United Nations Launch Investigation Into UK Conservative Government: UN Threaten Trump

 The United Nations Launch Investigation Into UK Conservative Government; UN Threatened Donald Trump a long time ago. The United Nations EU Agenda's is nothing new to Americans. This news by the UN EU Imperialism against Canada, Canada is not noted within this news, they were the first to pull out of the EU, then Great Britain, this is 100% propaganda, Human rights, since when did the UN NATO Forces care about Human Rights ?, and seeing how the German EU Bankers are attempting to over through, the EU TPP Legislation in their controlling hands, this news is noted as a EU propaganda, of political pressure and media bias, crap!!! At the bottom of this page I will provide EU LAWS, in play.

 And since when did We The People Of America need the United Nations to educate Americans and the world on the British Empire, its like Hello hey , read the Declaration Of Independence, these people of the EU are so stupid, and their world is unexceptionable. but hey here is their media BS !!!!

 What Does the EU Constitutional Laws Of The World Look like

Approval of Transfer of Sovereignty of Countries Without Effect of Constitutional Amendments,

 Hey if they feel this EU, as if the can claim American Sovereignty through all of them little Treaties with the British Empire, like NAFTA and others that go back 200 years, want to go to war, try to claim Americans as property. The EU Constitutional Law crap is below.

United Nations launch investigation into the Conservative party in the UK The investigation was launched after complaints were made about Britain’s appalling human rights record. UN investigators are set to look at the impact of austerity, mass surveillance, poverty, racism and press freedoms.

Thecanary.co reports: The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is carrying out its periodic review of the UK’s commitment to international human rights law. So it asked hundreds of campaign groups, charities and organisations to submit evidence [pdf p13]. And the complaints made by these bodies are damning.

The Tories: a damning assessment..............


They include include [pdf]:

  • That the UK leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) would “undermine” and “erode” human rights.
  • And that it would also pose a “threat” to previous UN rulings in this area.
  • That, after the EU referendum, ethnicity-related hate crime rose 57%.
  • Overcrowding in prisons.
  • Cuts to legal aid.

     

  • “Very little” action on tackling human trafficking.
  • The UK government’s failure to address the “pervasive” issue of violence against women and girls.
  • Gender inequality.
  • A failure to tackle child poverty.

 

“Serious concerns”

Organisations also raised [pdf] concerns about:

  • The use of immigration detention centres; specifically relating to length of incarceration and the imprisonment of vulnerable people.
  • A “reluctance” by the government to adhere to UN conventions on the rights of migrant workers.
  • Treatment of whistleblower Julian Assange, which raised “serious concerns” about the government’s “commitment to the international rule of law”.
  • The government making “little progress” on dealing with discrimination; also that ethnic minorities were “over-represented” in the criminal system (i.e. ‘racial profiling’).
  • UK social care needing a “significant injection of funding” to protect older people’s human rights.
  • The fact that the government needed to take “immediate” action over air pollution.
  • Counter-terrorism and surveillance laws, and the Investigatory Powers Bill, failing to comply with human rights standards.
  • The restraint of children in custody increasing, and the fact that England was of the few countries in Europe to issue life sentences to children.

Making the rich richer

Furthermore, other complaints [pdf] included:

  • That the use of ‘secret courts’ was contrary to the UK’s supposed commitment to international treaties.
  • That there should be a judge-led inquiry into UK involvement in abuse of prisoners abroad.
  • The criminalisation of environmental protesters.
  • That the Lobbying Act was restricting the work of charities.
  • The Trade Union Act “undermining” the power of unions.
  • That, while cutting welfare, the government “had reduced the tax burden of the wealthiest earners and businesses”.
  • The use of food banks was the biggest area in which the UK had “regressed” since 2012. And that the government was failing to “eliminate” food insecurity.
  • That reforms to welfare had “seen a regression in the welfare system’s ability to tackle poverty, with a negative impact on vulnerable social groups”.

“Negative”; “regress”

The UK government was also criticised [pdf] for:

  • The “negative impact” of UK drug laws.
  • Ignoring previously “strong” recommendations from the UN, and letting child poverty increase.
  • Allowing disabled people’s human rights to “regress” because of welfare reforms.
  • Allowing “the use of hate speech by politicians and media [to create] a climate in which racism and hate speech was thought acceptable”

But the UK government either [pdf] denied or said, in essence, that work was in progress on all these criticisms. The UN will release its findings and recommendations on Tuesday 9 May.

Another day, another UN report

But we’ve been here before. As The Canary has documented, the UN twice reported on the UK government in 2016. And it found that the Tories had committed “grave” and “systematic” violations of disabled people’s human rights; while also eroding the rights of single parents, minority communities, and the poorest and most vulnerable people in society.

The Tories’ response to both those reports? To simply shrug their shoulders and say they didn’t believe them. So the response to this latest round of damning criticism will probably be much the same. But at the time of The Canary publishing this article, only Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik had reported this story.

It is now down to the public to decide if they want to live in a country where their government can commit such flagrant abuses against its citizens. And then, a decision must be made at the ballot box on 8 June.

 

the EU Agenda, in plain text, fact finding info, that we had for a while,

REFERENDUMS HELD ON EUROPEAN MATTERS: 6

1972: EU - Accession (Yes 83 % - No 17 % - Turnout 71 %)
1987: Single European Act (Yes 70 % - No 30 % - Turnout 44 %)
1992: Treaty of Maastricht (Yes 69 % - No 31 % - Turnout 57 %)
1998: Treaty of Amsterdam (Yes 62 % - No 38 % - Turnout 56 %)
2001: Treaty of Nice (No 54 % - Yes 46 % - Turnout 35 %)
2002: Treaty of Nice (Yes 63 % - No 37 % - Turnout 49 %)

CONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS - Constitution of Ireland

Binding referendum provided for any transfer of power because that requires a constitutional amendment which makes a referendum mandatory.

 

ARTICLES ABOUT INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, REFERENDUM AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Regulation about a special transfer of sovereignty to EU:
A decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence shall not be adopted if Ireland would be included, Art. 29 IV 9 ConstIreland.

Approval of transfer of sovereignty without effect of constitutional amendment:
Majority from both chambers, Art. 29 V, VI ConstIreland.

Approval of transfer of sovereignty with effect of constitutional amendment:
Not expressly regulated, but constitutional amendment required.

Approval of constitutional amendment:
Majority from both chambers and by mandatory and binding referendum, Art. 46, 47 ConstIreland.

Other constitutional regulations about referendums:
Any bill not amending the constitution can be given to a referendum on demand of a majority of the members of parliament or not less than 1/3 of the members of senate, Art. 27 ConstIreland.

 

RATING AND DEBATE

Decided

The referendum in Ireland had been set to take place in autumn. But the Irish government had not announced a specific referendum date. The Yes campaign to approve the Constitution is very broad: Ireland's largest opposition party, Fine Gael, will campaign for the Constitution, and the Labour Party is likely to do the same. One political party which will actively campaign against the new Constitution is Sinn Fein. Its spokesperson on international affairs, Aengus O'Snodaigh, said the main concern was that the Constitution would further erode Ireland's sovereignty in a range of areas. The Eurobarometer opinion poll in January 2005 showed that only 28% of Irish people supported the Constitution. This level of support put Ireland fourth lowest in the EU, just above Sweden, Cyprus and the UK.
On 26.05.2005 the legislation act to allow Ireland's people to vote in a referendum on the proposed Constitution was published by the government. The law, the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill, had to be passed by both houses before it could be put to the people in a referendum.
According to a Irish Times opinion poll published on 14.06.05 a greater number of voters (45%) believed a referendum on the EU Constitution should go ahead in Ireland despite its rejection by the French and Dutch people, but more citizens would have voted to reject it than to ratify it.
On 16.06.2005 an Irish government spokesperson indicated that Dublin was considering postponing its referendum. Nevertheless Ireland will pursue its plans to hold a referendum on the EU constitution and will ratify it without setting any date or putting forward the required laws to enable the vote. Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said: "We will, however, continue to prepare for a referendum," […] "I strongly believe that ratification of the European Constitution remains a valid and important objective for Ireland and for the Union. We will use the period of reflection to intensify our engagement with the European constitution and Europe generally” the government is determined to veto any renegotiation and to avoid a fragmentation of the constitution.
As in other member states support to the EU constitution had fallen after the Dutch and French vote, an Irish Times/TNS mrbi opinion poll published on 13.06, found that 35 per cent of those asked would reject the treaty, leaving 30 per cent in favour of ratification and 35 per cent said they are still undecided.

Eurobarometer (2006), The Future of Europe - Results for Ireland, Special Eurobarometer 251, Fieldwork: 23/02 – 15/03 2006. (PDF)

Eurobarometer report, (February 2004): 80% rather agree, 11% rather disagree*

*Are you rather agree or rather disagree with the statement: The European Union must adopt a Constitution.

Eurobarometer report, (January 2005): 28% favourable, 5% opposed*

*Based on what you know, would you say that you are in favour of or opposed to the draft European Constitution?

Eurobarometer report, (July 2005): 54% favourable, 15% opposed*

*Based on the question, are you for or against a constitution for the European Union?

Latest News

09.09.2005 Irish still undecided about EU constitution: study. EUbusiness.com

23.06.2005 Ireland preparing discussion paper on EU constitution. EUbusiness.com

21.06.2005 Ireland to press on with EU constitution referendum plans. EUbusiness.com

07.06.2005 Ireland to go ahead with vote on EU constitution. EUbusiness.com

03.06.2005 Irish FM casts doubt on country's EU referendum. EUbusiness.com

26.05.2005 Ireland publishes laws to pave way for EU constitution vote. EUbusiness.com

06.05.2005 Dublin considers curbing referendums on EU issues. EUobserver.com

28.10.2003 According to the Irish Constitution, Article 46, the government is required to put any issue to a referendum if it will alter the Constitution. EUobserver.com

 

PROCEDURE

vote in the national parliament + Referendum

 

STATE OF THE PROCEDURE

The referendum was postponed

 

DATE OF REFERENDUM

postponed

 

RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND MATERIAL

Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, White Paper on the European Constitution, 13.10.2005. (PDF)

European Commission’s Representation in Ireland, Analysis of the Irish results of a Eurobarometer opinion poll, 09.09.2005. (PDF)

The Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, statement on the European Council meeting, Houses of the Oireachtas, 21.06.05. (HTML)

Link: Legislative process with regard to the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill (HTML)

Irish Government, Twenty eighth amendment of the Constitution Bill 2005 and the Expla..., 26.05.2005. (PDF)

The National Forum On Europe, Gweedore Debates the EU Constitution, 25.04.2005.

Link: Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, Information regarding the European Constitution

Link: The Referendum Commission

Irish Parliament, Committee on European Affairs, Constitutional Treaty: Presentation, 02.03.2005, (HTML)

Irish Parliament, Committee on European Affairs, Ratification of the EU Constitutional Treaty: Presentation, 09.02.2005, (HTML)

Irish Parliament, Committee on European Affairs, EU Constitution: Presentation, 02.02.2005, (HTML)

Brown, A. (2005), Country Report: Ireland, EPIN Ratification Monitor, February 2005.

Link: The National Forum On Europe

Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, Explanatory Paper on the Constitutional Treaty, October 2004.

http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/Treaties/Treaty_Const_Rat_Ireland.htm

Views: 199

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This is CRAP... is all I can say about claims that the UK and its sovereign allies (NATO, the E.U. and United States) are guilty of mass human rights violations... In fact, it is quite the opposite.  Recent history certainly proves that NATO, the E.U., the United States, and its member states generally comply with all Human Rights Conventions, and International Law, regarding land warfare and human rights. I take great umbrage with those who claim otherwise.

This sort of propaganda makes spurious allegations but... often fails to provide all the facts and evidence needed to arrive at a proper conclusion... There are many alternative explanations, for claims of human rights violations.  It must be noted, that the use of organized propaganda, too establish a narrative of abuse is CLASSICAL MARXIST doctrine, and modus operandi... when seeking to discredit their enemies.

The spreading of such propaganda... without the full spectrum of facts behind such accusations is misleading; often, playing into the Marxist/Socialists narrative, propaganda campaign, and should be avoided.  Selective publications of what may be facts often proves nothing more than the bias of the source and should be considered when analyzing its veracity... Truthfulness is not always the result of selective memory or facts.

The diatribe paraded as fact in this post only demonstrates the bias behind the source... England, NATO, the US and our close allies are generally not a source for governmental policy that supports human rights violations.  Those who would suggest so are not the friends of those members states whose historic roll has been to establish liberty and democracy around the world. 

Therefore, I take serious offense... to spreading such propaganda and hold such posts as counter productive to legitimate critique and discussion regarding NATO, the U.S. and the E.U.'s alleged abuse of Human Rights...

 Now Ronald, if Donald Trump states that the sovereignty of America is compromised by treaties, with the UN and NATO is a joke and we did case search his findings, I will just have to take faith in what Donald Trump exposed.

LOL Tif 

Something that most people don't understand... is that TREATIES don't take precedent over the original language of the Constitution... They are not Amendments and don't have the power to change anything in the Constitution.

See Article 6, Clause 2 regarding Treaties: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Source, US Constitution.

No federal statute, treaty, or statutory law of a State, may supersede the Supremacy of the Constitution... as the Supreme Law of the Land.  'Treaties' are not ratified by the 50 States. Congress doesn't have the authority to approve Statutes or Treaties, which seek to Amend the original language and intent of the US Constitution... Anything in a treaty CONTRARY to the Constitution is therefore VOID.

However, many in government are willing to subvert the Constitution...  too, deliberately misread and lie about the power of Treaties to Amend the Constitution, without exercising Article V (Amendment Process) to change the Constitution. The Amendment process is the ONLY Constitutional means by which the US Constitution may be changed/Amended.  Treaties don't and can not change the original language, or meaning, of the US Constitution... Any attempt to do so by Treaty... is void.

Ronald,

 lets have a little chat, I have read all of the 1600 pages of NAFTA, 2178 Pages of TPP Legislation, all most all of Obamacare, treaties after treaties with England,  I want you to understand, what Donald trump Exposed by pulling America out of the UN Treaty of 1945, which by the way was the start of the NAFTA treaty of 1945, and ushered in the IRS of London England.

 All within the above in the same media lies we see how the Federal Reserve along with CFR Agendas, used the media in a lie that the First Banks of America are in trouble...BS! in that time period our Gold supplies were at a all time high, and our Banks were & money was secured and backed up by gold.

 treaties have effected America long enough, its over, a done deal, period..

 

You are missing the point... Treaties are an illegal form when used to Amend the Constitution... no treaty has the Power too Amend the Constitution.  Article V is the only Constitutional means to change the contract of government... between the States... Amendments require the State's to ratify them ... they must consent before they become the Supreme Law of the Land. Treaties don't require the States consent and were never intended to have the power to change the Constitution PERIOD.

Of course, this is all academic since the States and the People refuse to ignore or dispute the power of Treaties too alter the Constitution. Until the people and the several States are willing to take Congress and the Federal Government on task for ILLEGALLY altering Constitutional law by treaty ... such alterations will remain operable... under the COLOR OF LAW.

I am not missing the point, and if the traitors in Congress agree to such a treaty with the EU, honey you can kiss this Constitutional Knowledge of Your Good By.

 and thats a fact !!!!!

Why even discuss the law or the Constitution if you believe that there is no hope or basis for citing the Constitution.  We must keep it alive and inform the public of the correct and proper interpretation... the public certainly won't be informed by the Establishment hacks.

The people must not give up... they must push Congress on the issues and Treaties don't change the Constitution.. where they conflict with the Constitution the Constitution is supreme.

Well, difference of opinions,

 And exposing their crap with official documents will protect the Constitution of the Republic, not this Democratic Constitutional Democracy, we don't bible thumping the Constitution, we research, we expose, Trump exposed their agendas, we support Trump, and if he does something we don't agree with, we voice our opinions.

 Opinions vary...

Tif...

Please, read Article 6, Section 2... that is not opinion. The supremacy clause, as it is called,  clearly states that the US Constitution is supreme over all statutory laws and treaties. Treaties may supersede or change the Constitution.. 

Here it is:

See Article 6, Clause 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Source, US Constitution.

If you want to change the US Constitution...  one must AMEND it... Article V provides the only Constitutional means to change the Constitution. Read Article V of the Constitution.  Treaties, are not mentioned in Article V, one finds them in Article 6, Section 2... treaties don't change the Constitution and if they have provisions CONTRARY to the Constitution, the Constitution remains authoritative... A treaty is void where it attempts to change the Constitution.

Again, the above is not opinion... it is Constitutional fact.  We must not let the left redefine the terms of the Constitution by treaty.  That is a tactic despots have attempted use to  unlawfully Amend the Constitution.  The Left claims Treaties provide them with a means to change the Constitution without Amending it. They lie, misinterpret, and when called on their lies, they claim the people are not smart enough to read and understand the plane English of the Constitution. They will parade a host of unethical and compromised law professors and judges before the people to tell them that a Treaty has supremacy over the Constitution... that is simply BS and we need to tell them so. 

The US needs to stay in the UN and use its VETO POWER to screw it up... getting out will solve nothing... it will only permit the radical elements in the UN to solidify their actions against the US.  Stay in and use our VETO to stop the stupid and dangerous stuff.  We can do nothing from the outside looking in.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary VarvelPolitical Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

BREAKING:   Hillary Clinton Donor Ed Buck Arrested After Another Male Overdoses In His Seedy LA Apartment

Democrat donor and Hillary friend Ed Buck was finally arrested Tuesday night after a third man overdosed in his apartment.

The man who overdosed in Ed Buck’s Los Angeles apartment last week survived, however the other two victims previously died.

Ed Buck will be in court Wednesday.

Ed Buck loves to inject young black gay escorts with methamphetamine — the mother of one of Ed Buck’s victims described it as a fetish.

He was finally arrested after two black gay escorts died in his apartment from overdoses.

KTLA 5 reported:

The prominent Democratic donor and LGBTQ political activist Ed Buck was arrested Tuesday and charged with operating a drug house and providing methamphetamine to a 37-year-old man who overdosed last week, officials said.

Buck was charged with three counts of battery causing serious injury, administering methamphetamine and maintaining a drug house, according to the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office. Buck is accused of injecting the victim, who survived, with methamphetamine on Sept. 11.

CBSLA Assignment Desk @KCBSKCALDesk
 

: Democratic donor Ed Buck has been arrested and charged by @LADAOffice. Buck is accused of running a drug den out of his home. @JeffMichaelNews has details on .

Video of Ed Buck getting taken away by Sheriff deputies:

Bill Melugin    @BillFOXLA

BREAKING: Democratic donor Ed Buck has been arrested at his West Hollywood apartment on drug charges, per @WHDLASD. Neighbor on scene tells me Buck is currently in the back of one of the cruisers. Two gay black men previously died of meth overdoses at his apt. @FOXLA

Bill Melugin    @BillFOXLA
 

BREAKING: Here is video of being taken away by deputies following his arrest at his apartment on drug charges tonight. @FOXLA

of another young black gay escort was found at the West Hollywood home of Ed Buck, a top Democrat donor and political activist.

As previously reported, a black gay escort named Gemmel Moore died of a meth overdose at Ed Buck’s West Hollywood home in July of 2017.

The LA County District Attorney’s Office previously declined to prosecute Ed Buck saying the evidence was “insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (Buck) is responsible for the death of Gemmel Moore,” which sparked an outrage from family members and others in the community.

Jasmyne Cannick told FOX and Friends nearly a dozen black men have come forward to speak on their experiences with “serial predator” Ed Buck.
Cannick also went off on the Democrat Party: “Over 77% of black people in California vote Democratic. We vote for Democrats.

It is a shame that when something like this happens, when you have the chair of your state party when at the time of this , Eric Bauman, who was willing to turn a blind eye as well as instruct others not to speak on it. As a black woman, as a black Democrat, I expect more from my party.

Last week, a black male was seen entering Ed Buck’s seedy LA apartment.

Update: Top Democrat Donor Ed Buck Charged with Maintaining Drug House – Police Find HUNDREDS OF PHOTOS of Men in Compromising Positions in His Home

Buck was charged with operating a drug house.

According to the LA Times — Sheriff’s investigators found hundreds of photographs in Buck’s home of men in compromising positions.

Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 @JackPosobiec
 

Sheriff’s investigators found hundreds of photographs in Ed Buck’s home of men in compromising positions

Democratic donor Ed Buck arrested, charged with operating drug house

Buck was charged with three counts of battery causing serious injury, administering methamphetamine and maintaining a drug house, according to the Los Angeles County district attorney's office. Buck...   latimes.com

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service