CHRISTIAN IRISH STAND THEIR GROUND IN THIS LAST-DITCH BATTLE FOR THE
SOUL OF EUROPE: =91Criticism Of The European Union To Be Treated As
Blasphemy=92 - =91Now It's Blasphemy To Mock Europe=92 =96 =91Euro-Court
Outlaws Criticism Of EU=92 - 'Yes' Camp's Empty Eurobabble Should Be
Met By A Simple 'No'
- o O o -
The Godless =91EU Constitution=92, which has now morphed into the =91EU
Treaty=92, will create an atheistic EU Superstate. The French and Dutch
rejected this Devil=92s brew when the cup was proffered to them several
years ago =96 now the same poisonous distillation is being presented to
the Irish, who have historically proven themselves to be a Christian
and a God-fearing people.
Having banished God from its =91Constitution=92, the EU has shown itself
only too willing to declare itself His defiant usurper.
Remember this=85?
- o O o -
CRITICISM OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO BE TREATED AS BLASPHEMY
The European Court of 'Justice' reacted vehemently to an item in the
Eurofile column published in The Daily telegraph on 28th October by
the veteran investigative re****ter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (renowned
for the seminal leg-work he undertook during his tour of duty for the
newspaper in Wa****ngton, in unearthing multiple scandals surrounding
the Clinton Administration).
Evans-Pritchard re****ted that the Advocate General of the Court had
pronounced that criticism of the European Union collective could be
restricted without violating freedom of speech, on the ground that it
was akin to blasphemy.
The Court then proceeded on a course of deception, in the following
manner. It told the House of Commons Library, the European media and
other callers that this assertion was totally untrue. But it failed to
post the Advocate General's opinion on the Court's website, as
normally happens - referring callers instead to a separate case, which
was posted on the website but which contained no references to
blasphemy, thus throwing everyone off the scent.
Two weeks later, under protest, the Court posted the offensive opinion
on its website, stating that it had been 'mislaid'. The European Court
of 'Justice' further lied that there had been a misunderstanding, for
which it now apologised, but added that The Daily Telegraph had
misconstrued the Advocate General's opinion.
The reason for the Court's lies and deceit is that the ruling
threatens a primary principle of English law - namely, that a
governing body cannot restrict criticism in order to protect its
reputation - although in this case of course the EU has no reputation
to protect, since as every informed observer whose mind is not
controlled knows perfectly well, the EU collective functions by means
of pressure, intimidation, harassment, coercion, lies and confusion:
in other words, its reputation stinks.
In his column of 11th November, Ambrose noted that the Advocate
General's 'point was not made lightly. It was a central building
block' of his argument that 'the EU can legitimately punish dissent'.
With the Charter of Fundamental Rights proclaimed at the European
Council in Nice, the stage is set for persistent critics such as your
correspondent to court eventual arrest, following a 'knock on the door
in the middle of the night', and to be jailed for blasphemy.
One further obvious point should be added: blasphemy represents
pouring odium on God; so the 'builders of Europe' seek not only to
usurp the nation state but the Almighty, as well. In short, since
there is no God (the European Union being atheistic), the God of the
EU collective is to be the EU itself. This is consistent with the norm
in all intended or actual dictator****ps.
(With acknowledgments to the "Soviet Analyst", 108 Horseferry Road,
London, SWIP 2EF)
- o O o -
Now It's Blasphemy To Mock Europe
by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard,
The Spectator,
Nov 18, 2000
The EU is going to extraordinary lengths to protect itself against
criticism, writes Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, and at Nice next month will
seek new ways of eroding our freedoms
Brussels - THIS article is blasphemous. It contains irreverential
criticism of the European Union. It brings the European Court of
Justice into disrepute, or tries to. It subjects Senor Damaso Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, the Court's Spanish advocate-general, to particular
ridicule, and does so mischievously in the knowledge that he has a
very thin skin. On the Richter scale of disrespect it is a seven or an
eight, and undoubtedly falls under the European Court's emerging
blasphemy doctrine. This deems that political criticism of the
European Union and its leading figures can be akin to the most extreme
forms of religious blasphemy. It can therefore be suppressed - and
punished without violating protected freedom of speech.
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer ventured into blasphemy law in an opinion
delivered on 19 October in a landmark free-speech case - number
C-274/99 P. It involves a British economist, Bernard Connolly, who
argues that he was unlawfully sacked from the European Commission for
writing The Rotten Heart of Europe.
Last year Connolly lost his case in the EU's lower court, the Court of
First Instance, which ruled that the EU has an undefined - and
seemingly unlimited - power to restrict political criticism in `the
general interests of the Communities'. He appealed against this
astounding ruling, challenging the big boys in the full Court of
Justice to ensure that sanity prevailed. Instead, he now finds himself
up against Mr Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, who has upped the ante, chattering
about blasphemy. As if it could not get any worse, the lead judge
handling the case is Melchior Wathelet, the disgraced Belgian justice
minister driven from office for bungling the Dutroux paedophile
scandal. Sanity is very far from prevailing.
The advocate-general's opinion cited the blasphemy case of Wingrove v.
United Kingdom, invoking it to demonstrate a precedent in English and
European law that there are some forms of expression so offensive to
the `rights of others' that they can legitimately be restricted. By
extension, therefore, the EU can take action to protect itself against
Mr Connolly's turbulent book, which has caused huge annoyance to
Europe's ruling class since it was published in 1995.
The blasphemous shockers in this critique of economic and monetary
integration are all carefully prepared by European Commission
officials in a chargesheet against the author. The indictment found
that the book was injurious to the good name of the Commission because
it 1) criticised the `blind arrogance of Frenchmen such as Jacques
Delors and his Commission acolytes'; 2) used the term `Satanic-
featured' to describe the goatee beard and beetling eyebrows of the
****tuguese Commissioner, Joao de Deus Pinheiro; 3) accused the
European Commission's man in London, Geoffrey Martin, of `ceaseless
denigration' of his own country; 4) compared `British Euro-
enthusiasts' to fellow-travellers who apologised for Stalin in the
1930s; 5) and, most heinously, referred to the 'op****tunism' of the
Italian government. Yes, the book also said the euro was a hare-
brained idea and would probably fail, but that was not the charge made
against Connolly. The Commission has never been eager to engage with
the substance of the book.
Set against this is a **** video called Visions of Ecstasy, the
blasphemous work at the centre of the Wingrove case. The British
government refused this video a distribution licence, and for good
reasons=85.
When I first mentioned in the Daily Telegraph two weeks ago that the
advocate-general had likened dissent to blasphemy, the Court reacted
explosively. The Court staff told a large number of callers -
including the House of Commons Library and the BBC - that my assertion
was utter rubbish; another example of mad Eurosceptic fever in the
British press. But they did not post Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer's opinion on
the Court website, according to normal procedure, so that people could
judge for themselves. In fact, they denied that the case even existed,
referring callers to a different case - number C-273/99 P, a technical
staff case also involving Bernard Connolly which had nothing to do
with freedom of speech and obviously did not contain any reference to
blasphemy. This killed off interest in the news story, for a while.
I am willing to accept that this was a cock-up, that the European
Court, financed by British taxpayers, has not been engaged in a
strategic deception to prevent British citizens from finding out the
truth about a case that has profound implications for English law.
After protest, and a fortnight late, the Court eventually posted the
correct case on the website - in the Spanish original, and in French
translation, no English available. The Court apologised for the delay,
saying the dossier had somehow gone astray between the advocate-
general's office and the translators.
Fine. The Court has now fallen back to another line of defence. It
says that Ruiz-- Jarabo Colomer has been traduced and that I evidently
do not understand the complexities of legal French, or rather Spanish.
Si, Senor. The Court's new defence is that the advocate-general merely
responded to the Wingrove case after it had been invoked first by
Connolly's lawyers. This is certainly a strategic deception.
Connolly's lawyers did not mention blasphemy. They cited the Wingrove
case because it contained a ruling by Europe's other court, the non-EU
Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, stating that governing bodies
cannot restrict political speech to protect their reputation. The
Court of Human Rights made it crystal-clear that Visions of Ecstasy
was a special case. The **** video could be banned because it
threatened extreme offence to Christians, but the Court sternly warned
that the blasphemy ruling should not be used by governments to smuggle
through restrictions on political speech.
This is exactly what the advocate-general has done. He has turned the
case upsidedown, using it to make the opposite point, mocking the
Court of Human Rights. To be accurate, he did not say The Rotten Heart
of Europe was as blasphemous as Visions of Ecstasy. The sleight of
hand was subtler, though not very subtle. He invoked Wingrove, coming
back to it again and again, as a central building-block in arguing
that a governing body (`un organisme depositaire de la puissance
publique) can legitimately restrict a fundamental right in order to
defend its reputation - and therefore that Connolly could lawfully be
silenced. Since the whole point of the Wingrove ruling was that
governments may not limit free speech except in cases that meet the
threshold test of extreme blasphemy, the implication is patent: the
advocate-- general is asserting that Euroscepticism is akin to
blasphemy. No other construction can reasonably be put on his
sophistry.
Having invoked a British case to make one point, the advocate-general
then adds insult to injury by referring dismissively to another
British case less favourable to his agenda, saying it had `no
foundation or relevance' in European law. This was the 1993 House of
Lords ruling in the case of Derby****re County Council v. the Times,
which found that `it is of the highest public im****tance that any
democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental
body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism'.
No foundation or relevance in European law? Disculpe, Senor, the
essential purpose of the European Convention on Human Rights, drafted
by British lawyers, was to stop governmental bodies from getting
uppity - i.e., resorting to 1930s Enabling Acts, and such like - and
it has since been backed by a mountain of case law. In 1992, the Human
Rights Court ruled in favour of a Basque lawyer, Miguel Castells, who
had been imprisoned in Spain for writing `Outrageous Impunity' in a
Basque magazine, accusing the Spanish government of collusion in the
murder of Basque separatists. (He was correct, we now know. He was
referring to the infamous death squads that led to the downfall of
Felipe Gonzalez.) The Court said that governments have concentrated
power on their side and must be exposed to unlimited criticism, adding
that even insults and errors were `protected expression'.
One day, there will no doubt be a titanic struggle between the EU's
Court of Justice and the Human Rights Court. In the meantime, the EU's
court is answerable to nobody. It is a supreme court. If it says that
fundamental rights can be restricted in this way, that is the end of
the argument: these rights can be restricted. True, the Court has
limited jurisdiction - at the moment. It cannot ban the sale of Mr
Connolly's book at Heffer's or Blackwell's, yet. But its reach will
extend deep into our national life once the new Charter of Fundamental
Rights is approved at the Nice summit, for the Court of Justice will
be the sole arbiter of those rights (whether or not the Charter is
tacked on to the new treaty, or simply proclaimed).
You have only to read Article 52 (latest version) of the Charter to
see where this is heading. It states that the European Union may limit
all rights and freedoms enumerated in the Charter `subject to the
principle of pro****tionality', where `necessary' in order to `meet
objectives of general interest recognised by the Union'. When I asked
the top figures of the drafting convention at a press conference what
was to stop this `raison d'etat' clause being misused for
authoritarian purposes, there were audible hisses from a number of EU
journalists in the room, and the justice commissioner, Antonio
Vitorino, let out one of those patronising little laughs that the EU
elite has so perfected. Nobody really answered the question.
We had all better come to terms with the fact that the jurists
entrusted with the power to decide what constitutes `pro****tionality',
'necessary', and the `general interest' of the Union are Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer and his colleagues in Luxembourg. Their intent cannot be
clearer. We know, before the ink is even dry on the Charter, that the
European Court will engage in rampant Wingrovism, pu****ng the envelope
as far as it can whenever our rights clash with the papal ambitions of
the EU. All that is needed now is the creation of an EU criminal
jurisdiction, with its own prosecuting machinery. Preposterous? Last
month the European Commission put forward a formal proposal for, yes,
a European public prosecutor. If Tony Blair is amenable, it may be
incor****ated in the Nice Treaty in three weeks' time.
(Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is Brussels correspondent of the Daily
Telegraph.)
Copyright Spectator Nov 18, 2000
SOURCE: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200011/ai_n8923307
- o O o -
Euro-Court Outlaws Criticism Of EU
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels,
Daily Telegraph, UK,
05/07/2001
THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union
can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of
leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of
European precedents on civil liberties.
The EU's top court found that the European Commission was entitled to
sack Bernard Connolly, a British economist dismissed in 1995 for
writing a critique of European monetary integration entitled The
Rotten Heart of Europe.
The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order
to "protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged
the institution's image and reputation". The case has wider
implications for free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do
not work for the Brussels bureaucracy.
The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and
insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that
Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and
"ultimately peace".
However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the
advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that Mr
Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to extreme blasphemy, and
therefore not protected speech.
Mr Connolly, who has been told to pay the European Commission's legal
costs, said the proceedings did not amount to a fair hearing. He said:
"We're back to the Star Chamber and Acts of Attainder: the rights of
defendants are not respected or guaranteed in any way; the offence of
seditious libel has been resurrected."
Mr Colomer wrote in his opinion last November that a landmark British
case on free speech had "no foundation or relevance" in European law,
suggesting that the European Court was unwilling to give much
consideration to British legal tradition.
Mr Connolly now intends to take his case to Europe's other court, the
non-EU European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg.
Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1325398/Euro-court-outlaws=
-criticism-of-EU.html
- o O o -
'Yes' Camp's Empty Eurobabble Should Be Met By A Simple 'No'
Analysis,
Irish Independent,
June 10 2008
Should I say 'Yes' to a legal do***ent I don't understand? My lawyer
would never urge me to buy a house under such conditions
Seldom have the proponents of any political cause done as much damage
to their case as have those urging us to vote 'Yes' in the referendum
for our future. They have attempted to reassure us with their
Eurobabble of majority qualified voting, harmonisation and of
subsidiarity, and so on; but they have raised more questions than the
ones they unsuccessfully tried to answer. And when the august judges
of the Referendum Commission are unable to answer relatively simple
legal questions without lapsing into a baffled Urdu, then we know that
the waters ahead are as clear as mud.
Our Euro-indoctrinated political cl***** insist that our tax laws will
remain solely at the discretion of our sovereign parliament, and that
no measure introduced by the EU can change those laws. But these are
just opinions, not binding legal undertakings. Who knows what some
future European supreme court or European Parliament might not rule?
We have not got the immutable right to levy taxes (or not, as we
please) enshrined in some specific, legally clear and watertight
codicil, immune to subversion or invalidation through some so far
undetected sub-sub clause in the bottomless verbiage of Eurobabble.
Any future consideration of our tax laws might well be by a Euro
court, presided over by Euro judges who are well-steeped in the
ideological dogmas of the European project. What is to stop them
prospecting for the legal gold nuggets that would enable Europe to
impose tax uniformity on the entire EU? To look for a vindication of
an autonomous Irish tax regime from them would be like looking for a
directive on pig farming from the Iranian supreme court.
And I simply do not understand why a political party which is re-
creating an annual jamboree over the murderfest of 1916 is
simultaneously immersing us in the new empire of Europe. Once in, it
will be incredibly difficult to get out. We shall be a tiny tile in
the vast mosaic that is Europe. Merely (to mix our metaphors) because,
politically, we punch above our weight should not blind us to this
truth. Lisbon is the fork in the road (new metaphor) that could take
us to a politically united Europe, and we need take no more decisions,
or even be allowed to take any, for that to happen.
If we vote 'No', won't we be cutting our own throats? No, we won't.
Norway and Switzerland have free trade with the EU. If the EU wants to
make itself a superstate, good. But we don't have to be part of it.
But surely, isn't a united European superstate a good thing? Well, it
might be, if composed of idealised versions of the respective
countries and cultures involved. But what is the reality? Germany,
Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway: between them,
perhaps, a million men under arms, yet only a a couple of thousand
deployed in NATO's main area of operations, Afghanistan. The small
German contingent there won't even patrol at night, and their soldiers
cannot watch 'Thomas the Tank Engine' on their i-Pods; and in a combat
zone, what you don't hold with feet on the ground, you forfeit. And we
know about Spanish resilience in the face of terrorist attack.
Tell me, do you really think that the Eurocracy in Brussels is capable
of mobilising popular will about a serious, militarised foreign
policy? Mainland Europe is a large outdoor playground, with lots of
posturing children playing at soldiers; meanwhile, who minds the
schoolgates, as always, but the USA?
This infantilised condition is nowhere so advanced as in Ireland,
where we have done two things: (a) refused to protect ourselves
effectively by arms or treaty during the most dangerous time and in
the most lethal area in world history, Europe, 1939-1989; and, (b)
condemned those who have protected us for their immoral expenditure on
arms. So, I don't expect mature debate on this subject in Ireland,
merely inane playground pieties, which is, of course, what we've been
getting on the subject of defence, from both camps.
The reality is that, once again, the war against Islamo-fascism is
being fought by the common-law Anglophone countries that defeated
fascism in 1945, and communism in the half-century which followed.
This is the great historical truth of the 20th century.
The penultimate argument for 'No' is that 'Yes' finally means this
island shall never have any control over its frontiers or who crosses
them. 'Yes' is the open sesame to Ireland becoming what other European
countries already are: socially divided and angry, with autonomous
little Islamistans emerging in every major city. And, of course, they
never remain little for long. And when EU dogmatists finally achieve
their ambition of fully including Turkey in the union, we -- or, more
to the point, our children -- will fully understand the demographic
consequences.
The final argument from the 'Yes' camp is that the 'No' side really
doesn't understand Lisbon. And, for once, they're right. So why should
I say 'Yes' to a legal do***ent I don't understand? My lawyer would
never urge me to buy a house under such conditions.
Why would we follow different rules when voting for the future of our
country?
Source:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/yes-camps-empty-eurobabbl=
e-should-be-met-by-a-simple-no-1403695.html
(These news stories are posted under =91Fair Use=92 provisions)
See also:
The Elite=92s Secretive Plan For A =91North American Union=92
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/NAU1.HTM
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/NAU2.HTM
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/NAU3.HTM
=91The Plan For Three World Wars=92
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/3WARS.HTM
Ready and Waiting: 'The Constitution for the Newstates of America'
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/NEWSTATE.HTM
'Astounding Quotes From The Political And Financial Elite On The
Planned New World Order' http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/TRAGEDY.HTM
Archived =91New World Order Intelligence Update=92 Articles on the =91New
World Order=92
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/sect22.htm
- o O o -
See the recently-added stunning photos of a chemtrail tanker creating
a 'Chemtrail X' in the skies over Toronto, Canada, together with more
amazing photos of chemtrails over Toronto =96 plus, WE get chemtrailed
as a result!
See also the astoni****ng =91earthquake cloud=92 photographs which
appear to indicate Tesla-type ionization of the atmosphere directly
before the recent massive Gansu And Sichuan earthquakes in China.
Was this a HAARP hit?
All this, and more, at 'Chemtrails: Are They For Climate Control,
Weather Modification, 'Black Ops' Or For Biological Warfare
And Mass Vaccine Testing?'
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/BLACK-OP.HTM
And see also...
'Nikolai Tesla And Soviet Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons'
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/SCALAR.HTM
- o O o-
Did Tsar Nicholas II Of Russia And The Romanov Royal Family Die In The
Ipatiev House in Ekaterinburg - Or Did Britain And The U.S. Cooperate
In Their Secret Rescue...?
History says 'NO', but some surprising voices say 'YES!'
Read online or download for free the 1920's book, 'Rescuing The Czar:
Two Authentic Diaries', together with some equally surprising news
re****ts, at http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/histrus3.htm
You'll find a wide range of other free online classic history and
travel books (on English history, American History, Canadian History,
European History, Napoleonic History, Russian History, German History,
Greek and Roman History), plus the books of Jane Austen, at
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/freehist.htm
Check frequently for new free online ClassicTravel Book titles at
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/freetrav.htm
And for free online Classic Christian Books and Writings=85
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/SERMONS.HTM
- o O o -
Mimico-by-the-Lake.Com=85
highly recommends 'Alfs Antiques And Handcrafted Furniture' in
Toronto for the finest in antique furniture, Canadian antique
reproduction
furniture, Quebec-style antique furniture reproductions, and for
classic handcrafted 'farmhouse' and boardroom tables made from
beautiful salvaged one hundred-year old wood. Individual and timeless
artisan-crafted furniture classics which become treasured family
heirlooms! Visit Alfs Antiques And Handcrafted Furniture at
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/alfs2.htm
Looking for superior Maid Service, Condo Cleaning or House Cleaning
in
the Toronto, Etobicoke, Mimico, Mimico-by-the-Lake, Mississauga,
Scarborough, North York, Richmond Hill, or North York areas? We
highly
recommend Prestige Plus Maid Service,
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/prestige.htm
Other Toronto, Etobicoke and Mimico-by-the-Lake businesses we
recommend:
Chasers Juice, for fresh fruit and vegetable juices,
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/juices.htm
Caf=E9 du Lac (=91A Taste of Quebec), Mimico-by-the-Lake,
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/cafes.htm
Birds & Beans Coffee Shop (Quality shade-grown fair trade coffee)
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/coffee.htm
Mimico Pharmacy & Postal Outlet, Mimico-by-the-Lake,
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/pharmacy.htm
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/postal.htm
Great Canadian Oil Change, Mimico-by-the-Lake,
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/car-lube.htm
Vatra Cheese Deli, Mimico-by-the-Lake,
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/deli.htm
Fahrenheit Tanning Salon, Mimico-by-the-Lake,
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/tanning.htm
Lakeshore Valu-Mart, Mario & Selina=92s No Frills, Sobey=92s Supermarket &
Pharmacy No Frills
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/super.htm
Thinking of taking a nature ecotour, surfing, snorkeling, or scuba-
diving vacation in Costa Rica?
You=92ll find the itinerary given on our Costa Rica Eco-Tours page
really interesting (Please note: this is a past, example page =96 some
details may vary now)
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/ecotours.htm
Want to rent a beautiful beachfront vacation home in Santa Teresa, in
the Mal Pais area of Puntarenas province, on the west coast of Costa
Rica? =91Beachsong=92 is a 2.5 acre wooded and private property right on
the beach =96 perfect for surfing, snorkeling, scuba-diving, or just for
fi****ng, swimming and relaxing! A new property, with multiple modern
amenities, it=92s thoroughly air-conditioned, has two bedrooms and is
available for 1-4 renters. You can find out more at
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/mal-pais.htm
|
