This last week saw violent scenes on the 22nd anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to Chinese control in 1997 after 150 years of colonial British rule. Protestors stormed the legislative building and one was seen waving a Union Jack while another set up the former Hong Kong flag which also features the Union Jack.

Protestors are frightened by Chinese attempts to pass a law to extradite people from Hong Kong to mainland China for trial. Hong Kong of course has its own judicial system dating from the British colonial era. That system assured property and personal rights, providing the vital basis for Hong Kong’s economic success.

The Chinese, of course, have a very different government culture and tradition. There are serious questions around Huawei’s relationship with the Chinese government and with the prototype Social Credit system designed to reward “good” behaviour and to penalise “bad” behaviour – according to parameters programmed with official sanction.

A peaceful demonstration in Hong Kong which also took place this week reportedly attracted 2 million people out of a total population of 7 million. Hong Kongers are mainly Chinese and Buddhist.

Yet the dissenting Hong Kongers prefer the system and culture of the British [and one time Christian] colonial era to the  current Chinese model and culture. Indeed, they are also seeking western style democratic government.

They are presumably seeking, however, the western style democracy as it once was, not as it is emerging today.

The moral basis of what obtained during the period of British colonial rule was avowedly in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. That tradition said that there is a Creator God who sets the standard and the rules, and who will enforce that standard and those rules in Judgement one day.

The Judaeo-Christian tradition required governments to recognise the superior claim of the biblical God. God watches what they do, and God will hold them to account. And God has laid out in the Bible very clear moral guidelines for all to observe.

ALL –  including the most powerful.

Everyone is equal before this God and the standard is an objective one.

Now, of course, not everyone in power took this God of the Bible seriously. But the culture of the “common man” [as the expression once was]  did take this general Christian culture as the standard – like it or loathe it. And it informed our judiciary and legal culture.

Today of course another worldview informs our judiciary, as it does every institution and instrument of government.

That culture has its own agenda and its own terms of reference. And they are largely in opposition to the traditional Christian. Today’s “religion” informing official thinking is Materialistic and Internationalist. It conforms to the notion of the Rights of Man and the Brotherhood of Man.

In doing so, it pretends that the old world view had no real conception of either the rights of men nor their common humanity. Thus it passes itself off as superior to all that once was, and as the Ultimate Arbiter of all Right and Wrong.

It is the new Orthodoxy  and demands Orthodoxy in the governed.

Therefore the Truth about Britain’s colonial past can only be addressed in terms which uphold Orthodoxy’s “truth” – eg the episodes of shocking British excesses in Africa or India.

The truth about routine success of British rule in places like Hong Kong is automatically ruled inadmissible, however valid. I measure success in terms of the reception by the indigenous peoples ruled and the benefits to them.

Let me be clear. I do not seek a return to some mythical golden age of the past. It does not exist. Just as the perfection promised by today’s politically correct Utopian Materialists and Internationalists does not exist, either.

Let me also be clear about my view of such people. I believe many of them to be sincerely interested in the welfare of their fellow man – sorry, you have to say fellow person or human being today.

Oh dear, even “fellow” will be taken as offensively partisan and not gender neutral as the new Creed demands – never mind the sincerity of my basic motivation, nor the norms of my background and therefore how I naturally think. I am therefore A suitable candidate for re-education, I suspect.

Which is very troubling. It smacks more of the state of China today than of traditional England to me. The traditional England where political dissidents could find refuge from all sorts of persecution, and Karl Marx could contentedly do his research and writing in peace.

But disagreement with the Orthodox line appears to be no longer acceptable in my country today.

The purpose of Courts is to settle disputes and to right wrongs, in accordance with the law. But there are worrying signs that political orthodoxy is affecting the process, over-ruling traditional judicial impartiality.

A Judicial Review case has been brought by Robin Tilbrook, a solicitor and chairman of the English Democrats. He claims that the UK has already left the EU on 29th March 2019.

We all know  the way in which the British Political Establishment has treated the issue of Brexit in the last 4 years. It has been rehearsed enough on this site and on an associated site at http://www.expatforbrexit.blog

The machinations of the Establishment have astounded many Remain voters by their flagrant disregard for our democratic norms and processes. So it comes as no surprise to hear the testimony of a longstanding and experienced lawyer who has brought a case making an enormous challenge to the Establishment and its Creed.

Mr Tilbrook says in a statement this week that the Judicial Review case is alive and well, despite a ruling in the High Court that his  contention that the UK left the EU on March 29th 2019 is “Totally without Merit”.

Mr Tilbrook states:

After months of stonewalling our applications, the increasingly politicised ‘system’ suddenly issued a special decision to reject our case as “Totally Without Merit”. This is a category of rejection introduced recently to deal with the genuinely groundless applications of litigants in person in immigration cases in the Administrative Court. To try to use it to dismiss our case is particularly outrageous given the public comment of retired Court of Appeal Judge Sir Richard Aitkin that our case is “strongly arguable”.

This is well above the merely “arguable” threshold that is supposed to guarantee permission to Judicially Review.

All this is a very sad reflection on the state of “justice” in this country which has now become so politicised that we seem to have lost the “Rule of Law” which was the cornerstone of England’s hard won and hard fought ancient Constitution.

We now have a Blairite Judicial Appointments Commission which will only appoint Judges who can “demonstrate a life time’s commitment to Equality and Diversity” and are therefore ideologically only of the multiculturalist Left and therefore almost all Remainers.

Our battle to secure Brexit is thus not only still very much ‘on’, but it is also just part of a much bigger political, legal and moral war to preserve and secure the unique and truly magnificent heritage and identity of our England and of the English whose sacrifices made her a beacon to the world, as well as the land we love.

Donations to pursue the appeal can be made  to the English democrats on this link.

Ray Catlin