Ordinary every day human rights abuses

[Freeman Stephen]

https://justice.org.uk/article-7-punishment-without-law/

Article 7(1) (echr)
No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time that it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

Just another website where human rights are being discussed. The specifics have to do with drug trafficking and the human rights document is the echr which seems to have eclipsed the more superior udhr which says:

Article 11(2) (udhr)
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

These human rights have never been protected in the UK

Have a look here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-52106843

In extreme circumstances, you could be prosecuted and face an even greater fine imposed by a court. Jeremy Corbyn's brother, Piers, is among those who have ended up in court. Similar rules apply in all parts of the UK.

This is just an ordinary every day example of ordinary everyday human rights abuses. This time in the context of mandatory medical procedures in violation of the same human rights abused by the third reich but how about those traffic offences. It's £30 if you take it up the butt in circumstances no one could have been injured but £60 if you dispute it? This was just the ordinary everyday human rights abuses which are as normal as an "doctor" slaughtering an unborn child. This kind of stuff has been getting done under the guise of "law" while Saddam Hussein and the East Berlin Stasi were offering healthcare to support people who were so mentally ill they thought there was something very unjust about everything the tyrants and their minions call "the law".

The very intimidation against lawful assemblies opposing other human rights violations. This version of "the law" has been getting committed by the bbc for quite some time while they claim their war is against some foreign enemy. The enemy of the media and the claptrap who applaud them are the people that they hold in mental chains.

What do I care about someone taking heroine? Do those saying junkies 'need help' intend to help them when they have no intent to stop the bayonnettes tearing the stomachs of the pregnant mothers? They have help to offer alright but with so much help on hand why is the news constantly telling us about shoplifting and junkies and guns and drugs? It's a psychological conditioning to destroy reputations in my view. I'm looking at a world who can't see who the drug pushers are and those drug pushers would entice me to engage in harmless recreational drug use to see my reputation destroyed in their network of lies and spin which is truly the biggest mind altering and addictive substance the junkies will never know they are on.

I'm venting here because tvl think I owe them my time for their assumptions every two years that I should pay a fine if I watch the unregulated lunatics which make justice impossible without a licence. This world is run by gangsters wearing suits and I'm an idiot for treating with them as I would with honest people.

[iamani]

Hi Freeman Stephen

Gangsters wearing suits? Absolutely.

Media as terrorism? Couldn't agree more.

However...

Imo such 'rights' as suggested are actually protected  -  the stated legislation/regulations refer (imo) to retroactively-applied newer/heavier fines and/or penalties. The £30 fine is a discounted amount for early (non-court) settlement  -  the £60 is implied in the legs/regs as the correct initial amount, so 'taking it all the way to court' does not actually incur heavier penalty than can be applied at the time the 'offence' is committed...

That aside, i must ask  -  do you still consider yourself to be 'human'? If you do, then you could probably take your pick between the E.C.H.R. and the U.D.H.R. as both specifically apply only to 'humans' and 'human-beings' (the 'human creatures' referred to in Unam Sanctum). The E.C.H.R. seems to be a re-do of the U.D.H.R. to replace the common-law reference 'penal offence' (anagogically: crime as committed by those who might have a penis) to 'criminal offence' (breach of contract/agreement between 'persons') in much the same way as the KJV was re-written just to insert a new verse in Romans (13?) asserting secular authority.

Only if one is prepared to lower one's status to that of 'human' do these covenants apply.

Have you considered the offer being made by the Universal Law Community Trust as seen on YT 'em oven' channel? There is also a connected website and a Facebook page (which i'm told holds most of the info).

If you have looked into it, and if you have the time and the inclination, i would appreciate your opinion on that subject. (Or anyone else's for that matter.)

If you haven't, then you might like to do so... you may find it interesting.

Cheers!

[Freeman Stephen]

So the police are accepting bribes systemically so people who commit what the lawmakers call crime can avoid punishments that those who refuse to pay the bribes are compelled to pay if the court deems fit?

The police, the court and lawmakers all being organs of the state party violation human rights systemically in disregard of the department juggling bureaucracy. The state remains self-evidently guilty of breaking its own commitments to not commit "crimes which have outraged humanity" and your angle is that the people subject to such long-standing outrages (everybody, some more selectively than others) aren't human because of a papal bull from the 1300s you claim is what is meant by the UN and the EU who seem to extend their descriptions to places beyond the Roman Catholic Institutions.

I, like many, perceive the word 'human' to mean the bipedal creatures with opposable thumbs and that the most humane among these 'human's (as I perceive the word to mean) might feel some grief that the soul of a dog or a chimpanzee is not recognised to have the rights which extend to 'human's (as I perceive the word to mean) but you not only suggest that the police are taking bribes (causing breaches of the state law to go less punished) but the obligation of the state to protect human rights doesn't extend to anyone because no ones human.

This to me seems like a very complex tautology and I have shown that that even with these complexities you introduce that the state is then engaged in international fraud to be involving itself in treaties where it has no horse of its own in the race (these violations extend to all hominids none of which can be human by your description) but this is what remains reasonable to conclude through the lens you present.

It seems much more likely that systemic human rights violations are going on and its a matter of some intrigue that your tautology tends to depict the state party (in its organs of police, courts and lawmakers) as being innocent of human rights violations it agrees are human rights violations (by way of international treaty), except that the people whos human rights are systemically violated are not human or that human does not extend as a description of everyone being daily violated by these state party actions.

Even with your added complexities, no one has human rights protection except the priveleged who are afforded so much in collective resources that the punishments are petty cash who are still infringed upon were they human albeit only slightly but to all intents and purposes a system of slavery and servitude exists for all those without the protection of human rights.

Even if you disregard the notion of human rights the treaties are in breech. Even if you claim that bribing the police £30 to avoid paying the courts £60, it is still the state party to the treaties in breech.

Your tautology renders no warrant for these ordinary everyday abuses by the state but now brings a matter of intrigue to the fore of why you would attempt to obfuscate these modern state abuses in the complixities of popes from the 1300's and strange vexatious hair splitting about whether the police are an agency of the state party or not.

Are you here on government business?

[iamani]

Hi Freeman Stephen

So... you had the time but not the inclination - i'll take that as a firm 'no' then, shall i ?

As regards your post: are you sure you read my post? Coz i've got no idea where you got all that from...

Re: your final question - what did i do to upset you that you unleash a cognitive dissonance on me? i was perfectly happy with my long-standing and firmly-held belief that there is no such thing as a stupid question...

Cheers!

[Freeman Stephen]

You make two assertions, both of which attempt to counter that human rights are protected

Imo such 'rights' as suggested are actually protected

The two points being that

1. An agency of state makes the punishment less at the time 'the offence' is committed and failure to confess and submit makes the punishment more at the timr 'the offence' is committed. Note I'm having to spell things out here clearly taking acount of what you have said, showing its irrelevant even if the state employs three agencies or ten agencies, or sub-contracted parties as the state is the indictee and cant claim immunity on the grounds that its right hand committed the crime violation and not the indictee. It's right hand should then be cut off so that its right hand should be punished. Failing this, the state remains guilty.

2. A human is a fiction created by a papal bull and therefore human rights are protected because there are no humans. This interpretation of 'human' makes every piece of legislation and treaty where the word 'human' is mentioned irrelevant at worst or unlawful at best since if only some are deemed 'human' while others are not, there is situational slavery going on and it is only the enslavers enjoying the protection of their own law who have a moral obligation to obey it as its a private matter. The treaties suppose the states will legislate in what is called public law (for all people) toward the protection of these rights.

You introduce 1. and 2. but they just make the route from A. (the state should protect human tights) to B. (the state is hostile to human rights) more curled and winding and complex and obfuscated but still after wild goose chase resulting in the same REASONABLE conclusion.

In answer to your question of where I got that from, I used a magical procedure called reason. By this magical procedure I can tell the future like I can know if I let a ball drop out my hand that a that a thud will be heard a short time later but I am not granted perfect future sight by the gift of reason since I recognise I may be blind to matters of the present such as a large sponge being beneath the ball I did not notice so I am always keen to engage in dialog where the things I am blind to may be pointed out to me.

We live in an age of censorship, propaganda, lies, invasions of privacy, third party interlopers, false accusations, iterference in correspondence and all manner of diverse psychological manipulation designed to undermine our reason, deceive our souls and make the innocent appear as wrongdoers and the wrongdoers to be regarded as above suspicion even whilst engaged in wrongful acts. There are those who would remove the blindness by their dialog and those who would pull the wool over our eyes. You appear to my reasoning as the latter because by 1. and 2. we arrive at the same deductions having wasted mental effort reasoning through these newly introduced ideas.

Please explain how human rights are protected if there are no humans (a point you make I formalise to predicate 2) or how the state is innocent of violating rights it is obliged to protect by department juggling which still has the overall effect that the state (the indicted person at law) acts outside the law "Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed." regardless of the state agency it has juggled into its hand at any time to fo this self-evident violation."

All you have done is introduce an unneccessary complexity which you would no doubt use to blind the less literate with whose rights remain being violated by the state through whatever agency and even more so if there are no humans and they are deceived by liars to treat their exploiters as equals never mind protectors.

I therefore deduce a third predicate (3.) which can be left in the air for reasonable people to draw conclusions about and leave it at your own discretion to address 3. and dispute it by way of addressing the obfuscatory look of your points I formally describe as 1. and 2.

1. A person is innocent if his right hand commits a wrongdoing. (A state is innocent of the wrongs performed through diverse agencies in its control.)
2. Human rights are protected because a 12th century pope invented the word human so there are no humans to protect.

These two premises seem bizarre and obfuscatory and lead to the same point I made even if you see human rights as a matter of written codex rather than morality.

I won't mention 3. but it's not an unreasonable conclusion and if you don't lack reason so as to see the point made then please address it along with these bizarre seeming premises you introduce.

[iamani]

Hi Freeman Stephen

You'd think i would know better than to cast pearls before swine by now...

Have it your own way.

i wish you all the best in your future endeavours.

Cheers!