European Commission, a law unto themselves...

#1
Now I am not really an anti EU person and have no love for the press but sh1te like this is not on. Who the fcuk do these unelected twats think they are?!
EU judges end human rights law for press

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels

(Filed: 18/10/2004)
Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004.

The European Court has quietly brushed aside 50 years of international case law in a landmark judgment on press freedom, ruling that Brussels does not have to comply with European human rights codes.
In a judgment with profound implications for civil liberties, Euro-judges backed efforts by the European Commission to obtain the computers, address books, telephone records and 1,000 pages of notes seized by Belgian police - on EU instructions - from Hans-Martin Tillack, the former Brussels correspondent of Germany's Stern magazine.
It is a test case of whether the European Court will adhere to the democratic freedoms and liberal principles upheld for the last half-century by Europe's top rights watchdog, the non-EU Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, or whether it will pursue a more authoritarian line as it grows in power.
Mr Tillack had written a series of hard-hitting exposes of EU fraud and skulduggery, relying on inside sources. By obtaining his archive of investigative files amassed over five years, the commission can identify key sources and "burn" a generation of EU whistleblowers.
He was arrested by the Belgian police in March and held incommunicado for 10 hours for allegedly bribing an official to obtain internal EU documents.
The action was requested "urgently" by the EU's anti-fraud office, which claimed Mr Tillack was about leave for America. In fact, he was moving back to Hamburg.
Leaked anti-fraud office documents have since shown that the allegation was concocted over dinner between two commission spokesmen.
Raymond Kendall, the former Interpol chief and now head of anti-fraud office oversight board, testified to the Lords in May that officials had acted improperly "purely on the basis of hearsay" and were "obviously" in collusion with Belgian police to identify Mr Tillack's sources.
Claiming that the anti-fraud office head had more power to launch raids and seize documents than any other police chief in the world, he said the body was a danger to civil liberties. "They can do whatever they want to do. There is absolutely no control whatsoever," he said.
Mr Tillack filed a lawsuit at the European Court with the backing of the International Federation of Journalists to block commission access to his records.
The federation pleaded that the EU's attempt to identify a journalist's sources in that fashion was a "flagrant violation" of press protection established over decades in European Convention law.
If the commission is allowed to sift through his records, it would render investigative journalism "virtually impossible" in Brussels.
Mr Tillack's lawyers cited extensive case law, including the case of "Goodwin v UK" in 1996, ruling that the protection of sources was the cornerstone of a free press and "genuine democracy".
The human rights court ruled against Luxembourg last year that identifying a source of leaks did not constitute a "pressing social need" that could justify a breach of Article 10 on press freedom.
But the EU's Court of First Instance ruled against Mr Tillack last week on the grounds that the case was a strictly Belgian matter.
Euro-judges accepted commission claims that it played no role in the arrest of Mr Tillack, even though leaked anti-fraud office documents show it orchestrated the raid from the beginning.
It is not the first time the European Court has appeared to ignore established human rights law.
It ruled in "Connolly v Commission" in 2001 that the EU could curtail civil rights to defend the "general interest of the communities" where necessary, despite human rights case law clearly and repeatedly banning recourse to such sweeping powers.
In theory, the European Court is obliged to defer to the court of human rights as the higher authority in all areas of rights protection. The Tillack and Connolly rulings offer the first evidence that Euro-judges may create their own very different brand of civil rights law.
 
#2
Isn't that just the kind of action those who questioned the creation of the EU were afraid of?
 
#3
I wish the w@nkers were as good at trying to tackle the fraud that the greedy b'astards at the top are carrying out. It's time we pulled out of the whole farce. :evil:
 
#4
The European Court has quietly brushed aside 50 years of international case law in a landmark judgment on press freedom, ruling that Brussels does not have to comply with European human rights codes.
OS
Rules are fine when they inconvenience, harrass, or cost, the public but don't apply when the do the same to government. Everyone knows that, ask the bearded bigot Blunkett
ID cards anyone?

Everyone on arrse knows the only useful thing to come out of Brussels is the E40 to Ostend/Dover
 
#5
Welcome folks to the new EU dictatorship.

Any questions, quiries or complaints and you'll be locked away by the EU commission. How dare you question their infallibility!!

Didn't you know the Human rights bill is for us mere mortals, people of such power as held by these unelected gods cannot be held to account.

George Orwells predictions are looking depressing accurate :evil:
 
#6
I recall hearing that only three (now two) governing political bodies in the world meet and deliberate in secret - the Central Committe of the Communist Party of the Democratic Peoples' Republic of North Korea, the (former) Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council,...and the European Commission.

When one bears in mind the predominance of broadly left-wing parties in the European Parliament, coupled with the prominent position notable left-wing politicians occupy in the EU (Barroso, the new president of the Commission is a 'former' Maoist; and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, former 'spokesman and leader, Paris May Revolution (1968)', and (God help us!) subsitutue member of the EU subcommitte on security & defence) it should come as no surprise that this is the direction the EU is taking. Remember the uproar when Jorg Haider (admittedly, an odious little snirp) and his Freedom Party came to prominence (democratically) in Austria a few years ago? It would appear that only politically correct (read 'left-wing' or 'progressive') politics and politicians are acceptable. Look at the treatment Buttiglione is receiving at the hands of the left bloc in the parliament (he holds such 'controversial' views as the importance of marriage...a dangerous radical indeed).
 
#7
Locked up by an organisation with no police force, no criminal court and no prison? The EP does not have a "preponderance of left wing parties". It has a conservative majority! This is a basic error of fact - like saying that Michael Howard is the Prime Minister.
 
#8
As everyone seems to agree, it should be no surprise that dictatorship that is the EU is continuing to pass laws that effect us, but of course we have no say in the matter.

On fraud, it should be remembered that last week, the woman who blew the whistle on EU fraud has now officially been sacked, with nothing done. This was sanctioned and implenmented (as one of his last acts) by the w*nker Kinnock - never has an organisation been truly milked by failed British policitans!!!

Roll on the referendum!

For more scandel on the EU read Chris Booker's Notebook in the Sunday Torygraph - classic this week on Fishermen and Defra
 
#9
Escape-from-PPRuNe said:
Locked up by an organisation with no police force, no criminal court and no prison? The EP does not have a "preponderance of left wing parties". It has a conservative majority! This is a basic error of fact - like saying that Michael Howard is the Prime Minister.
The numbers in the individual multinational groups makes it appear that conservative political parties predominate (European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats (EPP-ED) has 294 MEPs); but this is not the case if one looks at the composition of the other large political groups.

The Party of European Socialists (PES) numbers 232; the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party (ELDR) has 66 MEPs (including Lib Dems); the European United Left/Nordic Green Left (EUL/NGL) numbers 55; the Greens/European Free Alliance Greens (EFA) numbers 47. Together these broadly left-wing groups outnumber the conservative bloc.
 
#10
So why do they find it necessary to choose a majority conservative Commission, as convention requires with a majority conservative Parliament? The ELDR includes liberal parties much more in the old meaning of the word (ie small government free traders) as well as the Lib Dems. The German FDP, for example, argues for economic deregulation and tax cuts and was part of Helmut Kohl's conservative government from 1982 to 1998. And where do you place the FPÖ? They were traditionally quite liberal in that sense but also include the hard right element now in charge, and they are NOT in the EPP-ED. The French "Democratie Liberale" actually argues for a Thatcherite economic policy - broadly leftwing?

Then, of course, there are the further right groupings...after all, about half the Italian right-wing MEPs don't belong to the EPP-ED. Not to mention nutters. You should certainly not rely on the EUL/NGL and the Greens agreeing - they are two different groups for a reason.

I suppose you are aware that the British Government can and does suspend our civil rights when it feels like it? Check out the text of the new civil contingencies bill....
 
#11
I will concede the field in this matter to Escape-from PPPrune, but I will qualify my contention about the 'predominance' of broadly left-wing groups in the European Parliament by saying that I feel the ethos of the EU suits many of the left-wing members of the parliament. That said, those groups which could be classified as 'right-wing' are not particularly palatable either. Many of the groups mentioned seem to my eyes to be Continental copies of Little Englanders with limited, regional appeal and agendas. I cannot say that I have a great deal of time for any of them - left or right - as they are all partaking in what seems to be an increasingly undemocratic and authoritarian system 'over there'. I rememebr once being told that if a politician or political party found itself unable to gain influence at home, then it should aim for 'Europe' where all sorts of weird and wonderful views can be simply passed into legislation (the principle of 'why bother trying to get your views voted into law in your own country, when you can have them passed into legislation by the EU')
 
#12
gallowglass said:
I recall hearing that only three (now two) governing political bodies in the world meet and deliberate in secret - the Central Committe of the Communist Party of the Democratic Peoples' Republic of North Korea, the (former) Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council,...and the European Commission.
In March 2000, Mikhail Gorbachev himself cynically described the EU as the "New European Soviet".

The EU is a communistic institution which has its roots in 18th century 'Age of Enlightenment', and is part of a wider global convergence strategy to merge various power blocs into a communist one world government. Churchill, Stalin, and FD Roosevelt were instrumental in laying the groundwork for this in establishing the United Nations.

In 1995, KGB Gen. Sergei Kondrashev stated in an interview that, after WWII, it was official Soviet policy to send communist agents into right-wing parties as well as the left-wing parties in the Socialist International (a wing of the Communist International for "social democratic" parties in the West, including the Labour Party). Certainly, former Tory PM Edward Heath fitted this category as he openly backed the Communist International during the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s and gave an honourary knighthood to his close friend Marshal Josip Tito, the dictator of Yugoslavia, in the early 70s.

On the subject of German politics, the Free Democrats are heavily infiltrated, as, according to leaked documents from Czech intelligence, their former leader (Helmut Kohl's foreign minister) Hans-Dietrich Genscher was/is a KGB agent, code-named "Tulip".

The main opposition German Christian Democrats (CDU) leader, Angela Merkel, was a member of the East German Communist Youth League.

BTW, almost all the leaders in the new EU countries were Communist Party officials before 1989.

Margaret Thatcher's former foreign policy advisor, Christopher Story, exposes the sovietisation of Europe in his book 'The European Union Collective':

http://www.ukip.org/index.php?menu=shop&page=shopbooksvideos

Book - The European Union Collective. The European Union Collective is the implacable revolutionary enemy of its Member States.

The European Union is not a 'nice' institution. It is a political collective, proceeding by incremental strategic decisions reached behind closed doors, and applied secretively by the Collective's Executive, the European Commission, to which the constituent European nation states foolishly delegated 'general powers', ostensibly in the interests of 'cooperation'. This weasel-word masks the hideous reality - that such 'cooperation' is forced, rather than undertaken at arms' length. For the watchwords of this arrogant reincarnation of Sovietstyle collectivism are pressure, harassment, intimidation and coercion - all of which are falsely legitimised by the myth of 'cooperation' in the 'common interest'. This book explains how continuing Soviet Leninist deception strategy complements an ongoing Pan-German hegemony plan - and how the stupid, compliant E.U. Member States are blindly collaborating in plans for their own extinction. The New European Soviet is the control-freak enemy of its deluded Member States - and of human freedom.
 
#13
Hereward,

Thanks for the link to the book - just ordered it. Looks facinating.
 
#14
No problem at all, stoatman.

I hope it inspires you as much as it did me.

Cheers!
 
#15
Fukkit lets apply to become a United State - same language and TV, plus they aint afraid of a scrap and we always go to war with them.

And I like MREs.
 
#16
Has its roots in the 18th Century "age of enlightenment"
That also gave us science instead of having to go to a witch when your 7th sprog came down with the bubonic plague and watch them strap seaweed to the poor brat's head, and then die. That gave us rational philosophy instead of having to believe some bunch of priests grown fat on our money talk about the voices in their heads. That gave us parliamentary democracy instead of having to listen to a king who honestly believed God put him there. That gave us free market capitalism instead of giving all your stuff to a feudal lord. Right. That's a criticism?


Certainly, former Tory PM Edward Heath fitted this category as he openly backed the Communist International during the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s and gave an honourary knighthood to his close friend Marshal Josip Tito, the dictator of Yugoslavia, in the early 70s.
I suppose this means that he openly backed the democratically elected Spanish government against the Nazi-backed military junta? So did Winston Churchill! Further, Marshal Tito broke with Stalin as early as 1946 and kicked the Red Army out of Yugoslavia so he could trade with the West and not get involved in any nutter crusade for nuclear war. We planned to send SF to Yugoslavia to give him a hand in the event of a war! Stalin tried to have him assassinated! Some Soviet agent, eh.

On the subject of German politics, the Free Democrats are heavily infiltrated, as, according to leaked documents from Czech intelligence, their former leader (Helmut Kohl's foreign minister) Hans-Dietrich Genscher was/is a KGB agent, code-named "Tulip".
Any chance of link to these "leaked docs"? I suppose they are used because he's *not* in the Stasi archive. Genscher pulled the FDP out of the coalition in 1982 because he thought Helmut Schmidt was too left wing and anti-NATO. He then effectively put Kohl and the conservatives in power! And supported the deployment of Pershing and Cruise!

The main opposition German Christian Democrats (CDU) leader, Angela Merkel, was a member of the East German Communist Youth League
Your point is what exactly? If you'd been born in East Germany, so would you. It was compulsory. First you went to school, where they put you in the FDJ (Free German Youth). Then, later, they put you in the League. Then, as long as you were lucky enough to be a bloke, they put you in the army. The only kids who escaped were foreigners or had criminal records, except for a few dissidents who were willing to go to jail rather than sign up little Hansi. But they were just a bunch of crazy pinko intellectuals, so they don't count for ARRSE purposes. Anyway, it's damn unlikely that Angie Merkel will ever be in a position of power, (which is a pity because she is the only German politician on her side who isn't a dinosaur), because she's a bird and the CDU hierarchy don't like that.


BTW, almost all the leaders in the new EU countries were Communist Party officials before 1989.
Indeed. If you wanted to do anything with your life, that's what you did. Otherwise - well, you could just stay on the Skoda production line for the next 40 years or until the chemical works effluent did you in, living in somewhere like Bratislava-Petrzalka. Again, the only exceptions were a few crazy pinko intellectuals who really enjoyed being followed by the secret police and having to copy their books out 300 times by hand. Most of those are politicians these days, too. But strangely you didn't mention 'em. (Although they are CPIs and therefore don't count.)

How many times do we have to have this POS advertised on ARRSE anyway?
 
#17
EFPP ,

Threads like this are only allowed to stand, so posters such as you can come in and argue an effective counter-point

Yeah those damn Commies , Havel - Damn Trotskyite :roll:

No mention of how many fascists ooops reformed facists are in postions of power in the EU.
 
#18
Not all of the current political leaders of the recently-joined EU Member States are of a communist background - it is something of an urban legend to think so. Many, notably some from the Baltic republics, have a long record of dissent and oppostion to Communism.

While the Republican Government of Spain had been democratically elected in 1931 and again in 1936, there is ample evidence that it was behaving in an arbitrary fashion (I will also mischeviously point out that the Nazis were similarly democratically elected). Its 'reforms' caused a flight of capital from the country and its ham-fisted attempts at land reform caused chaos in the countryside and the economy; it also appeared intent upon waging class war on the middle and upper levels of society, and also the Church. While Franco willingly took aid from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, he was primarily a traditional Spanish nationalist. He had little time for either Hitler or Mussolini, and was wily enough to stay out of the Second World War, during which Spain became a refuge and route of escape for European Jews. In the years after the war, Franco took steps to dismantle the influence of the Falange by such means as bringing Opus Dei technocrats into his administration (whatever one may think of Opus Dei, its members in Franco's government knew how to administer the country). Although El Caudillo knew that Prince Juan Carlos de Borbon y Borbon would re-introduce democracy once he became head of state and government, he nominated him as his successor. Franco was undoubtedly an autocrat, but he realsied the enormous problems Spain faced, and the very real likelihood of a return to the anarchy of the party politics of the 20s and 30s. Although the majority of modern Spaniards would profess no love for him, I believe it is accurate to say that he is recognised as having been a necessary evil at a time when other parts of Europe were succumbing to Communism. Many well-meaning types in Europe and further afield were taken-in by the professed democracy of the Republican cause during the Spanish Civil War, but those with eyes soon saw that the cause was quickly hijacked by the Soviet Union, whose agents summarily liquidated any who did not tow the party line - Orwell (no right-winger) came back from Spain deeply disillusioned. If everything Franco did was so bad, Spain would hardly be a monarchy today.

On the subject of Hans-Dietrich Genscher, according to the autobiography of Markus Wolf, former head of the Foreign Service Branch of the 'Stasi', he was indeed a source of information, but whether knowingly or not is not exactly clear.

I could be very cynical and point out that the Enligtenment - while having many benefits as EFPP points out - also lumbered Europe with the French Revolution, the concept of 'total war', Napoleon, nationalism, terror, and almost a quarter century of civil war in Europe. The Enlightenment, despite its good points, is also an example of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'.

While I do not subscribe to the view that the European Union is a cuddlier version of the Soviet Union, it does seem to have attracted many of those who prior to 1989 would have been classed as 'fellow travellers'.
 
#19
Franco's side also had thousands of people shot without trial (in many cases the graves are only now being discovered). Which "other parts" of Europe were succumbing to communism in 1936? They were surely succumbing to Fascism! I will remind you that the Nazis came to power without a parliamentary majority, in fact they were appointed rather than elected in a bid to get in before the head of the Reichswehr (Hammerstein) had the chance to declare a military dictatorship. There followed a period of SA/SS intimidation and terrorism, as well as mass arrests, before the 30th January elections. Terror is easy when you've declared yourself all to be policemen (Göring's first official act as PM of Prussia was to swear in all SA and SS members as special constables, the second was to sack the SPD-appointed police chief, sending soldiers to kick him out of his office).

Franco's regime cooperated with Nazism in a number of useful ways, for example supplying various mineral resources under an agreement signed at the beginning of the civil war (basically - we give you tanks, you give us the mines and industries of the north once you've got them back), permitting German front companies in Spain to bust the Allied blockade, allowing the clandestine refuelling of U-boats in Spanish ports, and returning Allied escapers and refugees caught on the border to the Germans. Oh yes, and sending 10,000 men (the Blue Division) to help invade Russia.

Naturally he could have done more, for example allowed them to march through to Gibraltar which would have REALLY f@cked us up, but he clearly had more sense.
 
#20
I should have clarified my statement regarding Franco's concern about other European countries succumbing to Communism - I was referring specifically to how matters would have appeared to Franco in the post-Second World War period; that said, someone of his views would have looked upon the 1936 Popular Front victory in France as being akin to Communism, as it included the French Communist Party, the largest in Europe. It is also quite probable that Franco and others like him in Spain were aware of the widespread campaign of political subversion that was being waged by the Comintern across Europe, from the infiltration of political and union agitators to assassination.

As early as 1940 Franco did not believe that the Axis could win the war, and from 1943 - when he ordered the withdrawal of the Brigada Azul from Russia - he began to give active clandestine support to the Allied cause. One of the reasons Hitler was wary of Franco was because the latter demanded compensation for any losses to Spanish shipping resulting from a British blockade in the event of Spain entering the war on Germany's side. His actions more often than not showed that he was Spanish first, Catholic second, an offcer third, and a falangist lastly.

Undoubtedly, the Nationalists carried out executions and atrocities - as did the Republicans; it was after all a civil war. The Nazis did indeed come to power without a parliamentary majority, but it was by democratic means (which Hitler almost immediately set about subverting). Unfortunately, simply because a political grouping utilizes the democratic system to come to power does not always mean they will thereafter behave in a strictly (or even remotely) democratic fashion.
 

Latest Threads