This brings us back to legal fetishism and the importance of grasping regime politics and how it informs judicial thinking. Judges do not simply make and apply rules ‘neutrally’. As I said earlier, judges are representatives of a regime and protect its interests. And at the heart of our regime is faith in, essentially, open borders – mass immigration is one of its central principles and tenets.
|
|||||
Samizdata quote of the day – Leaving the ECHR will not save usSeptember 2nd, 2026 |
 4 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – Leaving the ECHR will not save usLeave a Reply |
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Except it isn’t exactly “open borders” is it? You have skills and apply for a good job then you can feck off. You’re illiterate and brown and mumble to Mecca then you’re in. Extra points if you’re a rapist. It is only open borders to the merest scum of the earth with an inflatable boat. Of course, if, at any point, you display a knowledge or interest (or heavens forfend! An actual liking of Britain) you are doomed.
Of course I shall be deemed racist for this. I am not. Many years ago I came close to moving to the USA. Yeah, it was because of a girl but I also really liked the place and the people and being in love was not quite enough to seriously consider the move. I felt it was a culture I could “get into” and wanted to “get into”.
Paul Marks regards many of these immigrants as “hostile”. I dunno. Some of the small boat folks are. Some are probably genuine*. A lot seem just indifferent. There is no genuine cultural enrichment. They form ghettoes – little islands of Mogadishu or (the rough end) of Pakistan.
And I do mean the “rough end”. What is frequently missed about the “grooming gangs” is that it is Mafia (Pakia?) style extended families.
*I thought the UN had a rule that a refugee had to stick at the first safe port or something. Doesn’t France count?
Agreed, leaving the EHCR alone will not save us. But it would be a good first step towards reviving good governance.
There is a risk that politicians would announce that the ‘job has been done’ if we leave the EHCR – and that would be just slightly less smoke and mirrors. Remove the Supreme Court, defund the BBC, and bounce illegal immigrants back as soon as they land, and we will be making good progress.
NickM – I regard rapists as hostile, and I regard as hostile people who hold that anyone who “mocks” Muhammed should be killed.
There is a difference between members of a faith doing terrible things (everyone has evil within them – I certainly do, very much so) – and the founder of that faith teaching his followers to do terrible things and doing terrible things himself. A Christian who does terrible things can be asked “would Jesus have done this?” – it is pointless to ask a following of Islam “would Muhammed have done this” – because they can answer, quite honestly, “yes he would have – indeed he did, often, and commanded his followers to do till the end of time” – to that there is no answer, one can not debate further with them.
Unless one is trying to get them to leave that faith – and the “regime” as the post (probably rightly) calls the Western establishment, does not like that – does not like conversion efforts at all, at least not conversions from Islam (they are fine with conversions to Islam).
Discovered Joys – yes leaving the European Convention on Human Rights is indeed a necessary first step.
I remember a Conservative councilor (he has left the party now) who defended the ECHR – “it protects Freedom of Speech” he claimed, and had no answer as to why (if the ECHR protects Freedom of Speech) European countries, including Britain, arrest very large numbers of people for peacefully expressing their opinions, he then claimed “it protects other freedoms” – but could not name one basic liberty the ECHR had protected during the (savagely counter productive) Covid Lockdowns.
As even the Attorney General under the Atlee government noted – the ECHR is so vaguely drafted that any judge can make it mean anything, or nothing.
But the post is also correct – the judges also need to be changed.
Judges such as Sir Edward Coke and Sir John Holt used to defend the basic principles of private property based natural justice (natural law) upon which the Common Law is based – modern judges have very different principles of jurisprudence.
Americans have long understood that just because someone is a judge does not mean they leave their philosophical and political principles (and it is a matter of principles – not just crude “defending the regime” although, yes, that is part of it – as we witnessed with the Kangaroo Court proceedings against the “right wing rioters” in 2024 – suddenly there were no delays in the legal system, and people were given very harsh punishments for minor crimes, or, sometimes, for no crime at all) at the door – even as far back as the 1930s how a judge would rule on basic matters could be predicted by their political opinions – so the appointment of judges (at both State and Federal level) is very much a political matter – and if the right lose we get utterly sick judgments such as those that voided the 1994 vote by the citizens of California to limit the government benefits and public services that ILLEGAL immigrants got.
Those judgments against Proposition 187 (rightly called the “Save Our State” measure) basically ended democracy in California – if the voters can not even limit the government benefits and public services that ILLEGAL immigrants get, then there is no point in voting at all – indeed no point in staying in such a polity – in short the voiding of the 1994 vote (the voiding by intellectually corrupt judges) signed the gradual Death Warrant of California.
There is no alternative (TINA) – new judges, with different basic principles, must be appointed – but that would be a revolution in British governance.