DISCRIMINATION

Naz Shah, Ken Livingston,

And, DISCRIMINATION

 

Both, today, suspended, or threatened with suspension, of their political party.

The most vociferous in demanding their suspension was JOHN MANN MP and NEIL COYLE MP. This is the comment I forwarded to them

 

Dear Sir's

 

The trouble with people like NEIL COYLE MP and JOHN MANN MP (that loud mouthed slob) is that they expect JEWS and other minority sections of society to be afforded 'special privileges'; not entitled to by everyone else.

This entire 'anti-Semitism' fiasco and furore is solely caused by JEW and ZIONISTS wanting special 'non discriminatory privileges', FOR THEMSELVES,

Yet 'DISCRIMIJATION' and the right of 'DISCRIMINATION' is inherent in the Gene.

All, FREEBORN HUMANKIND, have the right to DISCRIMINATE against anyone or anything they please.

This is the, "NATURAL LAW", inherent in the Genes, of all HUMANKIND.

One can see a crowd of people walking towards one; and one will know instantly which faces to TRUST and which faces to avoid 'like a bargepole'. This is, NATURAL INSTINCT. THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE.

NO CORRUPT LAW OF HUMANKIND HAS THE RIGHT TO OVERRULE THIS "NATURAL LAW" INHERENT IN THE GENE.

Thus, all LAW commanding, DISCRIMINATION, of any kind, has no TRUE legality or validity at all.

LAW, true and just LAW must conform to the criterion of, TRUTH, FREEDOM, JUSTICE, INTELLIGENCE, LOGIC and RATIONALE. Thus, all that consent to live by the, "Rule of Law", are entitled to: the right to participate in the creation and framing of law; the right to 'equality' within law; and, the right to 'protection of law', as well.

But in Great Britain today, in this, TOTALITARIAN REGIME, there is no protection of law at all.

There is no Written Constitution;
There is no "Bill of Rights"; and,
There is no "Supreme Court of Law" where the 'common people' may test, question, or challenge the 'abuses' and the 'prejudice' of parliament, from within law.

Furthermore, the 'Reigning Monarch', ELIZABETH THE SECOND, who is charged with the responsibility and duty to honour the "Original Contract" requiring the protection of the people; actually has not provided that protection throughout all the years she has sat upon the throne. In fact. the very last time that the "ROYAL ASSENT" was refused to an Act passed by parliament, was on the 11th March 1708; when Queen Anne refused to grant it to the Bill passed by parliament for the, "Settlement of the Militia in Scotland". Ever since that date, every 'Reigning Monarch' that has sat on the 'English' throne, has merely acted in like manner to a village sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress, franking and rubber-stamping, every piece of paper laid before them, by parliament.

THE BRITISH PEOPLE BEING DEPRIVED OF ALL PROTECTION OF LAW.

LAW AND BILLs are created by parliament in Great Britain today, in exactly the same manner as ADOLF HITLER created his own laws in Nazi Germany from 1933. Though, HITLER, had the perfect legal right to create his own laws; his "Enabling Act" had been passed by the "Reichstag" (the German Parliament) voting 441 votes for, and, only 94 votes against.

But, the "Enabling Act" of the British Parliament; "The political party WHIPS in parliament", has no 'legality' at all. The political party WHIPS instructing 'elected' Members of Parliament on how they should or must vote creates the, "PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE"; because, it overrules and supplants all or any 'influence' the Constituents might have placed upon their Member of Parliament.

"PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE" is specifically proscribed by the 'precedent of law' set out in the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".

And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular The Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People, in any of the said Premises, ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter, into Consequence or Example”

 

NOTE: This paragraph, "The Said Rights Claimed" is the over all, 'authority', of the entire "Bill of Rights 1689" for it states within its text that it has the 'authority' over all the "Premises" of the Bill. It even overrules the very Supremacy of parliament itself, (afforded by Article 9) whenever parliament, "Prejudice the People"

Before John Mann and Neil Coyle start shouting their mouths off about other people’s behaviour and denying their right to DISCRIMINATION; they should reflect that they also 'discriminate', every time that they abide by the WHIPS 'unlawful' instructions; and, flout the 'rightful influence' of their Constituents.
So I suggest; they 'climb off their high horse' from today.

NAZ SHAH and KEN LIVINGSTON therefore have the right to state their opinion on anything. They also have the same right, as myself, to state our opinions and to recruit others to our point of view.

Scum, like you two, assume the right, that everyone must submit to your opinions alone.

Respectfully suggest. Read my book "DEMOCRACY"; it is a guide for the British for proper participation. I pose fourteen questions to answer and, I provide the answers, that need to  be known. Read and learn how the British are being badly and unlawfully governed, and, read also how Monarchy holds all ‘Subjects of the Crown’ in imposed subjugation, without consent. The book is available cheaply in two formats: a Kindle e-book and a paperback, and it can be purchased here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1500465984

 

Sincerely

Gordon J Sheppard