The Northern Irish Conflict and the European Convention On Human Rights 1950 - Parts 1 to 5 [ Obtainable via a Google search at- htt:amazon.co.uk ] Then search ebooks by John A Coyle

This blog aims to provide of a summary to the basis of the contents of the e-books – The Northern Irish Conflict and the ECHR 1950 Parts 1 to 5 by John A Coyle. In essence, an evidence based qualitative thematic and pervasive approach. Underpinned by an attempt, via a margin of appreciation, in terms of identifying the continuous thread of the conflicting, competing and countervailing processes, involved in the accessibility and development of domestic and international human rights jurisprudence. In particular, the potential eligibility and accessibility criterion processes, in connection with a range of stand alone ECHR 1950 Articles; and or in conjunction with the substantive ECHR 1950 Articles, protecting human rights.

The incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into the domestic law of the United Kingdom is a very significant constitutional law development. An evolutionary constitutional process embracing into UK domestic law an international jurisprudence. A process originally commenced by some UK jurist’s, civil liberties and human rights protagonists. HMG thereby, being one of the founding signatory High Contracting Party Members.

The ECHR 1950 is underpinned by a range of fundamental concepts and principles, aimed at preserving human rights and freedoms, democracy and a pluralist society. In particular, the concept of democracy and taking steps to defend democracy. I.E. a system of democracy based on the rule of law. The concept of fairness and equality of treatment is central to its purpose. In this context, in avoidance of conflict, the protection of human rights aims to prevent the violation of human rights. This system of international jurisprudence relies on cooperation, agreement and consent and a shared constitutional law human rights sovereignty. As expressed below to circumvent adverse outcomes resulting from arbitrary decisions and actions.

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."

In the first instance, these e-books have undertaken an examination and consideration of the human rights protected by the ECHR 1950, in each of the parts 1,2,3,4 and 5. In particular, the rights to life, inhuman, degrading treatment and torture, personal security and liberty, the right to a fair trial, rights to a remedy and non discrimination, equality of arms, abuse of power and the identification of potentially intended limitations and restrictions to the ECHR 1950 human rights and freedoms. In particular, human rights associated with an unimpeded investigative legal procedures and processes. These human right have also been considered in connection with a circumstance of a linked simultaneous conjunction of a number of different human rights. Also a pervasive appreciation of the protected rights of expression, assembly and slavery. Moreover, the potential for the development of human rights concepts and principles. I.E. in response to current and future challenges, in relation to changing cultural, political, social, economic and environmental human rights.

These human rights have been generally examined and considered in the first instance, and thereafter have been considered in connection with the Anglo-Irish / NI conflict 1968-1998, in the above specified areas of human rights protections. A range of potential ECHR 1950 violations of human rights, during this period have been identified and considered in parts 1,2,3,4, and 5 of these e- books. The emphasis has been on HMG “State Actor” decisions and actions. I.E. as to the right to life, for example, in the case of the unbridled killing events of “Bloody Sunday”, in Derry 1972 and the “Ballymurphy” killings in Belfast in 1971; HMG Policy of “Shoot to Kill” and HMG security services collusion in the killing of Roman Catholic Northern Irish “British Subjects”; inhuman, degrading treatment and torture. Furthermore, in relation to Articles, 3, 5 and 6 ECHR 1950 in the first instance. However, also in relation the Articles 7, 8, 14, 13, 17 and 18 ECHR 1950. HMG decisions and actions, in relation to the temporary emergency provisions. In particular, the period of the dual system of internment without trial and emergency “scheduled criminal offences”, adjudicated via the Special Diplock Courts. This period from 1971 to 1976, as considered may have been in “real time”, potentially a violation of ECHR 1950 human rights? Moreover, there were identified anomalies, in connection with those charged with the temporary emergency “scheduled criminal offences” and those charged with and or not charged with membership of proscribed unlawful paramilitary / terrorist organisations? These HMG decisions and actions were also considered, in relation to the purpose and impact on the Official Secrets legislation and undermining of a fair trial? There were issues around the suspension of the “Judges Rules” and denial of access to a solicitor; and or an appropriate adult? I.E. the absence of an independent witness, during the obtaining of admissions and confessions? This was further confounded by the carrying into RUC CID / special branch interviews, legally held firearms; and or firearm exhibits, which may or may not have been used to threaten and intimidate suspects; and or the potential for the transfer of GSR onto suspects? The Special Diplock Courts involved a Judge sitting alone without a jury, the burden of proof was reversed onto the defence, there was the mandatory admission into evidence of any written statement, without the regular rules of evidence and disclosures to the defence?

There appears to be no logical valid reason as to why Northern Irish “British Subjects” who were not charged with membership of a proscribed unlawful paramilitary / terrorist organisations, for not being committed for trial to a properly constituted Criminal Court with a judge and jury, with out the burden of proof being reversed; and or the application of the regular rules of evidence; and or disclosures? Moreover, also as to the right to apply for bail at the Magistrates Court? As considered in the text there does not appear to be any logical reason as to why such individuals, could not have been interned without trial; and or charged with membership of a proscribed unlawful paramilitary / terrorist organisation? I.E. if these Northern Irish “British Subjects” were to be adjudicated, via the Special Diplock Courts? Not to have done so may have been potentially a violation of ECHR 1950? In this context, the NIHRC, Technical Analysis of the Section Dealing with ‘The Past’ within the Stormont House Agreement (2015)para 70, paras 52, 54 Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998], Section 3(3) 15 state that the prisoner must not be a member of a specified organisation. There appears to be a contraction in terms, because in excess of 80% of RC nationalist prisoners, were not charged with membership of a proscribed unlawful paramilitary / terrorist organisation I.E. in the first place? Moreover, there are potential human rights and security issues, which are linked to the Official Secrets legislation and those who were charged with membership of a proscribed unlawful paramilitary / terrorist organisation? Thereby, further restricting the decision making processes of defence counsel and Diplock Judges?

However, as indicated in relation to the NIHRC and Council of Europe / UN Human Rights Committee. The discussion around applicability of international law treaty amnesties, the vindication of the human rights of civilian non combatants and rights of victims and survivors, due to unconscionable acts of inhumanity. For example, the abduction, killing and disappearance of Northern Irish “British Subjects”; and or no warning bomb explosions, resulting in the death or permanent injury of Northern Irish “British Subjects”; and or British State informers who were killed for whom a duty of care was owed by HMG? It may also be important to ascertain the true motivations of these HMG state informers or agents who were killed? The HMG policy of “Criminalisation” is also a potential ECHR 1950 human rights violation, because there is a distinction to be drawn between an HMG crime policy and a HMG policy of “Criminalisation”? In particular, since, HMG were not impartial arbiters during the Anglo-Irish / NI conflict 1968-1998 but rather a political protagonist, with a political and security purpose of their own to serve? I.E. a predominant ulterior political motive, in a circumstance of unequal power relations?

During the Anglo-Irish / NI conflict 1968-1998 there were without question conflicting, competing and countervailing processes in play, as to HMG’s strategic approach to human rights both on a political and security orientated basis. An examination of the decisions and actions of HMG public authorities, do without question raise very serious potential ECHR 1950 human rights violation compliance issues? It is very clear that HMG, were always pursuing a policy of maintaining a presence in relation to the British state of Northern Ireland. There was no real intention to dismantle their establishment and disengage. This is currently a debatable issue around the future prospects of a “fifty percent plus one” NI border poll scenario. I.E. will HMG honour their commitments to withdraw from Northern Ireland, as mandated in the Belfast Agreement 1998? These two particular components, as to the past and going forward, in terms of the incorporation of ECHR 1950 into UK domestic law are grappling with an evolutionary process of continued constitutional and human rights law developments and change. A part of reconciling and ameliorating these processes is to attempt an understanding of the embedded cultural social and emotional cognition's, interacting with these changes. There are some conflicting and competing interpretations of concepts and principles. There is of course scope for a margin of differential appreciation. These can be assisted by the European Court on Humans Rights established legal rationale, as to the mechanisms employed supporting, the legal aids to interpretation processes. However, there are unconscious processes at work which are being reinforced by a false and misleading set of narratives, aimed at preserving a way of life which facilitates the concentration of wealth and power into perpetuity, for the benefit of the already privileged, internal and external Anglo-Saxon ruling classes; and elitist and compliant groups. This is not an issue restricted to the Irish population – this unequal retention of wealth and power, impacts on the whole of the UK and Ireland; and or quite conceivably may have been the source and cause of the divisions, discrimination and injustices, which permeates the present day British / UK union of unequal power and wealth relations; and likewise as to those who created the conditions and circumstances for conflict on the island of Ireland, with a view to bringing about the partition of Ireland?

In essence, the UK is a rule of law democracy underpinned by a system of jurisprudence, based on the common law of England. A legal system which is capable of being robust and flexible. The continuous development and evolution of the rules of natural justice, equity and incorporation of international jurisprudence concepts and principles such as “proportionality” is part of this process of change. This process of change has been very slow from 1215 Magna Charta to the present. This has involved the movement away from the rule of the monarchy, to an English constitutional monarchy, “rule” of the ruling classes, rule of law, onto a rule of law mode of democracy, underpinned by the doctrine of “British Parliamentary Sovereignty”. However, the system of jurisprudence based on the common law of England, is permeated with an embedded “cultural feudalism” Thereby, as a consequence manifesting in impulsive social and emotional cognitive responses. At the base of this “cultural feudalism” is a top down afforded unfettered freedom too choose, from right and wrong, subject only to the constraints of social class. Thereafter, every other facet of life is socially controlled. I.E. from birth to include even death. The power afforded by this unfettered freedom, possesses an intrinsic qualitative and unquantifiable misleading false consciousness, producing a distorted perception of a sense of an autonomous freedom. Thereby, facilitating a foundation for a top down management and manipulation of the respective social classes. I.E. via the processes of social control. For example, via patriotism, loyalty, allegiance – military service, earned privileges, recognition, criminalisation, coercive control, employment, unemployment, those who have been “situationally positioned,” into a captive welfare benefits poverty existence, and the imposition of emigration.

These processes are reinforced and supported by the self made lifestyle concepts of “Master and Servant”, wages, real wages, money wages, welfare benefits, “Landlord and Tenant”, rent, dominant and subservient interests; adverse interests, profits, planning permission, equitable rights to redemption, trustees, beneficiaries, succession and inheritance; The life style business model of “wage slave mortgage hostage”, incentivised by inflated valuations and low interest rates, “Mortgagee and Mortgagor” – third party interests, floating and fixed charges, Mortgagors power of sale, freehold and leasehold ownership; family property adjustment orders, deferred trusts, judgement mortgages, land charges, attachment orders, garnishee orders, bankruptcy / personal insolvency, liquidations, foreclosure and eviction; bailiffs seizure of personal property. These are examples of the development of concepts and principles underpinning land, labour, capital and the importance afforded to the forms of ownership most especially real property and finance. An evolving human mind set of communicative meanings and understanding has accompanied theses social economic daily life style / family life cycles. It is this relationship with a system of democracy supported by a system of jurisprudence, based on the Common law of England. I.E. in the context of a rule of law democracy and the creation of a line of division. In particular, the creation of these lines of distinction, has set the UK system of democracy within a framework of limitations; and or self made, socially constructed limitations and restrictions. The outworking of these lines of division, is the constraints on social, economic and environmental decisions and actions. Many revolving around resource allocation and liquidity. Thereafter, the management and manipulation of every day economic survival conflicting and competing personal interests, relative to life expectancy. The beneficiaries are the already wealth based ruling elitist classes, for whom their sole purpose is to preserve and maintain their particular way life into perpetuity.

This form of “cultural feudalism” is underpinned and continually reinforced by a community based transmission, via the interaction process of an English language social discourse. There is embedded and inculcated in this discourse an Anglo-Saxon / xenophobic disdain of all thing external. The outcome of this embedded process, is the promotion of outcomes which encourage, entreat and counsel unequal relations? This also involves external relations aimed at sustaining an internal domestic coercive social control of unsuspecting “British Subjects”? For example, the direct and indirect promotion of independent sovereignty, over all or any forms of shared or limited shared sovereignty; and or social or economic cooperation? On going examples are the salient reality that white British immigrates in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, believe everyone else but them are foreigners and immigrants? Two historic examples will suffice, the English reformation was not about religion, it was about sovereignty. The UK withdrawal from the EU was not about economics it was about sovereignty. In both cases the motivation was to prevent or limit or restrict the impact of external influences on “British Subjects”. In particular, shared cooperation, shared sovereignty, shared social, political, economic, environmental decisions and actions? Likewise, as to foreign policy, defence security issues. Thereby, enabling the promotion of a false political and ideological narratives, such as regime change and nation building, as distinct from trespass, occupation, theft, exploitation and oppression? Moreover, the false narratives around the development of human rights and the creation of the perceptions of an unwelcome outside interference into the British way of life?

Tackling, combating and dismantling patterns of inequality and the negative out workings of this type of “Cultural Feudalism.” Thus far in terms of constitutional, equality and, human rights judicial change, has proved to be an inconclusive cultural / political struggle. For example, the Magna Charta 1215 was in the first instance a peace treaty, aimed at adjusting the power relations between the ruling classes supporting the monarchy. In this common law rights document, it was permissible not to pay a debt owed to a Hebrew. Moreover, the protection from the taking of a life was not restricted to “an eye for an eye” and criminal domestic disturbance, but rather to essentially undermining any challenge to authority and the feudal system of governance. This was subject to the judgement of his peers? The death penalty in the UK continued into the 1950's and beyond for capital murder? The death penalty is still legal in the USA. In the USA where there has been progress in terms of a written constitution, incorporating a bill of rights. This progress is restricted and limited. For example, these rights did not apply to the off-spring of African salves? This position continued until the conclusion of the American civil war and far beyond. Nor did it apply to the indigenous population at all, who were initially contained in reservations? It is noteworthy, that the first African American Supreme Judge was appointed in 2022? In Canada these indigenous reservations were referred to as reserves? Mind set progress maybe? In some respects, Wales may have been the first Anglo-Saxon reservation? UK devolution, constitutional progress maybe? Albeit in a United kingdom union of unequal relations? The Australian Prime Minister is now proposing in 2023 that the Australian indigenous aborigines be allowed to have an input into laws which may impact on them? I.E. "Australian Subjects" will vote on the enactment of these proposed laws, if allowed? Progress-maybe?

This process of change has challenged many competing and conflicting sociological and social, emotional and cognitive psychological areas relating to class, religion, gender, the workplace, enterprise development, sexual orientation, ethnicity / race, disability, criminalisation; discrimination and unlawful discrimination. In the UK as to constitutional law changes, these have been via a process of selective legislation, aimed at identifying areas of unlawful discrimination. Since there is but one race “the human race” there may be something indicative in the British legislative language employed? For example, the Race Relations Act; and or the incitement to radical hatred laws? This is as distinct from an alternative Ethnicity Relations Act; and or the Xenophobia Act? The UK does not have a Bill of Rights. However, in 1998 the UK has now incorporated the ECHR 1950 into UK / English law, via the UK Human Rights Act 1998. [ Commencement 2000 ]

This constitutional human rights law is a evolutionary process and is an ongoing work in progress. Despite, the incorporation of ECHR 1950 into UK domestic law there appears on the face of it, to be a retained HMG inability to grasp the concept of the “vindication of human rights” in terms of humanity? I.E. in relation to distinctions as between real or perceived bad, criminal, controversial, differential conduct and the retention of human rights? For example, this has continued in the attitudes toward the human rights of convicted prisoners? There appears to be a conflicting and competing Anglo-Saxon cultural feudalism, which is presenting with a range of embedded difficulties, underpinned by impulses toward social control, coercive control, punitive revenge, and the promotion of unequal relations? In this connection, there has been a continued failure to amend the laws concerning prisoner voting rights, as indicated in the various parts of these e-book? The vast majority of applications against the UK which were pending before the European Court of Human Rights concerned prisoner voting rights.

In the context of the Anglo-Irish / NI conflict 1968-1998, HMG appear to be procrastinating and running the clock down, via various methods of delaying tactics? There is a need for reform in human rights jurisprudence to facilitate the concept of joint and several responsibility / vicarious liability, in a range of circumstances. I.E. the decisions and actions of HMG public authorities and their “state actors” in what ever form? In particular, where the facts speak for themselves [res ipsa loquitur]. For example, in the case of “Bloody Sunday” in Derry in 1972 no one else, is said to have been responsible for these killings, apart from the British Army Paratroopers, likewise, as with the killings in “Ballymurphy” in Belfast in 1971. Indeed, in many other British security services killing incidents, during the entire period of the Anglo-Irish / NI conflict 1968-1998? It is noteworthy, that a range of State public authorities are for the purposes of the ECHR 1950 human rights protection, are subject to ECHR 1950 compliance. For example, the Judiciary and the CPS; and or NI Public Prosecution Service.

[ Obtainable via a Google search at - htt:amazon.co.uk ] Then search ebooks by John A Coyle