Category: ON BEING HUMAN WITHOUT A HIVE MENTALITY
Last Updated: Wednesday, 13 February 2019 14:40
If the high courts can overturn the word of parliament, and punish parliament, and make or cancel legislation, and they are above criticism because they must be independent, then why are we electing politicians? Why are we not electing the high court judiciary, and let them appoint appropriate administrators?
What is the point of democracy under an independent judiciary?
Even the Constitutional Court, supposed to uphold the Law of the Land, does so under the aegis, rules and limitations of the BAR Association, the governing body of all lawyerdom, essentially an old boys’ club that has self-imposed last judgement on the application of law. A lawyer may, nay, a lawyer is expected, required to lie in a court of law. A lawyer may misinterpret and corrupt the law in any way he deems fit “in the service of his client”, but the moment he transgresses in the slightest towards his BAR Association, he risks being sanctioned, punished, even disbarred, forever excluded from the exalted ranks of those who make the rules our governments rule by.
Here is the most important of all those rules and laws and regulations: Ignorance is not an excuse before the law. Every citizen is bound by the Law of the Land, while his lawyer recognises only BAR authority. Which one of these two ‘legal systems’ are we supposed to know by heart? Which one will serve you best in court? Do you know the judge?
Our elected governments, with the Party members all lined up at the public trough, who are allowed to rule as any way they like, as long as the BAR agrees, have a job to do. Our governments are supposed to be administrating the common public infrastructure of the country, securing the borders, and protecting the currency. None of these tasks are being attended to. Whatever has not been privatised, leased or gifted to foreign businessmen, is being ignored and allowed to slowly rot into obscurity, like our schools, public hospitals, the railways… If and when a parliamentarian tries to fulfil a need for the population without first recognising the Investor’s right to profit off this need, he will be declared to be breaking some law or another, and he will be unable to fight back against an Independent Judiciary. Instead of running our countries, our parliamentarians, subject to the whims and wishes of the judiciary, sit around in our House of Parliament, prattling useless and repetitive nonsense about things they cannot and do not want to change. And what do these hard-working parliamentarians like to call themselves?
Lawmakers! All over the world, no matter how left or right or spaghettified the current government is, they are all beholden unto the Independent Judiciary, and they have no higher recourse, even referendums get ‘cancelled’ these days, as and when it suits the ‘High Courts”. Yet, the parliamentarians are called law-makers. Every country has a constitution, even if it is just a king’s character. Somewhere, sometime, during the process where a bunch of people decided to throw their lot in together and build a sovereign nation, they agreed on the basic laws and ethics of their future society. We even made a law that you cannot excuse your crimes by saying “I did not know it was wrong.” We are expected to know the basic rules of our civilisation, as we saw them applied while we grew up. There is no specific effort in our schools to teach Law, so one supposes the law is unchanged and commonly agreed upon? Why then, are we rewarding a couple of hundred people with enormous amounts of money and influence, to do nothing but sit around every day thinking up ways to modify (corrupt) that original social contract? …with permission, no, insistence from the Independent Judiciary, of course. Why is my minister of finance busy discussing the ins and outs of transgender bathrooms for hours on end, then he must hear about applications to enlarge the security gate, and then there is the thing about the honourable Minister of Underwater Basket-weaving who has entered a motion of no confidence in the chairman… when is my economy getting proper professional attention from somebody publically charged with taking charge of the finances of our public infrastructure?
Oh, I forgot, that all has been privatised and contracted out. To people like KPMG and Delloite and Coopers. Serious, your economy is being run by a clerk, appointed by a corporation, contracted by a bunch of idiots with no understanding of government, so they spend their time ‘networking’ at elaborate parties and official functions and midnight rendezvous with schoolgirls behind Kentucky’s. Sometimes they sober up enough to receive new orders on corrupting our society by raping the social contract and the Constitution that was supposed to be based on that. They spend their time corrupting the basis of our common law, yet we call them “Lawmakers”. The people they contracted to run the country for their own profit, do not work for free, they are not citizens of our country, and they only recognise BAR law. How well is your country being run right now, and how much of those national profits end up outside your country, while your friends and neighbours are looking poorer every year, or running themselves ragged to keep up the payments on things bought in better times?
Yet we are assured the economy is growing. Which is why we have to pay more taxes on the same salary. “It supports the growing economy”, the good Minister said. We all have to understand that salaries are not increasing with inflation, because the economy is under stress. We all hail our Chief Economist (insert current multinational corporation contracted to “manage our economy”) for the sustained growth expected in the third quarter. We have to pay more and more for our basic needs, because the economy is contracting. We have to pay more taxes to support the growing economy. I know this is all true, it was on the news, it just makes so much sense. Maybe common sense is also being privatised, leaving such as myself with no right to murmur and mumble irrelevant facts, when there are plenty of “alternate facts” to go around. Besides, the BAR and its lawyers will interpret the Truth as required, anyway…