Internet Offensive: Years of Smears

Miscarriages of justice come in many shapes and sizes. Traditionally the most notorious examples entail framing, prosecuting, convicting and incarcerating - even executing - innocent victims. By and large we know who's responsible, although the authorities invariably go to great lengths and public expense firstly to conceal and then to deny what took place. Some people, often lawyers, prefer to tag these shameful episodes as "mistakes," implying they have no common features. So despite reality the status quo perpetuates. Corrupt police and forensic "experts" continue conducting investigations and fabricating "evidence," ruthless prosecutors still conceal incriminating contradictions from defence lawyers despite discovery procedures and na ve, unquestioning and gullible jurors swallow perjured testimony and the ultimate voice of authority, so-called "independent" judges who are nothing of the sort. Give them an inch and they will take liberties with anyone's liberty. Meanwhile the legislators, weaned on meaningless concepts like "justice" and "law and order," see, hear and smell no wrong, so do what they do best - nothing. Anyone who turns the spotlight on them and their system runs the risk of attracting their wrath, retaliation and retribution. To them freedoms of thought and speech must be subjugated in the public interest lest the oppressors be brought to account. So legal protections should be swept aside, despite what domestic and international laws - which they exist to uphold and in some cases enacted - have to say on the subject.The author's "crime," upheld by the English Court of Appeal in year 2000, was to challenge socialist policies and laws surrounding positive discrimination, a feminist and left-wing bandwagon. So to shut him up, he was branded a vexatious litigant, forever forbidden to bring further proceedings before an obscure, insignificant employment tribunal in England. In many countries the very concept of being prevented from litigating on the say-so of some judge or other is anathema. It also runs counter to one's basic human and civil rights. So in such countries it doesn't exist. Not so in England, where the Vexatious Actions Act came into force in 1896 and has remained ever since, human rights laws or not. With the benefit of a few more judicial tools like the internet. Not content with sneering and smearing, naming and shaming hundreds of "spent forces" lists of them have been splashed around the world for the delectation and delight of billions. In the author's case the process started in 2000 and continues to this day. No problem for the authoritarian forces in England, to whom privacy for the victims and their families is immaterial and irrelevant. But what happens when the families are Thai citizens and the invasions of privacy breach the Thai Constitution and other laws? Then English law and attitudes count for nought. Could yet another relatively small but significant "miscarriage of justice" have occurred? The damage may already have been done and be irreparable, but the day of reckoning may be nigh under Thai jurisdiction. Morality and justice might yet prevail, at least for those who have done no wrong.