by the long, progressive narrative of British history.

Our nation was enjoying real human rights long before the Strasbourg court was convened. And, crucially, those rights will only be weakened if AN UNELECTED, UNACCOUNTABLE ELITE HOLDS SWAY OVER DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.”

The Bill of Rights Commission was launched by Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg and Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke on 18 March 2011.

A statement accompanying the ‘launch’ said:

“The Commission, to be headed by former Permanent Secretary, Sir Leigh Lewis, fulfils a pledge set out in the Coalition Agreement and forms part of the Government’s strategy to ensure that our rights, freedoms and liberties are protected in a way that properly reflects our traditions.

In addition to the Chairman, the Commission will include eight human rights experts appointed jointly by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. The Commission members are:

Martin Howe QC; Anthony Lester QC; Jonathan Fisher QC; Helena Kennedy QC; Anthony Speaight QC; Philippe Sands QC; Michael Pinto-Duschinsky; Sir David Edward.

Details of the Commission’s remit were also announced today and include providing interim advice to Ministers on reform of the European Court of Human Rights.”

Pretty straightforward, don’t you think? The Human Rights brigade was taking the mickey in a major way and Cameron, Clegg and Clarke were going to sort them out. Oh yes, this notoriously Europhilic bunch were definitely going to bat for Britain in this particular instance!

However, a quick glance at the composition of the committee chosen by the aforementioned leaves us in no doubt as to what the eventual outcome will be. The status quo will be maintained. Government from and by Europe was never going to be affected by the findings of such a body.

Let’s take a closer look at the ‘human rights experts’ that comprise this Committee.

Six out of eight are lawyers. That should set the alarm bells ringing for a start. It is chaired by a former Home Office Permanent Secretary in Sir Leigh Lewis. Other members include, the Lib Dem peer and author of Britain's Human Rights Act, Lord Lester; Jonathan Fisher, QC; (a visiting professor at the LSE) Barrister Phillippe Sands and (before he resigned) Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky.

All of these are Jewish. Thus, the grouping chosen by Cameron, Clarke and Clegg to oversee the proceedings weren’t just, for the most part, as Eurocentric as them, it had a majority of Jews within it! And, if you know your history, you will be aware that the vast majority of Jewish movers and shakers have always been at the forefront of the we-want-world government (banish the nation state) debate.

Consider this: in July 2011, the official UK population was estimated to be 62,698,362. The best estimate puts the Jewish population of the UK at around 280,000. In other words, the amount of influence the Jews had upon the lives of the rest of the UK community would, if everything was equal and fair and true democracy held sway in the UK, amount to about 280,000 divided by 62,698,362 of the whole. Or 0.0045 per cent.

But that’s not the case here, is it? If you do the math, in an ‘equal and fair’ world, just one twenty-fifth of a place at this particular constitutional table would have been reserved for the Jew. However, in this quintessentially important matter, our Jewish brethren will have around 125 times more influence upon the final outcome than they ought to have, according to their incidence in the general population.

And the moral of the story is: situation normal. Were it not for one small detail. The whistleblower here, the one democratically inclined individual out of the whole sorry posse, is, himself, a Jew.

Fair play to Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky. Someone in a high place who appears, for once, to rate our British democracy rather more highly than globalist dictat. Which leaves four Jews and four non-Jews who do not.

It will be these who decide whether the rights of the immigrant criminal, as determined by the Human Rights Act, continue to trump rights of the indigenous victim.