Tuesday, 8 September 2015

British values of the rule of law and assassinating whomever wherever whenever

Under UK law you can be an "immediate threat" even if what you planned but didn't do was in LONDON in summer, as you are assassinated in August in SYRIA.

This was the rule of law that the now silenced Anjem Choudary was mocking. God's laws do not change because He does not keep making mistakes and try to cover up for them by changing them all the time to confuse people until no one knows what the law really is any more, not even the judges. The rules of natural justice require that the consequences of breaking a law to be accessible and foreseeable.

But if you can be considered an "immediate threat" even if the time for the terrorism you were alleged to have been plotting in London has come and gone and was not even committed justifies your assassination in Syria, then this rule of law is arguably neither accessible nor foreseeable.

Cameron was so anxious to crow about these the assassination of Ruhul Amin and Reyaad Khan that he forgot about the so-called government-defined British values of "the rule of law".

If there is a rule of law then that rule would be clear. If you are following it, you would have to stick to it, not vary the application and interpretation of it to fit in with what you wish to do while refusing to give coherent and verifiable reasons. This really does not suggest that the rule of law is being followed.

This war between Islam and the West is an ideological war, therefore some demonstration of moral superiority would be necessary in order to win hearts and minds, as well as force of arms. It does not appear that Western leaders understand this. While even ISIS terrorists say they follow the rules of their holy book, Western leaders seem determined to follow no particular rule or interpretation of any law except what suits them, and nothing is more guaranteed to bring your law into contempt than doing precisely this. The psychopath is not merely a deranged murderer as is commonly supposed, but someone who is without conscience or compassion for the people he hurts, without principles, and who will commit any crime if he thinks he can get way with it according to his mood of the moment. This would be the Western politician.

It was David Cameron who displayed his ignorance of the rule of law on the David Letterman Show when he couldn't answer what Magna Carta meant in English. I am sure it was not only the English who thought putting down promises you never intend to keep on a piece of paper with your signature was a very useful device in politics to trick people into supporting you and to mess your enemies around. These days it is called the manifesto.

If liberals no longer believe in liberalism and the fundamental principles of freedom of belief, contract, association and expression as well as the rule of law, what do they still believe in? Liberalism these days seems synonymous with sexual licence, an exaggerated respect for the slut and gay marriage under a dysfunctional system of government called representative democracy. Are we sure that these are the Western moral values that we want to be seen to be defending to the death, if at all, once the dust of history has settled?

If this were done, what conclusions can the world reasonably reach about how the British government adheres to its declared British values of the rule of law?

The idiot politicians who keep wittering on about winning hearts and minds remain clueless about what is actually necessary to win the propaganda war. This can only be done credibly by showing moral superiority and moral superiority cannot be credibly displayed when you break your own rules, and actively go against your own principles, can it?

No comments: