Rights Advocates Blog

Rich politicians is hardly a new observation, but I was thinking have there ever been any major political figures who have not been rich. If there were any, the number would be a small one. It is no secret than Cameron is rich, related to HMQueen, private school, never had a real job. Clegg is from the same stock. The Times is reporting how over 2/3 of the Cabinet is rich (net worth of over a million pounds) – http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7133943.ece Also noteworthy is the fact that many of the Ministers are under 50 years old so they still have a lot of years to make more money.

Obama is of course rich and Bush was famously embarrassed by the revealtions that almost all his Cabinet were rich.

If we look back into history we find again a lot of rich political leaders. Even Hitler who stood of his platform of workers rights and the image that he has been poor, was a rich man before taking office after huge sales of Mein Kampf. In Bertesgarten, where I visisted some years ago (the retreat for Nazi leaders) I saw the ruins of huge mansions and it was very clear the leadership was rich.

So the days of average income politicians is a long way from now.

Today, I am looking at the widely discussed topic of gun rights. It is surprising and interesting that in Britain, people did have rights under Common Law to possess firearms:

The rights of English subjects, and, after 1707, British subjects, to possess arms was recognised under English Common Law. Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, were highly influential and were used as a reference and text book for English Common Law. In his Commentaries, Blackstone described the right to arms.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Pistols_Act_1903

It was not until the Pistols Act 1903 that restrictions on the sale of guns were imposed and these were strengthened following the war years and concerns that too many guns were in circulation. In recent years laws have been tightened up to such a degree that owning or using any firearm in the UK is difficult. In contrast, the Government itself has been arming police officers more and more as the gun laws have been tightened, and now the UK has regular patrols of police officers carrying machine guns.

This apparent contradiction stems from the unwillingness of police officers to take any risk and there have been countless wrongful deaths caused by armed police officers. The most high profile was the killing of Menezes who although unarmed was shot seven times in the head at close range: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

The so called shoot to kill operations have been rumoured to be used by British forces for decades and the official line has been to deny such claims. 

If we examine non-EU nations such as Mexico, we can see how guns are used with horror. For example in this case six police officers were killed: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/4299116/Mexico-police-chiefs-head-found-in-ice-box.html

Six bodies in police uniforms bearing signs of torture and gunshot wounds were found on Monday in a street in the state capital, Chihuahua, officials said.

It reminds us all the danger of guns, in the hands of officials, in the hands of criminals, and in the hands of civilians.

As today there is an action to make gun laws less restrictive: http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/01-363/

Texas is considered to have some of the most permissive gun laws in the nation, but gun-rights advocates are making it one of their top political targets because it is one of a handful of states that don’t allow handguns to be carried openly.

Guns are dangerous but so is the world. So the real issue is how to make the world safer. Whilst the world is as dangerous as this one, people will feel the need to have guns, either in uniform or as civilians.

On the matter of the right to form groups I saw by chance an old group called the Ranters – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranter. Apparently the group were panthetic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism.

It is also interesting that during the Civil War values in the UK were challenged and the Ranters were created during that period. Another group of note is the Levellers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers is the Wiki link.

The Levellers were members of a political movement, known to history by the same name, during the English Civil Wars which emphasised popular sovereignty, extended suffrage, equality before the law, and religious tolerance, all of which were expressed in the manifesto “Agreement of the People”. They were one of the largest factions on the Parliamentarian side during the English Civil Wars.

Of course in this modern age we have a large collection of pressure groups, and interest groups. But the real issue to all these groups how potent they can be in the real world and if they can get political influence.

As this week passes we have again seen members of a movement cut down with reports stating dozens were killed – they referred to the Red Shirt movement in Thailand. http://links.org.au/node/993 It reminds us that of the dangers in all politics. Although we feel in the West such events are rare, a simple look at European history and American history during the last 100 years would show considerable protest which has been led by pressure movements in the early stages.

As Cameron moves into Number 10, we have again a do-nothing sit on your hands PM. So it will be interesting to see what movements develop in the UK.

The right of secrecy, how far should it be permitted?

I was considering this question. Wikipedia has a excellent page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Freemasonry

It details how numerous attempts have been made to outlaw freemasons, and Hitler ordered the deaths of large numbers of them.

The former sixth President of the United States, John Quincy Adams objecting to the oath of secrecy, in particular to keeping undefined secrets, and to the penalties for breaking the oath, declared, “Masonry ought forever to be abolished. It is wrong – essentially wrong – a seed of evil which can never produce any good.”

Since 1997, several members of the British Government have attempted to pass laws requiring Freemasons who join the police or judiciary[36] to declare their membership publicly to the government amid accusations of Freemasons performing acts of mutual advancement and favour-swapping. This movement was initially led by Jack Straw, Home Secretary from 1997 until 2001.[36] In 1999, the Welsh Assembly became the only body in the United Kingdom to place a legal requirement on membership declaration for Freemasons.[37] Currently, existing members of the police and judiciary in England are asked to voluntarily admit to being Freemasons.[38] However, all first time successful judiciary candidates “must declare their freemasonry status” before appointment.[38] Conversely, new members of the police are not required to declare their status.[38]

Societies have been plagued by secrecy for centuries. America has had large issues with the KKK for example, and this youtube tape shows when the politician Kerry in the USA was asked if he had membership of the Skull and Bones – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones - the man’s microphone was cut and a number of uniformed officers took the man to the rear of the hall. Kerry made a joke, and the audience laughed and roars of laughter were on the tape as the man cried for help. Officers tasered him and suddenly the laughing stopped as he screamed and officers clearly then had to handle some crowd unrest. The man, whose crime was asking a question, was then taken from the Hall.

The youtube tape is here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s with the first police intervention at 0:45 and the second and final at 1:45.

John Kerry was asked about Skull and Bones on Meet the Press – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0KbC3ydTQI&feature=related and he refused to answer the question. However, the questioner was not tasered for asking. but Tim Russert did die at the young age of 58 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Russert.

What is the need for secrecy and why are prominent people members of secret groups?

I cannot think of anything good to say about secret organisations. Should they be permitted? I think it matter what they are trying to achieve and why they need secrecy. 

I was searching in twitter for politics (UK) and found http://twitter.com/britishpolitics which I found interesting. One link was to  http://britishpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/cameron-overseas-aid-taxpayers-money/ and how Cameron is wasting nine billion pounds.

For anyone versed in anything political, there is ample evidence that the Conservatives are highly wasteful and lack any kind of business skills. In the article about the billions Cameron will spend, we read how the money will be protected or ring fenced and all paid to foreign countries:

David Cameron is wrong to insist that the £9 billion ‘overseas aid budget’ should be “ring fenced”. At a time when the people of this country are facing great hardship, it is foolhardy to believe that he will have widespread support for delivering UK taxpayers money to countries such as Pakistan and China.

I have say my sympathies would lie with the article in the light of huge tax rises and public service cuts Cameron aims to bring into effect. This then raises the issue of what rights to foreigners have to British monies especially when the economy is very weak.  

Another burning issue is the level of corruption in aid services which is thought to be very high.

This year has seen a turblent indignation of trade and globalisation as many citizens feel threatened by the growing powers in Asia.

The G20 protests became  a focal point in Britain for economic and trade issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_G-20_London_summit_protests

I was fishing around in the Chinese press, and found the Chinese are far more proactively using the press to push a political message: something they have I feel sure learned from the West.

In this article: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/business/2010-05/16/c_13297493.htm the case is made that 99 percent of European people are “delighted” with Chinese goods. Such a figure cannot be verified and it defies any common sense confirmation. I doubt if 99 percent of people could agree on anything, even confirming the world is round. There is after all a flat earth society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society, here is the official link: http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

If people cannot agree if the Earth is flat or not, then people cannot agree to anything to a 100% certainty of even 99%.

The interesting fact is that China is understanding the role of the media in control, and using the media accordingly. In the West this concept is well proven, for example the UK now has openly political alignments of major media journals. In the 2010 election, journals openly supported the Conservative party in large numbers. There is little doubt that influenced the election. Cameron who had poll figures dropping sharply from a 20% lead down to single figures needed help. Several newspapers entered in vilification campaigns against Brown, which he later described as “hostile.”

Returning to the Chinese, and the all tacit explusion of Google for its clear endorsement of American Capitalism (for example Schmidt openly made political statements supporting Obama), the question of free trade relates to how far Chinese can assume power in trade and media control.

Twitter is banned in China, and clearly the Chinese have much to learn about control of the media. With twitter, the art of control is to have celebrities get large numbers of followers and for them to push the standard message of America. Again in the Obama campaign, celebrities widely endorsed Obama.

I labeled this Free Trade, because power all comes from money which comes from trade. The media can be used to influence views, politics, and this affects trade.

I end this entry on Obama’s hope to double exports: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-05/17/c_13297802.htm

I think he has more chance of putting someone on Mars by 2015. Maybe that will happen.

I was wondering this week about this issue of treason and what it really means. I guess the blog entry would be about the rights to openly undermine a country.

The last week has seen Brown berated in the press and even called a criminal. I have seen numerous Internet posts referring to Brown as unwanted.

Politicians continually refer to the PM as elected and they claim he was unelected since after Blair quit, there was no General Election. Interestingly the same claims were not made against John Major who took Office after Thatcher was forced to resign.

How this brings to me treason, is that PM’s in the UK are all appointed. There is no electoral process to elect a Prime Minister. Even the concept makes no sense. The Queen is the Head of State and the PM heads her government under the principle First Among Equals.

If a PM was really elected it would mean the entire electorate would be able to vote for a Prime Ministerial candidate. In fact, Cameron polled 33,000 votes in a country with a population of 60 million. Even the entire Conservative Party polled less than a 1/3 of the actual vote, and more than a 1/3 did not vote at all.

The figures hardly support any concept that Cameron with 33,000 votes was elected as PM.

So is it treason to claim the PM is elected? Treason is defined as betrayal of the Nation or Sovereign. Interestingly Charles I was convicted of treason (and executed), and he was the King at the time, so it is clear the crime refers to the Nation and the actual Sovereign can betray the Nation. The actual commissioners who sentenced Charles I were later tried themselves for treason after Charles II got power.

I personally think stating a PM is elected undermines the country and is treason.

Chungcheong in Korea was featured on a long TV program today but I have forgotten the channel. I am mentioning this just in the light of global trade and a country which by any measure has been very heavily criticised by Human Rights Activists.

The program today was all about corrupted and illegal practices in Korea, especially by the Government. The reason why I am blogging about this is because during filming the journalist who did have permission was followed by a car which was reportedly a government car. Shortly after a lawyer made an allegation of government illegality, several interviewees did withdraw from the program and a number of noted politicians who had agreed to talk to the journalist, even not in an interview, suddenly were “too busy.”

This blog entry is therefore about rights in Korea, a huge subject.

I will not due to lack of time, report and analyse more aspects of this, only to say it is not acceptable for government staff to follow and monitor journalists. This is a fundamental breach of free speech and the people’s right to know. If a journalist becomes an activist then the matter is different, then the government does have rights to monitor activities. But a simple interview situation and filming of events should not be monitored in the absence of other evidence.

Time dictates I cannot say more at this time.

After a relentless campaign against the Labour party by many of Britain’s leading newspapers, there is now a Hung Parliament. So who has the right to form a government?

The media is abuzz today with the rights of politicians and the rights of the Queen, and a number of noteable points surfaced. The first is that the Queen can appoint a coaltion government, and this happened in 1931 under King George V and so called National Government.

A second point was that Brown as the current PM has the first right to form a new Government assuming he is able to get Commons support: a majority of elected MP’s. This point seems to be ignored by the Conservative Party which is now claiming that Brown should resign as he failed to win a majority. The BBC has been saying countless times that the British Constitution says no such thing as a requirement for Brown who in fact has the first right and duty to form a Government. It is somewhat amazing that the Tories are so willing to ignore the law in this matter in their quest for power.

Cameron himself has publicly demanded that Brown resign claiming “our country” has spoken. A question is why are Tories so willing to talk down the law? The answer is to win power.

Despite the huge Tory media campaign led by the Sun Newspaper – which today demanded that Brown resign- a top Tory (Jo Cash) went into a wild rant against the media saying the media was “on notice” and then when storming out from the election hall, an aide tried to stop a camera from filming her by lunging at a camera. It really says a lot about how quickly people will turn to violence and anger in politics.

Here is one link about Jo Cash and her “attack.”

David Cameron favourite Joanne Cash launched an astonishing attack on the media after failing in her bid to oust Karen Buck in Westminster North.

Amid all this, Greece is going into meltdown with heavy rioting and a lot of talk continually about bankruptcy. A BBC historian said Americans were in a panic about the Greek situation, and the obvious consequences if the fiscal collapse starts to spread to Spain, Portgual, Italy. Spain already has 20% unemployment.

The parallel is clearly that in 1931 the King ordered a new Government against a global crisis: a similar crisis exists today.

Cameron was further claiming a run of the Pound would happen, but no such events have happened.

The entire nation waits, and wonders how far Tories will go to get power.

I have heard numerous Ministers and Prime Ministers talk in terms of an elected Prime Minister. Tony Blair used to talk endlessly about being elected and Cameron in his recent campaign attacked Brown on the basis that he was not elected but assumed the position after Blair resigned.

Well, in the UK all Ministers are appointed. It is a simple untruth to state that Prime Ministers are elected. If they were elected, as stated by several of them, then a PM candidate would actually stand for election before the entire electorate in the UK. Prime Ministers are elected as Members of Parliament and the actual decisions is made by the Queen who should be Prime Minister. In cases of a Hung Parliament this is far from clear who should be appointed.

So, did politicians have the right to state PM’s are elected? No, it is misleading and falsely states the power of a Minister.

Here is a Direct Gov link about HM Government, and the Royal site itself Queen and Minister