DATE : Friday, 9 March 2001
SUBJECT : Where From Freedom?
Bringing you step by step to an understanding of the coming
New World Order and associated One World Government.
Yes, there is time to prepare but you
must listen to The National Watchman.
=============================================
The New International Law
I have, in the past, recommended to my readership the independent e-news-letter 'The News Report'. One of the featured writers is Antonia Feitz; she is perhaps one of the finest political writers in Australia; the equal to the mainstream faithful like the Walshes and Hendersons.
In 'Issue 284 Friday March 9 2001' she wrote regarding the new idea of political free speech that is taking place in Europe. It is, under international law, a return to the Star Chamber; political dissent is now illegal.
The EU's top court has found that the European Commission could restrict dissent in order to "protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the institution's image and reputation".
A Republic’s Promise
This is what a future republic heralds for Australia. To abandon the Monarchy is to abandon our right to the common law. It is to move to international law.
Unfortunately, most do not understand the value of our common law. The freedoms that you take for granted today in Australia (trail by jury, innocent until provide guilty, right to be brought before a judge) come only from the English common law. Remove this and you will graduate to rule by State sanction, a return to the Roman Empire.
What has been forgotten is that democracy, or the related citizenship, is not interested in the individual but is solely concerned with the majority’s will. ‘Citizen’ is a term associated with republics; the equivalent in a Constitutional Monarchy is a ‘subject’.
Value in Subjection
A British Subject was under the protection of the Sovereign who had sworn to uphold the rights of the subject. The contract was between individuals, not between the state and the mass.
In return the subject had obligations and responsibilities to the Sovereign. Hence the two had an historical and long established, well tried contract with each other. The contract was based on the common law which in turn was based on the freedom of the individual.
The Monarch was constitutionally bound to uphold the freedom of the individual. The individual was sworn to protect the Sovereign against every form of attack, even unto death. This arrangement structurally entrenched the freedom of the individual and a stable form of government.
At the height of the system England was called Merry England for the people were free to pursue their own aspirations provided they did not encroach on the liberty of others.
Freedoms Not Rights
The English system of law was based not on rights but on the maintenance of liberty. It was diametrically opposed to Civil or Roman law; if English law is the North pole than civil or republic law is the South.
Thus, Englishmen did not talk in terms of ‘rights’ but in terms of ‘freedoms’. In the famed work ‘The Law of the Constitution’, Albert Venn Dicey discussed the constitutional result.
"There is in the English Constitution an absence of those declarations of rights so dear to foreign constitutionalists...But any knowledge of history suffices to show that foreign constitutionalists have , while occupied in defining rights, given insufficient attention to the absolute necessity for the provision of adequate remedies by which the rights they proclaimed might be enforced...On the other hand there runs through the English Constitution that inseparable connection between the means of enforcing a right and the right to be enforced which is the strength of judicial legislation...where the right to individual freedom is a result deducted from the principles of the constitution, the idea readily occurs that the right is capable of being suspended or taken away. Where, on the other hand the right to individual freedom is a part of the constitution because it is inherent in the ordinary law of the land , the right is one that can hardly be destroyed without a thorough revolution in the institution and the manners of the nation.”
The Tyranny of a Majority
In a democracy the will of the majority must be followed; it has been called the tyranny of the majority. Of course, the will of the majority can only be exercised by an oligarchy, if it is exercised in any other way it is called anarchy.
The rulers in a democracy and oligarchy have no contractual relationship to the individual; only the mass. If the mass is happy then the unjust death of a single individual, even at the hands of government, is of no consequence to society.
The difference then, between the two, is that a Constitutional Monarchy is concerned with the individual and the majority cannot encroach on the rights of the individual. Democracy, on the other hand, is concerned with the majority and the rights of the individual cannot withstand the will of the majority.
An Individual’s Choice
The most famous case of Roman law, the republic law of mass satisfaction, was 2000 years ago.
“Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the sake of many”. (John 18:14)
The Jews instigated Roman law to kill the Saviour of the world; one man was to die for "the sake of many". Today Roman law is returning. Should it return to Australia it will show that we have forgotten our heritage, what men lived and died for. We will have become the same men with the same thinking as the 2000 year old Jews who killed the Son of God.
Worst still, you may be among the individuals that die at the hands of the majority. The death may not be physical; it may be a thousand cuts. Thus the individual’s right to free speech must be silenced in order not to offend the homosexual mass, or the ethnic mass. Truth is not defence as the criteria is the acceptance by the mass.
From Roman Rule to Mystery Babylon
The more perverted the mass becomes the more cruel the cuts; there is no truth, no recourse to individual freedoms; there is only the satisfaction of the lowest common denominator. The strong become controlled by the weak, the degraded enforce their values upon the moral.
Edward Gibbon, wrote of the inevitable result, in the ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’.
“In 439 AD, the streets of Carthage were polluted by effeminate wretches who publicly assumed the countenance, the dress and character of a woman. If a monk appeared in the city, the holy man was pursued with impious scorn and ridicule. In 706 AD the city was entirely destroyed ”. (Ch 33)
The National Watchman's mission statement is to
‘Bring you step by step to an understanding of the coming New World Order and associated One World Government.’
A necessary extension of this, and in relation to the above, is to declare that One World Government is the 'Mystery Babylon' of Revelation, it is the final fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire. But more on that another time.
The full text of Antonia’s article follows. For those readers who are interested I have attached a small document that will try to introduce the concept of English liberty. You will note from this that I have borrowed many of my above words from another writer.
Kerry Spencer-Salt B.E., LL.B (Hons)
The National Watchman
Australian Community Organisation
P.O. Box 136, Surry Hills NSW 2010
Phone : (02) 9 690 2211
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website : www.rockroll.com.au/watchman
Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU ( By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels)
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk>
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.
English.doc