A Night in the Globalist Box

Ed Cline's picture
Submitted by Ed Cline on Tue, 2018-06-12 22:43

A Night in the Globalist Box


Make sure you’re not retiring in dirty pants, or having an Islamophic seizure, or Carr the globalist floor walker will sentence you to a night in the box. Or more months or years, so you can get your mind right, and “tolerant” and submissive. I refer to the arrest and instant imprisonment of Tommy Robinson, on May 25th, without so much as a show trial – public or secret – for thirteen months in a prison allegedly housing a low population of Muslim prisoners who could nevertheless plot his murder.

This points to an act of government called a “bill of attainder.” Britain, as well as the U.S., has a history of such exercises of state power. I touch on bills of attainder in my article, “Magna Carta in the Dustbin” from May 29th, but will elaborate on the subject here.

Robinson was arrested ostensibly for a “breach of the peace,” but was actually charged with violating the terms of a prior arrest in Luton, for filming members of a grooming rape gang outside the Canterbury courthouse. Overall, Prime Minister Theresa May just wanted to shut him up about the grooming gangs her government had failed to combat lest she and her government be accused of racism and bigotry; most of the victims were white British girls and the rapists were Pakistani; Islamic racism was permitted for “diversity’s” sake. It leaves open the unasked question: So, who were the racists?

"The U.S. Constitution prohibits bills of attainder:

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical….prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

The U.S. Constitution is partly based on the English Magna Carta, from 1215, three of whose clauses expressly forbid King John, the barons, or their successors from arresting and jailing a man without trial or “due process.”

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right, or justice.

The most recent and outstanding instance of a bill of attainder victimizing anyone in the U.S. is highlighted by the arrest of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who made the YouTube “anti-Islam” film “The Innocence of Muslims.” The L.A. Times reported in 2012:

The filmmaker behind the anti-Islamic video “Innocence of Muslims” that has sparked violence across the globe faces up to three years in federal prison after being arrested Thursday for alleged probation violations.

Probation officials have recommended a 24-month term for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, prosecutors said in court. He faces a maximum of three years in prison if found to have violated his parole.

He was arrested Thursday and ordered back to jail during an usual hearing. The hearing occurred amid high security, with the public only allowed to watch through a video feed in a separate courthouse blocks away. Before his arrest Thursday, Nakoula and his family had been in hiding, and his attorney said he had received threats to his safety.

Around the globe, the MSM quite literally shouted in joy that the film caused anti-American riots in the Mideast. “How dare anyone make a film that insults Mohammad, the holy icon and prophet of one of the world’s greatest religions?”

Initially, Nakoula’s film was blamed for the rioting in Egypt and for the Benghazi attack, but Hillary Clinton and Obama back-pedaled on that finger-pointing assertion. Susan Rice, the national security advisor then, however, repeated the lie in a succession of talk shows. Perhaps now, as a board member of Netflix, she can endorse an Obama made film about how “peaceful” Islam is. Nakoula was arrested and imprisoned on a fabrication, and by a silent and unstated bill of attainder about a YouTube video no one had even heard of until the Benghazi attack.

Robinson’s rights as a Briton have clearly been nullified. The “peace” that was breached outside the Leeds courthouse was purely fictitious; the three months from his previous but suspended offence were arbitrarily added to lend credibility to the sanction of his arrest. Then the issue got lost and jumbled in legal gymnastics:

An Anandtech Forums poster noted:

In the UK the media is restricted on what comments it can make and what it can report about an alleged crime while a trial is in progress, on the basis that it might prejudice the jury. Trials have collapsed due to media outlets breaking this rule and newspaper editors have faced prosecutions over it (don't know if they've ever actually gone to prison - but definitely there have been very large fines).

Seems that the point is Robinson blatantly broke that law (and after already having a suspended sentence). And I don't think he was making some general protest against the sub-judice rule in general, so it seems fair enough that the same law should apply as does in every other case.

Personally I wonder if it isn't, perhaps, an increasingly non-viable law when 'the media' is far more than a couple of well-regulated and easily-controlled TV stations and newspapers and news is entirely international. Seems like it might be a bit of a lost cause.

But even the US seems to acknowledge there's an issue when it sequestrates entire juries to try and stop them hearing news and comment on a high-profile case, as in the OJ trial (though googling it it seems that while it used to be far more common the US has mostly given up doing that...except one report said it's happening right now with the Cosby trial - what would happen to someone who used nefarious means to try and communicate case-related information with the jurors in that case?).

In connection with the Robinson arrest and the assertion that his live-streaming the groomer rape trail – during which he was not in the courtroom and was outside and out of earshot of the judge, defendants, and the jury – and then of the decreed blanket news blackout of his arrest and of the trial itself, I recall the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial whose progress was blasted in the newspapers and the media almost daily until the acquittal verdict was announced.

The issue of whether or not to allow any video cameras into the courtroom was among the first issues Judge Ito had to decide, ultimately ruling that live camera coverage was warranted. Ito would be later criticized for this decision by other legal professionals. Dershowitz said that he believed that Ito, along with others related to the case such Clark, Fuhrman, and Kaelin, was influenced to some degree by the media presence and related publicity. The trial was covered in 2,237 news segments from 1994 through 1997. Ito was also criticized for allowing the trial to become a media circus and not doing enough to regulate the court proceedings as well as he could have.

And the ironic thing is that:

After the trial, the Brown and Goldman families filed a civil lawsuit against Simpson. On February 4, 1997, the jury unanimously found Simpson responsible for both deaths. The families were awarded compensatory and punitive damages totaling $33.5 million ($51.1 million in 2017 dollars), but have received only a small portion of that.

So Simpson was found “not guilty” of the murders, but was found “responsible” for the deaths, as well? Go figure. Perhaps “guilty” and “responsible” have widely divergent definitions per Merriam-Webster in legalese and on the planet Vulcan. Or between the U.S. and Britain. As the two justice systems stand now, fewer people in the U.S. will be arrested and incarcerated on trumped up “islamophobic” charges than in Britain. In Britain, a bill of attainder, under Theresa May, may be enacted without a legislative mandate.

In Britain, you must make sure you put the clean sheet of “sensitivity” on top – or else.

And no loud talking!