Jim Finnel
Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
The recent conviction of cannabis campaigner Neil Morgan of of Heol Tawe, Ystradgynlais, South Wales for the possession and cultivation of cannabis in his private abode, begs the question of exactly what is one’s Private Life under the Human Rights Act.
Alun Buffry, a spokesman for the Legalise Cannabis Alliance (LCA) said after the conviction: “Mr Morgan grew and possessed cannabis plants in his own home - there was no suggestion of supplying others - in fact nobody other than police officers were involved at all.
“There is no law against brewing one’s own alcohol at home and drinking oneself into oblivion, providing nobody else is harmed, yet the police can enter one’s home on suspicion of cannabis cultivation despite that nobody is harmed.
“Where is the Justice in punishing people who have done no harm because of their choice of lifestyle or drug of recreation - it doesn’t make sense to allow the drinking of alcohol in clubs, pubs and restaurants yet punish people for using cannabis to their benefit in the own home.
“Where exactly is the Private Life guaranteed us under the Human Rights Act? What gives police the legal authority to interfere with that Right? According to Human Rights law there has to have been more than law-breaking alone - there needs to be a threat that satisfies the criteria of the Human Rights Articles . In this case there was no threat and no harm to anyone.
“I believe that it is the police that are acting illegally under the Human Rights Act.”
Mr Morgan, who has 20 previous convictions for cannabis, unsuccessfully appealed to the Jury:
““I’m fighting for the right to exist, no more than that.
“I’m not interfering with anyone’s existence at all, I keep myself to myself and live quietly and peacefully.
“It’s irrational discrimination to be allowed to produce alcohol without interference, yet I’m here before you trying hard to make a case for my liberty.
“That’s why I’m appealing for the jury to help me out on this one.”
According to the press report, His Honour Judge Richard Philips told the Jury in his summing up: “We cannot live in a society where everyone is free to say: ’My view is that the law is irrational’”
Alun Buffry commented on this: “I cannot believe that the Judge told the Jury that we are somehow not supposed to comment on the Justice of the law. It sounds like Judge Philips believes that there should be no debate on the Justice of the law, and that laws ought not to be considered irrational in our society, even when they blatantly are.
“But I think His Honour has missed the point - it is not a question on the rationality of the law, it is a question of what Justice in applying the law to the activities of a person in private, when no harm at all is done. : if Mr Morgan did no harm, then clearly the law has been misapplied, the police entry to his premises contravened Mr Morgan’s Right to a Private life.
“Without respect to the Human Rights law, we have tyranny, arbitrary law, injustice, persecution of minorities - which is exactly what we fought the wars against.”
................
Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life
1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or 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.
Article 9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1 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.
2 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 morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10 Freedom of expression
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Article 14 Prohibition of discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)
News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: encod.org
Copyright: 2008
Contact: Encod.org
Website: UK: LAW WITHOUT JUSTICE IS TYRANNY - Encod.org
Alun Buffry, a spokesman for the Legalise Cannabis Alliance (LCA) said after the conviction: “Mr Morgan grew and possessed cannabis plants in his own home - there was no suggestion of supplying others - in fact nobody other than police officers were involved at all.
“There is no law against brewing one’s own alcohol at home and drinking oneself into oblivion, providing nobody else is harmed, yet the police can enter one’s home on suspicion of cannabis cultivation despite that nobody is harmed.
“Where is the Justice in punishing people who have done no harm because of their choice of lifestyle or drug of recreation - it doesn’t make sense to allow the drinking of alcohol in clubs, pubs and restaurants yet punish people for using cannabis to their benefit in the own home.
“Where exactly is the Private Life guaranteed us under the Human Rights Act? What gives police the legal authority to interfere with that Right? According to Human Rights law there has to have been more than law-breaking alone - there needs to be a threat that satisfies the criteria of the Human Rights Articles . In this case there was no threat and no harm to anyone.
“I believe that it is the police that are acting illegally under the Human Rights Act.”
Mr Morgan, who has 20 previous convictions for cannabis, unsuccessfully appealed to the Jury:
““I’m fighting for the right to exist, no more than that.
“I’m not interfering with anyone’s existence at all, I keep myself to myself and live quietly and peacefully.
“It’s irrational discrimination to be allowed to produce alcohol without interference, yet I’m here before you trying hard to make a case for my liberty.
“That’s why I’m appealing for the jury to help me out on this one.”
According to the press report, His Honour Judge Richard Philips told the Jury in his summing up: “We cannot live in a society where everyone is free to say: ’My view is that the law is irrational’”
Alun Buffry commented on this: “I cannot believe that the Judge told the Jury that we are somehow not supposed to comment on the Justice of the law. It sounds like Judge Philips believes that there should be no debate on the Justice of the law, and that laws ought not to be considered irrational in our society, even when they blatantly are.
“But I think His Honour has missed the point - it is not a question on the rationality of the law, it is a question of what Justice in applying the law to the activities of a person in private, when no harm at all is done. : if Mr Morgan did no harm, then clearly the law has been misapplied, the police entry to his premises contravened Mr Morgan’s Right to a Private life.
“Without respect to the Human Rights law, we have tyranny, arbitrary law, injustice, persecution of minorities - which is exactly what we fought the wars against.”
................
Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life
1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or 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.
Article 9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1 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.
2 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 morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10 Freedom of expression
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Article 14 Prohibition of discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)
News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: encod.org
Copyright: 2008
Contact: Encod.org
Website: UK: LAW WITHOUT JUSTICE IS TYRANNY - Encod.org
