Cast-Iron’s Anti-Jihad Strategy – Hitting ‘Legal’ Obstacles?

When the Battle of Britain was raging and all four of my offspring’s grandparents were in the uniforms of their respective homelands, all serving Queen and Country, did Churchill’s brilliant rhetoric come under scrutiny to see if his exhortations to fight on the beaches etc. would stand up to legal challenge?


  • churchill
  • ———-
  • I think not.

The UK had, back then, not admitted millions of migrants a significant percentage of whom owed allegiance to an alien supranational ideology.

Nor were major parts of its media/political establishment more concerned with ‘human rights’ than with the well-being of their own nation.


Nor of course was the realm subject to dictates emanating from a non-British authority on the Continent of Europe – that’s after all what the Battle of Britain was about! 

A few thoughts that arise from reading another interesting article at ConservativeHome, by Paul Goodman, on Cast-Iron Cameron’s latest wobbly counter-jihadist speechifying. I was particularly fascinated by this part.

Those who volunteer to be prosecuted or monitored may be admitted earlier – and it is this possibility that allows the Prime Minister to claim that government would not be rendering such people stateless.  We may see what the courts make of that.  It could be that he would have liked the time-frame for the ban to be longer, and has chosen one that he thinks will stand up to legal challenge.


Who can launch a legal challenge to the law? If parliament passes legislation, it supersedes previous laws that it might contradict, not so? Thus if MPs vote to make traitors stateless, they are.

If MPs were to evokes a million cheers from the British public by re-instating the death penalty for treason (and any ISIS terrorists who went out on a UK passport IS a traitor, because Britain is part of the coalition fighting ISIS) then that, too, would be the law. 

If you break the law, you end up in court, if you don’t like the law, tough, you campaign to change it, but it’s not what the courts make of that.

It’s their job to enforce it, like or no like.

So what’s the problem? 

Supranational sticky-beaks, given the right to stick their beaks in by parliament – a gift which can be retireved by parliament. Cameron has to go th mile – withdraw from any treaty that hnders British self-defence.

The EUSSR and the European Convention on Human Rights are two obvious targets, but the UN Convention on Statelessness too appears to be getting in the way.

  • oooo
  • no-un
  • ooo
  • Scrap that nonsense and civilised countries could start kicking out disloyal scumbags instantly.