Civil Liberties - Barred from talking to your own MP.
Discussion
The quote below is an extract from a Hansard debate last week.
Mr Bacon: What my hon. Friend has just said is really quite extraordinary. As I understand him, he is saying that a court in this country... prohibited someone from talking to a Member of Parliament and from referring to the existence of the proceedings. When one thinks of secret courts, one thinks of unsavoury regimes such as those in Burma, Cuba, Hungary in the 1950s or Stalin's Russia, but one does not think of the United Kingdom. How can a judge feel it appropriate to make an order making it unlawful-supposedly-to refer to the existence of proceedings?
http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/hyper-injuncti...
This bit:
He [John Hemming MP]spoke of the threats to constituents if they spoke to their MP:
To say, “We will remove your child, because you had the effrontery to raise your concerns about process with your Member of Parliament” is a dreadful thing to do. Parliament should not tolerate that, because it undermines the actions of Parliament.
On Thursday afternoon, in a back room of Parliament, history was made. A few MPs found themselves a backbone; they found a way in which they could exercise their Freedom of Speech and perform their ancient duty, drawn from the Bill of Rights 1688, of redressing the grievances of the citizens who rely on them.
They were warned first to ‘be careful’:
I remind Members of the importance of privilege, which we have here in Westminster Hall as in other parts of Parliament, but Members should always exercise their rights with care, particularly when naming individuals, and should avoid intrusion into areas that are within the jurisdiction of the courts, particularly things that are active before the courts.
The speaker, Mr Peter Bone, issued that warning because he knew what was coming; he understood the careful dance that must be performed before him.
Every single MP knows what has been going on; the Speaker of the House knows what has been going on; David Cameron knows what has been going on; to my personal knowledge, every single media outlet has known what has been going on; none of them were prepared to risk the wrath of the establishment by letting you know what has been going on. Do please Google and see if you can find one single reference in the media yesterday or today to the astounding events detailed in Westminster Hall on Thursday afternoon.
Mr John Hemming, MP for Yardley in Birmingham, rose to his feet and used parliamentary privilege to list some of the secret prisoners, the people who have lost their liberty in the UK behind closed doors; the court orders which detail the secret injunctions – not for the benefit of footballers or bankers, (although it was the issue of Fred Goodwin’s secret injunction that allowed the debate to be heard), but the injunctions, not mere ‘super-injunctions’ that the media could not mention, but ‘hyper-injunctions’ which even prevented the aggrieved citizen from appealing to their MP for help.
spotted this at bishop hill
Mr Bacon: What my hon. Friend has just said is really quite extraordinary. As I understand him, he is saying that a court in this country... prohibited someone from talking to a Member of Parliament and from referring to the existence of the proceedings. When one thinks of secret courts, one thinks of unsavoury regimes such as those in Burma, Cuba, Hungary in the 1950s or Stalin's Russia, but one does not think of the United Kingdom. How can a judge feel it appropriate to make an order making it unlawful-supposedly-to refer to the existence of proceedings?
http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/hyper-injuncti...
This bit:
He [John Hemming MP]spoke of the threats to constituents if they spoke to their MP:
To say, “We will remove your child, because you had the effrontery to raise your concerns about process with your Member of Parliament” is a dreadful thing to do. Parliament should not tolerate that, because it undermines the actions of Parliament.
On Thursday afternoon, in a back room of Parliament, history was made. A few MPs found themselves a backbone; they found a way in which they could exercise their Freedom of Speech and perform their ancient duty, drawn from the Bill of Rights 1688, of redressing the grievances of the citizens who rely on them.
They were warned first to ‘be careful’:
I remind Members of the importance of privilege, which we have here in Westminster Hall as in other parts of Parliament, but Members should always exercise their rights with care, particularly when naming individuals, and should avoid intrusion into areas that are within the jurisdiction of the courts, particularly things that are active before the courts.
The speaker, Mr Peter Bone, issued that warning because he knew what was coming; he understood the careful dance that must be performed before him.
Every single MP knows what has been going on; the Speaker of the House knows what has been going on; David Cameron knows what has been going on; to my personal knowledge, every single media outlet has known what has been going on; none of them were prepared to risk the wrath of the establishment by letting you know what has been going on. Do please Google and see if you can find one single reference in the media yesterday or today to the astounding events detailed in Westminster Hall on Thursday afternoon.
Mr John Hemming, MP for Yardley in Birmingham, rose to his feet and used parliamentary privilege to list some of the secret prisoners, the people who have lost their liberty in the UK behind closed doors; the court orders which detail the secret injunctions – not for the benefit of footballers or bankers, (although it was the issue of Fred Goodwin’s secret injunction that allowed the debate to be heard), but the injunctions, not mere ‘super-injunctions’ that the media could not mention, but ‘hyper-injunctions’ which even prevented the aggrieved citizen from appealing to their MP for help.
spotted this at bishop hill
Edited by BJWoods on Sunday 20th March 19:19
BJWoods said:
This bit:
He [John Hemming MP]spoke of the threats to constituents if they spoke to their MP:
To say, “We will remove your child, because you had the effrontery to raise your concerns about process with your Member of Parliament” is a dreadful thing to do. Parliament should not tolerate that, because it undermines the actions of Parliament.
This is common in family court hearings where child abuse is suspected (sometimes for spurious reasons) and, once a child has been adopted by another family the process cannot be reversed. They threaten people that if they make a fuss then all their children will be taken away.He [John Hemming MP]spoke of the threats to constituents if they spoke to their MP:
To say, “We will remove your child, because you had the effrontery to raise your concerns about process with your Member of Parliament” is a dreadful thing to do. Parliament should not tolerate that, because it undermines the actions of Parliament.
Nothing to stop Parliament taking action to prevent it - a new piece of legislation.
Sadly, some judges ought to be taken out and shot. The Separation of Powers is important, but subject to abuse. To issue such an injuction would to my mind be a direct breach of the separation of powers, with the court seeking to usurp Parliament.
Be interesting to see what they do about it.
Sadly, some judges ought to be taken out and shot. The Separation of Powers is important, but subject to abuse. To issue such an injuction would to my mind be a direct breach of the separation of powers, with the court seeking to usurp Parliament.
Be interesting to see what they do about it.
Using Parliamentary privilege, John Hemmings MP quoted the injunction as saying.
“Upon the first and second Respondents agreeing that they will make no further disclosure in respect of this matter to any third party, including in particular the media and John Hemmings MP.”
The term ‘any third party’ doesn’t just include those mentioned in particular.
Theoretically this also prevents someone taking their case to appeal. You can’t brief Counsel for the appeal. You can’t disclose it by filling in Appeal Court paperwork to bring a case. You can’t state the case in the Appeal Court if somehow you managed to get the Appeal heard.
This principle is dangerous beyond belief. No Court should be able to inhibit proper Appeal procedures from being followed.
“Upon the first and second Respondents agreeing that they will make no further disclosure in respect of this matter to any third party, including in particular the media and John Hemmings MP.”
The term ‘any third party’ doesn’t just include those mentioned in particular.
Theoretically this also prevents someone taking their case to appeal. You can’t brief Counsel for the appeal. You can’t disclose it by filling in Appeal Court paperwork to bring a case. You can’t state the case in the Appeal Court if somehow you managed to get the Appeal heard.
This principle is dangerous beyond belief. No Court should be able to inhibit proper Appeal procedures from being followed.
Private Eye printed details of a super injunction brought by Carter Ruck, that well known bastion of citizens' rights. CF backed down.
These injunctions go against everything that this country professes as basic rights. It is lawyers without limits. Our separation between the two states has stood up well over time but it depends on sensible and responsible judges. I fear we need some.
These injunctions go against everything that this country professes as basic rights. It is lawyers without limits. Our separation between the two states has stood up well over time but it depends on sensible and responsible judges. I fear we need some.
Details from the Daily Soovy:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368395/No...
If true, deeply disturbing - and a clear breach of 'human rights'!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368395/No...
If true, deeply disturbing - and a clear breach of 'human rights'!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff