My wife was taught Law at Manchester by Lady Hale (as she then wasn't), who was notable mainly for sleeping with her married prof. She rose to prominence through the Family Division, where decisions have always been 10% jurisprudence and 90% "muh feelz". "Finest legal mind of her generation" said nobody about Spiderwoman, ever.
** Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws, in which he argued for a constitutional government with three separate branches, each of which would have defined authority to check the powers of the others. This philosophy heavily influenced the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. The American form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.**
Sounds better than our traditional mish mash... although we have no direct equivalent to the Executive and our Judicial branches (at least the top level Human Rights judges) appear to act as if there are no checks or balances on their thinking.
The separation of powers isn't working so well in the USA either... the Judiciary have become politicised. So perhaps the common problem is judges being unwilling to separate their opinions from what the law actually says... in which case they have been collectively corrupted (by good or ill).
If we take out all of the 'or' clauses in the text quoted from Article 3 of the ECHR, we are left with ‘No one shall be subjected to... punishment'. Which is entirely consistent with the Foucauldian principle that any punishment by the state for acts of sexual deviance is unacceptable. The results in the courts sound 'daft' to the casual observer, but they are purposeful.
Britain has been run by progressive lawyers since 1997, who resented their faction losing the Operation Spanner and Liberty Five cases. The current Labour front bench is directly linked to PIE-affiliated 'Liberty', and the Haldane Society. Back issues of the society's magazine 'Socialist Lawyer' are available on JSTOR, including several articles written by Keir Starmer.
Being a progressive is an excellent cover story for an amoral lawyer who wishes to signal that they will work for anyone, no matter how despicable. I suspect the principle that everyone is entitled to argue their case before a jury of their peers has been perverted to become the idea that everyone is entitled to a (paid) defence. That is a paradox if the accused person's actions are indefensible.
I note that many registered barristers earn very little in fees, while others do very well. The British system for counsel is essentially a gig economy. And so if you're willing to argue points of principle on behalf of people that the public would rather see put away for life or deported, you can have a career in the law when you otherwise would not.
This is so interesting thank you. I have been wary (to say the least) of the UNCRC ‘project’ being propagandised in Scottish schools. Children are being fed a starchy ‘diet’ of ‘their rights’! This gives me some legal scope as to the issues I have already seen in it. Not least the subjective jockeying for rights. Not least the (ironic) undermining of what is good for children. The most egregious aspects of the UNCRC noted (as I understand) were already illegal. It is a disaster stew!
The ‘rights respecting school’ thing is everywhere, closely tied to Comprehensive Sexuality Education. It sounds benign but it is essentially naked social engineering.
My son went to a "rights respecting" primary school. They tried to shoehorn the idea of rights into everything, often bizarrely: pupils would receive certificates saying things like "Johnny respected his right to education by learning how to sharpen a pencil." Comical and valid and rather sinister. They also banged on about "UN global goals" the whole time. Lots of climate change doom. Gender equality. Etc
During the lockdown hysteria they insisted we parents wore masks outside in the hot summer air when collecting our children. I wrote to the head to ask what consideration was being given to my human rights not to be obliged to cover my nose and mouth for no good reason, or the children's' right not to be subjected to psychologically damaging fear mongering alarmism. I forget what the response was; something to do with vaccines I think.
There's an obvious contradiction in progressive belief. On the one hand, conventional morality and ethics are supposedly irrelevant because consent is all that is required under the principle of total bodily autonomy. I believe this stems from Crowley's guiding principle: do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
On the other hand, Chomsky noted that consent can be manufactured, and Bernays showed that people can be manipulated into behaviour against their interests, for example in his pseudo-feminist 'Torches of Freedom' campaign marketing cigarettes to women on behalf of the tobacco industry. Given that the progressives embraced Freudian polymorphous perversity at least since Marcuse, I think we can be confident that they also support the idea of unconscious motivation, as implied by the practice of 'consciousness raising'.
So, in the progressive mindset, whether people are capable of autonomy and informed consent depends on the political correctness of the choices they make (based in turn on their political consciousness being raised), not their developmental age, their education or intelligence.
If a 13 year old girl wants an abortion or a radical mastectomy, or to do 'sex work', she is presumed in this mindset to be fully self-actualised and exercising her bodily autonomy. If she decides to be heterosexual, or celibate until she is 16, she is considered to be a deluded fool who has been manipulated by the cisheteropatriarchy.
One potential factor in the grooming gangs scandal which I don't think has been discussed widely is the influence of Foucauldian postmodernism (which is used as a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual wrapper around Crowleyite satanism in my view) on the UK's teaching and social work professions in the 1990s and beyond. I believe this supposed 'sex-positive feminism', which is not authentic feminism (since all the founding theorists are male) may have been one of the reasons why professionals did not intervene in widespread pimping of these young girls.
When I was reviewing the sex education materials for my local primary school in the late 2000's, the message that pre-teen children were capable of consenting to sexual activity was woven into the 'Living and Growing' videos produced by Channel 4 in the UK. The same TV station which produced and distributed schoolgirl groomer movie "Rita, Sue and Bob Too".
A further contradiction involves the embrace of masochistic practices under the guise of informed and willing consent, when masochism itself is obviously the will for pain and self-destruction. A masochist is incapable of making decisions in their own best interest. We are now at a point where progressives will argue for puberty blockade in children because it supposedly prevents suicide, and simultaneously argue for the right to assisted suicide for children. I know the Hegelian dialectic thrives on contradiction, but they do sound like useful idiots at this point.
Yes it sets itself up as a ‘rights’ program (sexual rights. For children!! 🫣😳) Colin Morrison who is the architect of the Scottish CSE did his PhD on the sexual rights of disabled children. No where in the whole program does it acknowledge boundaries or the vulnerability of children. It is a consent based program. In fact the notion of consent is pushed from nursery. It’s really sinister
While I'm certainly not going to argue against your core claims here, this is another of your 'canary in the coal mine' posts that reports the problem but avoids speculating on a solution. It seems to me that it is equally possible to have a set of laws that fully meet Fuller's criteria but are entirely draconian and undesirable. Even if I accept that what we have is hopelessly broken (and I do) it seems to me there are myriad Fullerian legal statutes that would be even worse than what we have...
As it happens, this phenomena of whatever it is now being called 'human rights' has recently taken a hold of me too. March's pieces at Stranger Worlds are going to offer a kind of philosophical history of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is the template from which the statutes you cite descend. My hope is to show that what we are dealing with nowadays are nothing to do with Kant's rightful condition, which inspired the Universal Declaration. Kant sketches what reasonably deserves the much-abused name 'rights': limits on the government's abuse of the people.
I hope you will find time to read some of these pieces, David. While a return to Kant's political philosophy is unthinkable, that doesn't mean it isn't worth thinking about.
Sure, Fuller was aware of that criticism and he had an obvious answer: it was perhaps theoretically possible that a set of laws could exist that would meet his criteria and be draconian and undesirable. But it was practically impossible: a government that is committed to the rule of law in the sense he was describing it simply wouldn't be constituted in such a way as to be authoritarian. The simple fact is that human beings who wanted to abide by 'procedural natural law' would also want to be fair, just, decent, etc. The problem of the 'draconian rule' therefore simply wouldn't in practice arise.
Thanks for this relay of Fuller's position, David! It seems to me that people equally believed that human rights could not be used to justify authoritarian governance... this turned out to be very wrong indeed. I guess we'd need a government that was sincerely committed to the rule of law to actually test Fuller's claim! 🤣
To cite an obvious example, the Third Reich posited that the natural rights of the German-speaking peoples had been curtailed by 'unfair' treaties imposed on them by foreign powers and a Semitic conspiracy. Rights claims for land and property are always open to abuse because they are essentially colonial: someone else has something I want, so I'm going to assert my 'right' to take it from them.
Aye, this is the problem that Hannah Arendt diagnoses in "The Origins of Totalitarianism": that once the transcendent dimension of rights is secularised, it swiftly devolves into 'things people want'. I'll be covering this in one of the pieces on Stranger Worlds in March digging into the philosophical history of rights. If the topic interests you, please do pop by my Substack in March. Cheers!
Isn't it interesting that the Left talks of rights, whereas the Right talks of duties or responsibilities? Another factor which places National Socialism firmly on the Left. Chinese revolutionaries made similar arguments about the 'unfairness' of Western trade treaties at the time of the Opium Wars. As if colonisation was ever 'fair'.
Ha, well of course at the time all sorts of moral arguments in terms of 'improvement' were made. 🙂
I'm starting to think it's irretrievably problematic to use the term 'left' and 'right' to mean the same things in 1930s and 1940s as the 2020s. The mid-twentieth century is a confusing time because the political 'left' in much of Europe supported Italian Fascism as a blockade against Communism (which divided lefties), whereas the German left was completely suppressed by the Nazis (both the Communist left and the other key left party).
The Nazis look like the 'right' when viewed from the 'left' and look like the 'left' when viewed from the 'right'. A sure sign that we're so used to projecting onto our political opponents that we can barely even handle a fundamental element of citizen democracy any more: listening to different points of view. 😢
Thanks for continuing our discussion, Daniel! (And for sharing this week's Dostoyevsky piece - much obliged!)
You are right to say that this represents replacement of the rule of law by political rule.
The now common "enabling acts" that are typically passed through parliament, and allow a Secretary of State to issue regulations about such and such a matter, often widely drawn, are similar. In this case the rule of law is replaced by the rule of the Executive. At least the UK Borders Act is a substantive piece of law! If it were passed today, it would give the Home Secretary power to issue regulations about criminals, rather than explicitly state what should happen to them.
Basically our democracy is becoming hollowed out. The trappings are all there, but they are empty. Parliament still exists, and hosts sometimes heated debate, but in practice it has little power (or chooses not to carry out its duty to produce effective legislation). A bit like the continued existence of the Senate under the Roman Empire. If parliament doesn't start taking its power back soon, it will be too late.
The phoney war between the executive and the judiciary mask a much more serious issue - the weakening of the legislature.
One of the telling factors is how few Members of Parliament actually attend Parliamentary debates. Unless a whipped vote is taking place, or the theatrical performance of Prime Minister's Questions is underway, the place looks almost empty.
Was this inevitable? Or was it strategically taken over and used this way on purpose? I know fixating on Intent is impossible to prove, but it does bug me!
I'm grateful for this explanation, which I never appreciated before. That human rights law is an arbitration service scaffolded by certain political values (common to a very specific social class), rather than a real rules-based system, was news to me. But it makes sense of why rulings so often seem so counter-intuitive to those of us outside that class. Now all I have to do to win arguments about it is first to dismantle the incentive structures for identifying as a modern bien pensant among my ever striving interlocutors. Haha!
I'm not a lawyer and nor am I from the UK, and I've been scratching my head at some of these bizarre immigration decisions. This piece does shed some light on the situation.
I am a retired Solicitor but even I become angry with irresponsible lefty Human Rights judges.
I note that at the Lady Chief Justice's recent press conference she expressed great concern that we need to recruit more black, 'diverse' judges, but no concern at all that we need to recruit more judges with common sense.
That's 'Lady' Hale. She was rather prominent - and entirely objectionable - in the Brexit debate. She is of the elite who didn't trust the British oiks to get it right. I found her and her creepy brooches to be smug and arbitrary, exactly what you would expect of a left-leaning hypocrite who thinks she know a. the law, and b. better than everyone else. Not only that, she has a face for radio.
No such thing as law in UK at mo as The Lords sacked Parliament, Courts, Commonwealth Countries and Monarchy by petition on Queen 23.3.2001. Until the people seek redress...
All petitions and elections are null and void
They set up corporations and regulators instead
It stems from Queens Coronation Oath and Stone of Destiny is fake.
There's been no Royal Assent given since 1951. We have a Constutional Crisis and they are carrying out Population Replacement so we never investigate their crimes of Treason and Sedition
My wife was taught Law at Manchester by Lady Hale (as she then wasn't), who was notable mainly for sleeping with her married prof. She rose to prominence through the Family Division, where decisions have always been 10% jurisprudence and 90% "muh feelz". "Finest legal mind of her generation" said nobody about Spiderwoman, ever.
From Wikipedia:
** Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws, in which he argued for a constitutional government with three separate branches, each of which would have defined authority to check the powers of the others. This philosophy heavily influenced the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. The American form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.**
Sounds better than our traditional mish mash... although we have no direct equivalent to the Executive and our Judicial branches (at least the top level Human Rights judges) appear to act as if there are no checks or balances on their thinking.
The separation of powers isn't working so well in the USA either... the Judiciary have become politicised. So perhaps the common problem is judges being unwilling to separate their opinions from what the law actually says... in which case they have been collectively corrupted (by good or ill).
Law Schools are to blame for this. The common denominator is progressive takeover of the institutions, as everywhere.
At what point do we concede that there has been a Cultural Revolution in the West?
If we take out all of the 'or' clauses in the text quoted from Article 3 of the ECHR, we are left with ‘No one shall be subjected to... punishment'. Which is entirely consistent with the Foucauldian principle that any punishment by the state for acts of sexual deviance is unacceptable. The results in the courts sound 'daft' to the casual observer, but they are purposeful.
Britain has been run by progressive lawyers since 1997, who resented their faction losing the Operation Spanner and Liberty Five cases. The current Labour front bench is directly linked to PIE-affiliated 'Liberty', and the Haldane Society. Back issues of the society's magazine 'Socialist Lawyer' are available on JSTOR, including several articles written by Keir Starmer.
Being a progressive is an excellent cover story for an amoral lawyer who wishes to signal that they will work for anyone, no matter how despicable. I suspect the principle that everyone is entitled to argue their case before a jury of their peers has been perverted to become the idea that everyone is entitled to a (paid) defence. That is a paradox if the accused person's actions are indefensible.
I note that many registered barristers earn very little in fees, while others do very well. The British system for counsel is essentially a gig economy. And so if you're willing to argue points of principle on behalf of people that the public would rather see put away for life or deported, you can have a career in the law when you otherwise would not.
This is so interesting thank you. I have been wary (to say the least) of the UNCRC ‘project’ being propagandised in Scottish schools. Children are being fed a starchy ‘diet’ of ‘their rights’! This gives me some legal scope as to the issues I have already seen in it. Not least the subjective jockeying for rights. Not least the (ironic) undermining of what is good for children. The most egregious aspects of the UNCRC noted (as I understand) were already illegal. It is a disaster stew!
The ‘rights respecting school’ thing is everywhere, closely tied to Comprehensive Sexuality Education. It sounds benign but it is essentially naked social engineering.
My son went to a "rights respecting" primary school. They tried to shoehorn the idea of rights into everything, often bizarrely: pupils would receive certificates saying things like "Johnny respected his right to education by learning how to sharpen a pencil." Comical and valid and rather sinister. They also banged on about "UN global goals" the whole time. Lots of climate change doom. Gender equality. Etc
During the lockdown hysteria they insisted we parents wore masks outside in the hot summer air when collecting our children. I wrote to the head to ask what consideration was being given to my human rights not to be obliged to cover my nose and mouth for no good reason, or the children's' right not to be subjected to psychologically damaging fear mongering alarmism. I forget what the response was; something to do with vaccines I think.
There's an obvious contradiction in progressive belief. On the one hand, conventional morality and ethics are supposedly irrelevant because consent is all that is required under the principle of total bodily autonomy. I believe this stems from Crowley's guiding principle: do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
On the other hand, Chomsky noted that consent can be manufactured, and Bernays showed that people can be manipulated into behaviour against their interests, for example in his pseudo-feminist 'Torches of Freedom' campaign marketing cigarettes to women on behalf of the tobacco industry. Given that the progressives embraced Freudian polymorphous perversity at least since Marcuse, I think we can be confident that they also support the idea of unconscious motivation, as implied by the practice of 'consciousness raising'.
So, in the progressive mindset, whether people are capable of autonomy and informed consent depends on the political correctness of the choices they make (based in turn on their political consciousness being raised), not their developmental age, their education or intelligence.
If a 13 year old girl wants an abortion or a radical mastectomy, or to do 'sex work', she is presumed in this mindset to be fully self-actualised and exercising her bodily autonomy. If she decides to be heterosexual, or celibate until she is 16, she is considered to be a deluded fool who has been manipulated by the cisheteropatriarchy.
One potential factor in the grooming gangs scandal which I don't think has been discussed widely is the influence of Foucauldian postmodernism (which is used as a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual wrapper around Crowleyite satanism in my view) on the UK's teaching and social work professions in the 1990s and beyond. I believe this supposed 'sex-positive feminism', which is not authentic feminism (since all the founding theorists are male) may have been one of the reasons why professionals did not intervene in widespread pimping of these young girls.
When I was reviewing the sex education materials for my local primary school in the late 2000's, the message that pre-teen children were capable of consenting to sexual activity was woven into the 'Living and Growing' videos produced by Channel 4 in the UK. The same TV station which produced and distributed schoolgirl groomer movie "Rita, Sue and Bob Too".
A further contradiction involves the embrace of masochistic practices under the guise of informed and willing consent, when masochism itself is obviously the will for pain and self-destruction. A masochist is incapable of making decisions in their own best interest. We are now at a point where progressives will argue for puberty blockade in children because it supposedly prevents suicide, and simultaneously argue for the right to assisted suicide for children. I know the Hegelian dialectic thrives on contradiction, but they do sound like useful idiots at this point.
Yes it sets itself up as a ‘rights’ program (sexual rights. For children!! 🫣😳) Colin Morrison who is the architect of the Scottish CSE did his PhD on the sexual rights of disabled children. No where in the whole program does it acknowledge boundaries or the vulnerability of children. It is a consent based program. In fact the notion of consent is pushed from nursery. It’s really sinister
Dear David,
While I'm certainly not going to argue against your core claims here, this is another of your 'canary in the coal mine' posts that reports the problem but avoids speculating on a solution. It seems to me that it is equally possible to have a set of laws that fully meet Fuller's criteria but are entirely draconian and undesirable. Even if I accept that what we have is hopelessly broken (and I do) it seems to me there are myriad Fullerian legal statutes that would be even worse than what we have...
As it happens, this phenomena of whatever it is now being called 'human rights' has recently taken a hold of me too. March's pieces at Stranger Worlds are going to offer a kind of philosophical history of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is the template from which the statutes you cite descend. My hope is to show that what we are dealing with nowadays are nothing to do with Kant's rightful condition, which inspired the Universal Declaration. Kant sketches what reasonably deserves the much-abused name 'rights': limits on the government's abuse of the people.
I hope you will find time to read some of these pieces, David. While a return to Kant's political philosophy is unthinkable, that doesn't mean it isn't worth thinking about.
Many thanks for everything you do,
Chris.
Sure, Fuller was aware of that criticism and he had an obvious answer: it was perhaps theoretically possible that a set of laws could exist that would meet his criteria and be draconian and undesirable. But it was practically impossible: a government that is committed to the rule of law in the sense he was describing it simply wouldn't be constituted in such a way as to be authoritarian. The simple fact is that human beings who wanted to abide by 'procedural natural law' would also want to be fair, just, decent, etc. The problem of the 'draconian rule' therefore simply wouldn't in practice arise.
Thanks for this relay of Fuller's position, David! It seems to me that people equally believed that human rights could not be used to justify authoritarian governance... this turned out to be very wrong indeed. I guess we'd need a government that was sincerely committed to the rule of law to actually test Fuller's claim! 🤣
With unlimited love,
Chris.
To cite an obvious example, the Third Reich posited that the natural rights of the German-speaking peoples had been curtailed by 'unfair' treaties imposed on them by foreign powers and a Semitic conspiracy. Rights claims for land and property are always open to abuse because they are essentially colonial: someone else has something I want, so I'm going to assert my 'right' to take it from them.
Aye, this is the problem that Hannah Arendt diagnoses in "The Origins of Totalitarianism": that once the transcendent dimension of rights is secularised, it swiftly devolves into 'things people want'. I'll be covering this in one of the pieces on Stranger Worlds in March digging into the philosophical history of rights. If the topic interests you, please do pop by my Substack in March. Cheers!
Isn't it interesting that the Left talks of rights, whereas the Right talks of duties or responsibilities? Another factor which places National Socialism firmly on the Left. Chinese revolutionaries made similar arguments about the 'unfairness' of Western trade treaties at the time of the Opium Wars. As if colonisation was ever 'fair'.
"As if colonisation was ever 'fair'."
Ha, well of course at the time all sorts of moral arguments in terms of 'improvement' were made. 🙂
I'm starting to think it's irretrievably problematic to use the term 'left' and 'right' to mean the same things in 1930s and 1940s as the 2020s. The mid-twentieth century is a confusing time because the political 'left' in much of Europe supported Italian Fascism as a blockade against Communism (which divided lefties), whereas the German left was completely suppressed by the Nazis (both the Communist left and the other key left party).
The Nazis look like the 'right' when viewed from the 'left' and look like the 'left' when viewed from the 'right'. A sure sign that we're so used to projecting onto our political opponents that we can barely even handle a fundamental element of citizen democracy any more: listening to different points of view. 😢
Thanks for continuing our discussion, Daniel! (And for sharing this week's Dostoyevsky piece - much obliged!)
You are right to say that this represents replacement of the rule of law by political rule.
The now common "enabling acts" that are typically passed through parliament, and allow a Secretary of State to issue regulations about such and such a matter, often widely drawn, are similar. In this case the rule of law is replaced by the rule of the Executive. At least the UK Borders Act is a substantive piece of law! If it were passed today, it would give the Home Secretary power to issue regulations about criminals, rather than explicitly state what should happen to them.
Basically our democracy is becoming hollowed out. The trappings are all there, but they are empty. Parliament still exists, and hosts sometimes heated debate, but in practice it has little power (or chooses not to carry out its duty to produce effective legislation). A bit like the continued existence of the Senate under the Roman Empire. If parliament doesn't start taking its power back soon, it will be too late.
The phoney war between the executive and the judiciary mask a much more serious issue - the weakening of the legislature.
Yes, precisely right.
One of the telling factors is how few Members of Parliament actually attend Parliamentary debates. Unless a whipped vote is taking place, or the theatrical performance of Prime Minister's Questions is underway, the place looks almost empty.
Was this inevitable? Or was it strategically taken over and used this way on purpose? I know fixating on Intent is impossible to prove, but it does bug me!
Keep swinging that hammer and hitting home the nails.
I'm grateful for this explanation, which I never appreciated before. That human rights law is an arbitration service scaffolded by certain political values (common to a very specific social class), rather than a real rules-based system, was news to me. But it makes sense of why rulings so often seem so counter-intuitive to those of us outside that class. Now all I have to do to win arguments about it is first to dismantle the incentive structures for identifying as a modern bien pensant among my ever striving interlocutors. Haha!
Thanks Mike. That's exactly it. Good luck with that simple task!
Excellent piece - the process of 'legalisation' vs 'politicisation'.
I'm not a lawyer and nor am I from the UK, and I've been scratching my head at some of these bizarre immigration decisions. This piece does shed some light on the situation.
I am a retired Solicitor but even I become angry with irresponsible lefty Human Rights judges.
I note that at the Lady Chief Justice's recent press conference she expressed great concern that we need to recruit more black, 'diverse' judges, but no concern at all that we need to recruit more judges with common sense.
Thank you so much for writing this!
I am a 'normal' person (eg non-Uni -educated ) and I cannot figure out how and why we got here re the Judges and the Law.
Thank you for writing pieces like this to fill in the blanks.
I don't know much history, what happens when the Law is not seen to be this neutral, godlike thing they present it as?
Who is the woman in the picture at the top with the unsettling centipede brooch?
That's 'Lady' Hale. She was rather prominent - and entirely objectionable - in the Brexit debate. She is of the elite who didn't trust the British oiks to get it right. I found her and her creepy brooches to be smug and arbitrary, exactly what you would expect of a left-leaning hypocrite who thinks she know a. the law, and b. better than everyone else. Not only that, she has a face for radio.
No such thing as law in UK at mo as The Lords sacked Parliament, Courts, Commonwealth Countries and Monarchy by petition on Queen 23.3.2001. Until the people seek redress...
All petitions and elections are null and void
They set up corporations and regulators instead
It stems from Queens Coronation Oath and Stone of Destiny is fake.
There's been no Royal Assent given since 1951. We have a Constutional Crisis and they are carrying out Population Replacement so we never investigate their crimes of Treason and Sedition