Sunday, 22 May 2016

The Guilt of the Prohibition Forces

Entering the property of a person and interfering with his or her the Private Life without good reason is a crime against Human Rights, with or without a warrant. The same is true for any action against the chosen belief or religion or its practice alone or with others The law alone is not good reason. For Human Rights exist to protect the individual from bad laws. 
The major areas of conflict between Human Rights and the Misuse of Drugs Act may lie with:
 Other Articles may also be contravened when the Misuse of Drugs Act is implemented. Countries other than the UK may or may not have these Rights protected by national laws or constitutions. The European Convention itself makes clear that governments and authorities would be guilty of a crime if they interfered without justification with a person's Human Rights: 
Article 9 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance."
Article 9 grants us freedom to choose or change our religion or belief:
This says nothing about the religion or belief having to be one that is accepted by any government or court.
The only limitations put on the holding or practice of a religion or belief, alone or in company with others, are specifically included in the second part of Article 9. The authorities can only lawfully interfere in the interests of law AND (a very important word here) in order to protect public safety, health, order, morale or the Rights of others. 
Article 9 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights:
"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morale, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." 
Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
"Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, Group or Person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in this Convention." 
RIGHT TO A PRIVATE LIFE: Article 8 grants a person the Right to privacy: 
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
Once again, it says nothing about what one does in private having to be with the approval of any authority, subject to the same criteria as Article 9. 
"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety of the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
That is: provided that one does not threaten or harm national security or public safety, health, order, morals or the Rights of others, then the authorities have no lawful reason to intervene. In this case threats to national security or law-breaking may also empower the authorities to react. Once again, there is no evidence to suggest that the use of cannabis or its cultivation at home poses any threat to anyone.
Neither the Police nor other authorities are entitled to "interfere" with these rights unless their intervention is properly justified under the Convention. The interference must be both lawful and "necessary in a democratic society" for the achievement of specified social ends.
The UK government claims that cannabis is a dangerous drug and therefore a threat to public health but it must be up to them to prove so in order to justify their actions in entering a persons home to search for cannabis.
FRANCIS WILKINSON, Chief Constable of Gwent from 1997 to 1999, wrote an article in The Times in which he stated that he believed of Article 8: "Article 8 offers such scant grounds for a government to continue cannabis prohibition that the case for legalisation will in time be successful. 
The question is whether the turning point for legalisation will be in Parliament or in the courts."
Based upon the above, it is an offence under Human Rights law for any authority or the employeee of any authority to interfere with activities of a person in possession of cannabis or cultivation of cannabis in their Private Life. Simple Definition of malfeasance: 
law : illegal or dishonest activity especially by a public official or a corporatio.
The prohibition of cannabis is an offence under Supreme and International Law. Government employees who participate in the application of the Misuse of Drugs Act upon the people of your country, including prosecution and defence solicitors who ignore Human rights, police, forensic scientists, prison officers, politicians, etc, are guilty of malfeasance. If they have been told of their crime, then the guilt is magnified.

No comments:

Post a Comment