by Sean Gabb
MPs often ask for ideas on what private bills they should introduce. In case any of these people are reading this blog, here is my suggestion for a bill.
Of course, other names can be substituted.
Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1. That Anthony Charles Lynton Blair is declared guilty of high treason for his subverting of the ancient and fundamental laws of England and introduction of a tyrannous and arbitrary government over the lives and liberties and property of the people of England;
2. That the said Anthony Charles Lynton Blair shall within thirty days of coming into force of this Act be taken to Trafalgar Square to be hanged by the neck until dead and that the details of this provision shall be arranged by majority vote of the persons named in the schedule to this Act and that the authority of such persons shall for the purpose of carrying this provision into effect be regarded as final and binding notwithstanding any rule of common or statutory law;
3. That all property of the said Anthony Charles Lynton Blair whether real or personal and whether held by him or for his benefit shall be forfeit and that the details of this provision shall be arranged by majority vote of the said persons named in the schedule to this Act and that the authority of such persons shall for the purpose of carrying this provision into effect be regarded as final and binding notwithstanding any rule of common or statutory law.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
Tony Blair and the Mark of the Beast
Citizenship and Survival: A Draft British Citizenship and Public Office Bill
The UK Climate and Nature Bill
Why Britain Punishes Self-Defence: The Martyna Ogonowska Case
“Antisocial and Getting Laid”: A Review of Anthony Walsh’s Social Class and Crime
Coercion: How Kylie Cheung Turns Abuse into Feminist Fan Fiction
Powered by YARPP.
IANAL, but I don’t think the PM can actually commit treason constitutionally, can he? Thanks to our glorious tradition of The Queen In Parliament[1], anything the government decides to do is by definition legal, and anything which seems to conflict with previous law retcons that previous law to have “always been this way” in an eerily “We have always been at war with Eastasia” kind of a way.
So a PM can break the law as an individual, but in the guise of the imaginary personality of the government, can’t commit treason. I think.
It’s nice to dream though.
[1] No, not the endless parade of middle-aged MPs abandoning their wives to “explore their sexuality”.
I am not sure I agree with this, since almost any decision by a government to go to war can be attacked by some persons on the grounds that certain information was not fully put in the public domain, so that in such cases we’d get the constant refrain of “X lied and people died”. This might even apply to cases where this country was acting in presumed self-defence against external aggression, and it was later claimed that the nature of the threat was claimed to be exaggerated.
Loathe Blair as I do, I think this is a silly stunt and as such, I would like to disassociate myself from this. The LA does not speak for me on this matter and I do not endorse it.
I understand Sean’s revulsion at the barefaced self-seeking-opportunism of this man. But he’s merely the figurehead: one who, being bright, articulate and also yet malleable, could just as easily have presided over a libertarian revolution as he did over a late-stage in the dissolution of England and English liberalism.
The real “movers and shakers” of the disaster which befell this nation in the 90s and 2000s are far, far worse than Blair: he didn’t really believe anything he said, whereas they did and do. Sean perhaps could begin, rather than fingering Blair solely, with what ought to be done about the continuing occupation of our universities and schools by the “academics” (still being churned out too) who fervently believe the evils and wickedness so unutterable, that I forbear to articulate some of their thoughts on a public forum such as this blog.
Haning Blair, you see, would be an empty gesture: it’s like hanging a Wireless Tele Vision for showing flattering pictures of Joe Stalin.
Here’s an idea for a private members bill – possibly the last that will ever be required…
In response to the TSA airport security furore in the USA senator Ron Paul introduced the “American Traveller Dignity Act” (H.R. 6416). This was inaccurately reported as “saying the government can not do to us what would be illegal for us to do.” The bill was in fact limited to applying physical assault laws to TSA staff. However such a suggestion as raised by this simplification of the bill does pose a tantalising idea.
What if law applied consistently to all including the state? Taxation would become extortion, fiat currency would become fraud, offensive war no matter how legitimate would be murder and conspiracy to murder and so on until we were living in a rothbardian libertopia
Hanging is too good for Blair.
Tom/David, since the LA takes no position on the death penalty, this is of course no more an official utterance of the LA than “The Churchill Memorandum” – now available for Kindle – can be.
Ian B – You are mistaken about the legal proprieties. I agree that a TRIAL for treason would present certain difficulties. But this is an Act of Attainder. TB is “declared” guilty by an absolutely sovereign Queen in Parliament. The execution and forfeiture are purely legislative acts.
Acts of attainder exist in our Constitution to reach those agents of the Crown who cannot be reached in any other way. They were developed in the 15th century, perverted by Henry VIII, but then used to memorable effect in the disputes of the 17th century. The last one was passed, I think, in 1696, to execute Sir John Fenwick. If they passed out of use thereafter, it was because we were now into the classical age of the Constitution. Since this age is now plainly over, I see very good reason for reviving the old way of proceeding against the treasons of the great.
[…] via A Bill for the Execution of Tony Blair | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG. […]
Sautations Sean.
You suggest or state that:
“That Anthony Charles Lynton Blair is declared guilty of high treason for his subverting of the ancient and fundamental laws of England and introduction of a tyrannous and arbitrary government over the lives and liberties and property of the people of England;”
Before he is declared guilty can you give me the proof that it was his crime of high treason that brought about such, subversion “of the ancient and fundamental laws of England” by the “introduction of a tyrannous and arbitrary government over the lives and liberties and property of the people of England”?
I may well agree with the premise that the said “Anthony Charles Lynton Blair” subverted “the ancient and fundamental laws of England”, by the introduction “of a tyrannous and arbitrary government “. However, the said “Anthony Charles Lynton Blair” did not act alone as in theory, if not in absolute practise, he presided over a democratic parliamentary country, he was thus not totally and solely responsible for, nor able to introduce, such “tyrannous and arbitrary” government actions, without redress to parliament. The whole of parliament was involved. The whole of the financial, business, fiscal, judicial and commercial structure of the UK was involved as it did not repel by democratic or forceful actions against such “high treason”.
Solicitously yours efgd
I meant salutations!
EFGD – the central point about an act of attainder is that guilt is DECLARED by legislative act. There is no need for a trial. Regarding the guilt of others, I would simply dismiss them from whatever state positions they occupy and cancel their pensions and make them incapable for life of holding any public office.
Tom Burroughs stated, “Loathe Blair as I do, I think this is a silly stunt and as such, I would like to disassociate myself from this. The LA does not speak for me on this matter and I do not endorse it.”
I think this “stunt”, is applicable for rhetoric and debate to overcome overt sensibilities and political correctness in such debates. For instance, and I know this is off topic, to a degree, there are many who feel that act of terrorism by British nationals against this country (Queen being head of the state) is an act of treason, and that the death penalty should be implemented. Such people are prevented or afraid to debate such issues, and to debate the consequences of actions of members of parliament.
Here on this site there is an openness to debate, however inane or solipsistic or gratuitous the topic maybe.
Thanks for the info Sean, cheers.
Just wondering how executing and doing even worse things to someone you disagree with conforms with the concept of libertarianism.
In England, Stan, we tell jokes.
I hope that your remark was not in any way suggesting that Sean (or us in the LA for that matter) might actually try to have Tony Blair executed?
Jokes, in case it is not clear, are linguistic ways of defusing tension that otherwise might erupt into outright rebellion, getting the non-jokers who took revolt seriously, into trouble: such as frequently happened under communism when, it being no longer funny, people erupted and were subsequently killed in droves (such as in Hungary in 1956.)
Libuertarians may, I think, being human, be entitled to resort to jokes about the enemies of freedom, just as “ordinary people” are. The fact that the GramscoStaliNazis are progressively working through a series of bans of different types of jokes, in the name of “Political Correctness” (which is Marxism) shows that we are on the right lines.
On the other hand, when we joked about “Mr Hitler” in the War, we did mean every word.
You don’t know if I’m joking or not, do you.
Friendly Amendment:
Why Trafalgar Square? Tyburn Tree is gone, but the Marble Arch is about where it used to be, and hanging him from it would save the expense of erecting a gallows.
Sean,
I have to say that I don’t care for the Queen (or any other form of the state) issuing death by decree, even for scum like Bliar. Private justice is always to be prefered over the evil of the state.
Since this is only a fantasy I have another suggestion.
Lets call him out.Hell, lets call THEM out.
Bliar, Brown, Prescott, Straw and Harman.
Plus Cameron and Clegg,
The Disgraceful Seven.
There aren’t many Corrals in London these days but I’m sure a suitable venue could be found.
Once called of course they won’t come but that is where your Bill would be useful. If they don’t fight they hang. If they do they might win, in which case they return to their lives and their purloined riches without let or hinderence. They have an incentive to shoot it out then.
We ourselves would have a chance to settle with our enemy at risk of our own lives and live or die as men, not cowardly scum who sign death warrants in plush offices.
I would be happy to take the role of Doc Holiday to your Wyatt Earp. I do not have TB but my childhood has left me with the ability to simulate a graveyard cough at will and that will have to do.
Would this be the Queen you call “Elizabeth the Useless” Sean?
As for Parliament – they voted for the very war you call “treason”. And the Queen signed – so do not pretend to be just against the minister, it is the High Court of the Queen in Parliament that is the real target (the entire political system of this Realm).
I did not support going to war either – but it is not “treason”. Also I thought it was the wrong war, at the wrong time, and in the wrong place. I did NOT have sympathy for Islamo Fascists – and I certainly did not take money from the enemies of the West.
As for “tyranny” and “arbitrary government”.
You mean like ex post facto laws (calling something “treason” that was not treason at the time, and demanding death when even treason was NOT captial crime at the time of the alleged offence).
And “confiscation of all property”.
Sounds like a Bill of Attainder to me.
No wonder you hate the United States – ex post faco laws and bills of attainder, both specifically forbidden.
But this was not some invention of the Americans – it came from the British tradition (the very tradition of emerging liberty you claim to support).
And yet there it is – ex post facto laws and bills of attainder.
All for things that were fully approved by the High Court of the Queen in Parliament at the time.
I despise Mr Blair – but you are pretending to act against one man (and even in this you are committing a terrible violation of basic principles) whereas really your target is rather larger.
The flag of the United Kingdom is the Union Flag (the flag you wrap yourself in) it is not a red flag with a black inverted Indian symbol upon it. A British patri0t is on the side of Churchill – not of Adolf Hitler.
There are many things wrong with this nation (and of everyone in it – including Churchill), but none of these things are going to be improved by Fascism, National Socialism, black flag anarchosyndicalism – or any of this anti property, anti British stuff.
You talk of the nation and tradition and patriotism – but you have twisted the meaning of these things.
Just as you have twisted the meaning of “liberty” from being the defence of property to being an excuse for an ATTACK upon property. And, please, do not pretend it is “just” corporate property.
[…] As published today by Sean Gabb- director of The Libertarian Alliance […]
[…] As published today by Sean Gabb- director of The Libertarian Alliance […]
Paul Marks
I agree with your points.
I would just point out that, beyond all the legalism, the American Constitution is almost dead. It is hanging by a thin thread. They (U S federal tyranny that is ) have not yet brazenly tortured any American citizens yet on the American mainland (beyond the horrific torment that is their “ordinary” prison system) but it is only a question of time now. The American people could stand up and take their freedom back, but so could the British people and we can see all around us how well that is going. I understand how badly Sean and many others want to see the colour of Bliars insides but trying to defeat evil by using evil is a certain route only to destruction.
Happy Trails
Some of you people are clearly as deluded, mad or criminally insane as Mr Gubb. If you don’t mind me saying so! Even if you do mind, you still are.
Not that he meant ANY of it, of course!?!? As if.
Still, I thought it was worth letting Wikipedia know of Gubb’s utterances, especially since some of the responders here are distancing themselves from the notion of actually hanging Tony Blair, without a trial. You make the Guardian and the Independent commenters look as soft as babies’ bottoms.
I noticed in particular, David Davis’s comment. Not the MP David Davis, are you – the civil wronger, I mean righter, by any chance? I somehow suspect you are. Does the other Dave know who’re you hanging about with?
Yes, Mr Davis, I’m sure Stan can take a joke. And tell the difference.
This post is now mentioned under THE INSANE in my new Hall of Fame for the Subliminally Brainwashed – The Feral Press – findable here.
Stop wriggling now, boys. You said it, we read it.
The link, if it’ll take:
http://theferalpress.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/call-by-libertarian-alliance-for-parliamentary-bill-for-execution-of-tony-blair/
Correction.
Apologies. It’s Mr Gabb, not Gubb. Don’t know how I got that one wrong. It seems so obvious!
It’s spelled correctly at my blog, though, you’ll be relieved to know.
To Paul Marks | 3 February, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Sorry, you can’t report a “controversy” on Wikipedia until it’s caused some actual controversy in notable sources e.g. the MSM, major blogs, etc. You should have read the discussion page and Wikipedia guidelines.
I am not an anarchist (apart from when I get out of bed in a really bad mood), but I understand there are different sorts of anarchist.
Pro private property and anti private property.
For example (as a person of rather conservative opinions) I have disagreements with the Koch family (David and Charles) but I would defend them and their property – to the best of my malcoordinated ability.
A “blag flag” person – whether they call themselves a “Fasicist” a “National Socialist” or “the opposite” an “anarchosynicalist” or “anarchocommunalist” would be an enemy of the Koch family.
Out there with “Code Pink” and groups that say they are “anti war” and pro Hamas AT THE SAME TIME.
All these DIFFERENT groups.
Nazis, Fascists, AnarchoSynicalism, AnarchoCommunalism, Islamic Socialism (Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood).
They all cooperate – they even have ads on each other’s websites (Codepink right out their on the the Muslim Brotherhood website and so on).
The Marxists and the IslamoFascists gave each other JOBS and MONEY – the leaders of both groups lived in the Hyde Park area of Chicago (and many still do).
WHY do they all cooperate when they are supposed to be so different?
BECAUSE THEY ALL HATE THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE WEST IN GENERAL.
They hate the old principles of Britain just as much as they hate the old principles of the United States – for they are the same private property principles.
There really is a simple test – ask these people their opinions of Charles and David Koch and their property.
Suddenly the “opposites” the black flag and the red flag (and the green flag) turn out to be in alliance.
And NOT because they oppose their social liberalism.
[…] The blog of Sean Gabb, the Director of The LA here […]
To “keeptonyblairforpm”
I may be that David Davis, or I may not. I might even be a totally different third person, with the same name as the other two. Or I might even be another different one. Which one would you prefer that I was?
I detect that you might be Jewish. That’s great! I was often accused of being “a Jew-boy!” at school because of my nose. It is really quite regally-Syrian in its proportions, Especially When Seen From The Left.
If you are Jewish, however, have a care about any socialists with whom you might hang out, either accidentally, or especially on purpose. They are not your friends, never have been and never will be, and they will never say sorry. You will have to decide if there is a place for them usefully, on this planet, or not. That’s the only decision, in the end, that will matter for the future of liberty.
David Davis.
Sean Gabb is NOT joking.
I told myself for years that he was joking – and I blame myself for that.
I had a vast amount of evidence and I WILLFULLY IGNORED IT.
Just like the people I had sneared at in history – “but you must have known about Kim Philby, he said X, Y, Z, right in front of you – are you a total idiot?”
Well I was the total idiot – I ignored the evidence (time and time again), I was willfully blind.
It took the association with Kevin Carson to make me finally see what sort of person Sean Gabb is.
What is it going to take to make you see it David?
I repeat he is NOT joking.
Are you going to continue to associate with Sean Gabb and his friends till they ACTUALLY MURDER SOMEONE?
“After all” (they will say) “we are just executing a mass murderer” – anybody who voted (for example) for the war in Iraq is a “mass murderer” in their eyes.
It will be no good to say (after the fact) that “I thought they were joking”.
They are NOT joking – any more than Kevin Carson is joking about his opposition to property.
NOT just General Electric or J.P. Morgan Chase – he opposes (for example) the property of the Koch family.
It is NOT about “corporate welfare” that is an EXCUSE.
Face facts David:
Sean Gabb and his allies are bad people, they are just no good.
They are NOT joking.
Interesting, Mr Marks – to David Davis on Sean Gabb –
‘What is it going to take to make you see it David? I repeat he is NOT joking.
Are you going to continue to associate with Sean Gabb and his friends till they ACTUALLY MURDER SOMEONE?
“After all” (they will say) “we are just executing a mass murderer” – anybody who voted (for example) for the war in Iraq is a “mass murderer” in their eyes.
It will be no good to say (after the fact) that “I thought they were joking”.’
____
This is precisely why some of us are so determined to OUT these people. There’s a contagion going round various sections of the online community. This kind of rant does not minimise its effect on the brainwashed. It is no wonder Tony Blair is the most highly protected public figure online. Politician or not, he is made of the same stuff as the rest of us.
David Davis’s comment was laughable, but rather disturbing. It is clear that this was NO JOKE. A man who wants to write it into law that Tony Blair is to be executed – no ifs, no buts – MUST be outed. His post here is immoral, imho. And I notice he has not yet tried to retract his position or explain it, unlike his close friend Mr Davis who is wriggling like a fish on a line.
The only reason he gets away with it here is that some of his colleagues probably agree that Blair should be killed, in any way possible, preferably “legally”.
It seems your comment may have re-ignited some spat you have had with this man – ref the next post.
Well, good luck to you.
Perhaps we should talk. Online of course.
You know where to find me.
http://theferalpress.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/call-by-libertarian-alliance-for-parliamentary-bill-for-execution-of-tony-blair/
If you want to contact me privately, comment saying “not for publication” and I’ll get back to you.
@ David Davis,
I may or I may not be Jewish.
OK, enough already. I’m not Jewish. Neither do I belong to any political party. Have never been a Labour party member though I was active once in one of the other two main parties.
So, what’s this about-
“You will have to decide if there is a place for them [socialists] usefully, on this planet, or not. That’s the only decision, in the end, that will matter for the future of liberty.”
Utter conceit. I will not have to decide if there is a place for socialists, conservatives, liberals, Jews, Christians, Arabs, Muslims, Tony Blair or anyone else on this planet. There is a place. Not my decsion. Fact. Mostly I’m happy with that. Except when any of them suggest there isn’t a place for others because of their religion, race or political leanings.
You’ll be pleased to know that you can stop your Mr Mystery game. I have done a little research and I know that you are not David Davis MP. Though you sound very like him, in some ways. I’ll leave you to work those out.
Is this site really serious, btw? Perhaps it’s all your little joke, (like your threat to kill Blair.)
Oh, dear me – I have not threatened to kill anyone. I have simply drafted a bill of pains and penalties against someone I regard as a notorious traitor beyond the reach of the normal laws, and offered it to any Member of Parliament who may be inclined to introduce it.
I am surely exercising one of my rights under the 1689 Bill of Rights:
“That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal”
http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm
I might also have been having a laugh – but claiming this would only start more foam dribbling from certain mouths.
“having a laugh”?
Mr Gabb, I DO note how you use “I might”. You and Mr Davis have this use of qualifying semantics in common. Interesting since, when it comes to quoting other matters, like the 1689 Bill of Rights itself, you are very particular. Though not, of course, as selective as you might be.
Readers might like to glance through Wikipedia’s explanation of the Bill of Rights here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
At that time it was framed for a particular political (Monarchical) situation. Very few of those itemed terms, if any, apply today. Apart from the part about not having a Catholic monarchy.
But perhaps, since the Royal Prerogative is (thus far) in parliament’s hands, your real aim is to prevent the election of a future Roman Catholic Prime Minister. As if.
You clearly realise you’d be laughed out of any court with any of this nonsense. Even our MPs are not quite daft enough to try it as an EDM. Well, most of them!
By the way, once you have executed someone, you might find that such death can also be described as -“he has been killed” (lawfully, of course) in your bit of fun and games. He’s not just, dead, incidentally, as if by accident, or illness. He would have been “put to death” or “killed”.
Semantics? Or am I having a laugh?
I’m struggling to understand why claiming you “might also have been having a laugh” would “start more foam dribbling” etc. How mad are your usual readers? If you thought that they were this mad- to insist you provide more gory details and get on with it? – why bother to publish this nonsense in the first place?
Didn’t Sarah Palin say something like “I was having a laugh” when the map of Arizona was shown through cross-hairs at her website?
Like Dr Gabb has to justify himself to a troll.
“Acts of attainder exist in our Constitution to reach those agents of the Crown who cannot be reached in any other way. They were developed in the 15th century, perverted by Henry VIII, but then used to memorable effect in the disputes of the 17th century. The last one was passed, I think, in 1696, to execute Sir John Fenwick.”
Attainder was used in the case of peers who had supported Germany in the First World War, through the Titles Deprivation Act 1917. Their descendants have the right to petition for restoration of their titles, but none has yet done so.
@ Jim,
I don’t know if you are refferring to me or to Stan as “a troll”. Probably both. In both cases you’re wrong.
Definition of a troll – In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
Both Stan and myself are responding to what we consider an inflammatory post. That’s all. Neither of us has moved off the main issue. As for provoking an “emotional response”, I don’t think so. Anyone who thinks it’s just the thing to execute a former prime minister BY LEGAL ACT of Parliament has not enough sense to also have sensibility.”
John – I agree that acts of attainder were used to deprive Germans of their titles. Sir John Fenwick is, I think, the last person to have been put to death by attainder. The trial and executions are memorably covered by Macaulay.
More on Fenwick here, for those researching how they can use this “attainder” proceedings in the 21st century:
_____
Sir John Fenwick was tried in 1696 at the height of a terrorist scare and executed shortly afterwards. His `trial’ took the form of proceedings in parliament and the passage of an act of attainder against him. It was not the first such act nor was it the last, but it was nevertheless unique. An act of attainder was a legislative device that was usually used to declare the guilt of individuals who were or had been in actual rebellion and who were beyond the reach of the courts. Fenwick was in custody and could have been tried in an ordinary court of law where, as an ineffective conspirator, he could plausibly have been convicted of misdemeanour. There was almost no evidence to justify a more serious charge and what did exist was not legally admissible. Fenwick did not initially know that the charges against him amounted to treason, or that he had a right to conduct a defence. His `trial’ did not take place in a recognised court of law and it was conducted in flagrant breach of established legal procedures. This essay examines the proceedings against him in order to show how a mixture of fear and political pressure persuaded members of both Houses of Parliament that to do justice they had to resort to injustice.
_____
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/hart/klj/2008/00000019/00000003/art00005
If this excerpt is accurate it looks like they hanged an innocent man then too.
Could you suggest a better venue for the exucution, Dr Gabb? The pigeons are such a nuisance in Trafalgar Square. I don’t fancy being painted with guano while watching Blair dance the Newgate hornpipe.
Being painted with crap is the least that those of your crappy mindset deserve.
Stan – don’t tell me this is The Rob, my own personal stalker!? And they say I am “obsessed”.
If he’s the Rob I think he may be, readers should know I had to ban him from my site for vitriol and abuse. So far he is being remarkably polite on here. All sweetness and light. Yes, this is “sweetness & light” for that particular Rob.
He’ll definitely bring his knitting to Trafalgar Square for your “do”, Dr Gabb. He’ll even sell tickets for you. I always say – recognise your friends. It helps you work out who are your enemies.
It’s kind of odd seeing libertarians advocate someone’s execution.
We don’t trust the state to define our economic policy, we don’t trust the state to choose with whom we associate and what kind of association that will be, we don’t trust the state to decide if someone should live in a certain country or not.
It’s odd to advocate that this same state should have the power to decide who should live and who should die.