Author’s Note: The concept of “Implied Consent” was invented by the Bourgeois State to control the masses and negate the ancient concept of an individual having to supply an “Informed Consent” under English Common Law – before any action is to be applied to their person. Under the tyranny of an absolute monarch a “Subject” cannot “Consent” but only “obey” or face the consequences – but even then there were instances of “Subjects” resisting royal dictates through the use of “Consent”. As a “Citizen” of a democratically elected State – the rich use “Consent” all the time to amass power and wealth. The Bourgeois State, however, invented the notion that “Consent” can be “assumed” to have been previously given (that is “Implied”) – without the need to draw an individual’s awareness to the legal requirements implicit in the existential situation. This is an abuse of an individual’s rights – but it is used in the West by virtually all government agencies against the ordinary people. When an individual understands their rights – or has recourse to sound legal advice – “Implied Consent” cannot be used without qualification. An individual can take control of the situation by stating verbally or in writing that all “Implied Consent” given a particular situation is hereby “Withdrawn”. This can, in certain circumstances, be applied to interactions with the Police – but the Bourgeois government has brought-in various other laws to render the “Withdrawal” of Consent null and void (you can “Withdraw” Consent – but the Police do not require your “Consent” in a number of situations). Once “Consent” has been “Withdrawn” – the government or institution cannot proceed with the planned action. ACW (17.4.2024)
Dear Charles
Muslim student loses High Court challenge against Michaela School’s prayer ban
Since the Tories came to power in 2010 – Christian prayers have been re-introduced throughout all kinds of otherwise Secular government and schooling programmes – on the grounds that this activity represents “British” tradition. My children are not Christian (like half of their class) – but have no choice but to attend the Morning Assembly and being forced to participate in Christian Prayers, etc. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and atheists, etc. have no choice. The idea is that the UK is a “Christian” State rather than a “Secular” State (Cromwell abolished the original Church of England).
The CofE we have today is post-Restoration and like the powerless Constitutional Monarchy – is a servant of the (elected) Bourgeois government and its agencies – whereas prior to the English Civil War(s) of the 1640s – the Church of England was the UK branch of the Vatican-controlled Catholic Church. King Henry VIII was an absolute monarch – and he broke with Rome around 1539 (Dissolution of the Monasteries) – taking personal control of the CofE stripped of its Catholic character. In 1649 – as the axe fell on the neck of King Charles II – absolute monarchy was abolished and has never been returned. This is why the CofE now serves the Secular British government – and does not dominate it.
The situation should be either that ALL British schools are Secular – treating all religions equally but not allowing or encouraging any form of religious ritual (outside of Religious Education) on school premises throughout the school-day – or that ALL religions should be equally permitted in schools in that prayers and rituals should be tolerated and accommodated. Which is it to be? I suspect the rise in religious (Christian) fundamentalism in the UK has led to other religions pushing back (particularly non-White religions which have always been targeted by the British State as being “foreign” and “alien”). I doubt very much that a London school would have prevented Jewish students praying during the school-day. I suspect such an eventually would be quietly accommodated with no fuss.
As matters stand, the UK Court has reduced this issue to one of “Consent” or rather “Implied” Consent – a cornerstone of English Common Law. This legal principle is often misused by the British State against its citizens today – used to “blame the victim” for the ill-treatment they have received – as if they asked for it and are now complaining about what they have received. The UK Court is saying “Consent” trumps “Rights” – and that the Plaintiff “Consented” to the curtailing of her Religious Rights when she signed on the dotted-line when (legally) “Agreeing” to attend the school as a student. In other words, the plaintiff “Agreed” to have her Religious Rights annulled upon entry. The same Judge did agree that the School should not have “suspended” the plaintiff for requesting to pray.
Dear Adrian
On Wed, 17 Apr 2024, at 02:55, Charles wrote:
The University of Southern California cancels its Muslim valedictorian’s commencement speech, citing safety concerns
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/16/us/usc-valedictorian-commencement-speech-canceled
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 