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!