Government tries to abuse the Bill of Rights政府试图侵犯人权法案
Government and the Speaker of the House of Commons collude to try to abuse the 17th Century Bill of Rights to suppress the FOIA disclosure of OGC Gateway Reviews of the ID Cards Programme政府和众议院议长共同勾结，试图滥用十七世纪的人权法案，以遏制foia披露的法律办事处网关审查身份证计划
The该 Bill of Rights 1689人权法案， 1689 a historical piece of the English Constitution, which was intended to preserve the rights and freedoms of the public and of Members of Parliament from abuses by the Executive branch of Government , which, in the 17th Century was:一个历史的一块中英文宪法，其中的用意是维护人权和自由的公众及国会议员的不受虐待，由政府行政部门 ，这在17世纪是：
Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome .而已故国王詹姆斯第二所援助的多样埃维尔会议员 ，法官和部长 imployed他没有尽力，颠覆和消灭新教宗教和lawes和自由，这kingdome 。
If you replace “the late King James the Second” with.”Tony Blair”or “Gordon Brown”, the words fit just as well.如果你取代"已故国王詹姆斯第二次"与"英国首相布莱尔"或"英国财政大臣布朗" ，换句话说适合一样。
We are astonished and furious , that this Bill of Rights, is being abused in the High Court to try to weasel out of having to disclose the early (and now very out of date) Gateway Reviews of the Home Office’s Identity Cards Programme (as it was then, circa 2002 / 2003), by the lawyers for the Government’s Office for Government Commerce , supported by, incredibly, lawyers for the Speaker of the House of Commons , in their Appeal against the Decision of the independent Information Tribunal, which ordered full disclosure, in the public interest.我们感到惊讶和愤怒 ，这条条例草案的权利，有被滥用在高等法院尝试黄鼠狼出来的，无须披露早期（我现在很不合时宜）网关审查民政厅的身份证计划（由于当时， circa 2002 / 2003 ） ，由律师为政府的办公室，为政府商务部 ，支持，令人难以置信的是，律师为众议院议长商品 ，在他们的决定提出上诉的独立信息法庭后者订购了充分的披露，符合公众利益。
Are the Government and their lawyers desperate, or evil ?是政府和他们的律师绝望的，还是邪恶？
Why is the Speaker of the House of Commons helping the Executive branch of Government, to suppress freedom of speech and transparent open government, in a matter of huge public interest ?为什么是众议院议长共同帮助政府行政部门，以压制言论自由和透明公开的政府，而不是在一开始的巨额公共利益？
Daily Mail / Mail on Sunday:每日邮/邮报周日： 319-year-old law used by Speaker Michael Martin to gag ID report 319岁的老人用法律由议长迈克尔马丁的gag身分报告
Computer Weekly:电脑周刊： Government seeks to bury ID card reviews政府试图埋葬身份证评语
[hat tip to [帽子提示 UK Liberty英国自由 for spotting this before us]探测这一摆在我们面前：
Bill of Rights 1688人权法案， 1688 ( “Act declared to be a Statute by Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689 (c. 1)”) （ "行为被宣布为一个章程，由官方和议会认定法1689 （丙1 ） " ）
That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.这freedome的演讲和辩论，或诉讼中parlyament不应该被弹劾或质疑，在任何法院或地方出于parlyament 。
See the history of this long running Freedom of Information Act disclosure suppression in our看到这个时代长时间运行的资讯自由法的披露镇压我们 OGC Gateway Reviews of the Identity Cards Programme法律办事处网关评语的身份证方案 blog category archive.博客分类归档。
The lawyers for the Government, seem to be desperately clutching at straws, by claiming that the Information Tribunal, in its very thorough 4 day hearing, involving submissions from top barristers Queens Councils and specialist professors of Freedom of Information Act law, somehow made improper use of a publicly published report from a Select Committee of the House of Commons, the one which scrutinises the Department for Work and Pensions.律师对于政府来说，似乎在拼命地落空秸秆中，并声称该法庭的资料，在其非常彻底四天听证，其中涉及意见书，从上层大律师皇后区议会及专家教授的资讯自由法的规定，在某种程度上作出不当使用一份公开发表的报告书，由专责委员会的下议院，其中scrutinises部的工作和退休金。
See the House of Commons Select Committee on Work and Pensions report:看房子的商品，专责委员会的工作和退休金报告： Third Report - 7 July 2004 - Department for Work and Pensions Management of Information Technology Projects: Making IT Deliver for DWP Customers第三次报告-2 004年7月7日-就业及退休保障部的信息管理技术项目：使交付，为客户多哈工作计划 specifically具体来说 paras.段。 110 - 123 Publishing OGC Gateway Reviews 110 -1 23出版法律办事处网关评论
If they are allowed to get away with this line of reasoning, then there is no point in any of the supposedly powerful Select Committees whatsoever , if their official public reports following their inquiries and investigations, cannot be used to scrutinise the policies and decisions of Central Government Departments or Agencies.如果让他们拿走了这条线的推理，那么就没有一点任何的假定强大的专责委员会，无论如何 ，如果他们正式公开报道后，他们的询问和调查，不能用来审核的政策和决定，中央政府部门或机构。
Incredibly , they are being supported by a lawyer acting on behalf of the Speaker of the House of Commons , to help the Executive branch of the Government (ie no longer the Monarch, but a Central Government Department, which was not the case in the 17th Century) to suppress the rights of the public in general, and of the two people who submitted the original Freedom of Information Act requests, which have been considered together by the Information Tribunal. 令人难以置信的是 ，他们正得到律师代理代表众议院议长的商品 ，以协助政府的行政部门（即不再是君主，而是中央政府部，它并非如此，在十七世纪） ，以压制人权的一般公众来说，和两个人提交的原始信息自由法案的要求，这都被认为是一起由资讯法庭。 One of those people is actually a Member of Parliament !其中那些人，其实是一个国会议员！
This bit of law is what is supposed to protect Members of Parliament from libel cases for what they say, with Parliamentary Privilege, in speeches or debates, in the Chamber of the House of Commons.这一点法，是目前所要保护的国会议员被控诽谤的案件，为他们的言行，与议会的权限，在演讲或辩论，在众议院提交众议院。
This fundamental constitutional law pre-dates the official record of the proceedings of Parliament ie Hansard, which started out as a private sector journalistic publishing venture, and the general acceptance of press and media reporting of the procedures of Parliament.这个基本的宪制性法律，日期甚至早于官方的诉讼记录，即议会的议事录，一开始时是以私人部门，新闻出版合资企业和普遍接受的新闻和媒体报道的有关程序的议会。 Neither of these existed back in the 17th Century.这两项存在早在17世纪。
Provided that these reports use fair and accurate quotations, then these media reports are themselves protected by Parliamentary Privilege from being accused of promulgating what might be a libel, if it had not been uttered by an MP within the House of Commons.只要这些报告用公平和准确的报价，那么这些媒体的报道是保护自己的议会特权，从被指控的颁布有什么可能是一种诽谤，如果不是出自一个MP内提交众议院。 This protection against libel or other civil cases also extends to the official written Reports of Select Committees of the House of Commons, and the Lords or Joint Committees of both Houses of Parliament.这对保护诽谤或其他民事案件的范围还扩大到了正式的书面报告的专责委员会的下议院，并上议院或联合委员会，参众两院议长。
There are perverse consequences of this Parliamentary Privilege eg有有害的后果，这个议会的特权，如：
1995 case of the then MP Neil Hamilton (”Cash for Questions”), trying to sue The Guardian newspaper for libel, and being unable to, because The Guardian would not have been able to get a fair trial in a UK Court, by not being able to quote any of his speeches or the rules of the House of Commons. 1995案件当时的国会议员尼尔汉密尔顿（ "现金为问题" ） ，试图控告卫报诽谤，并不能做，因为监护人，也不会被能够得到公正的审判，在英国一家法院中，不能引用他的任何言论或议事规则提交众议院。 This anomaly was later amended by specific legislation allowing MPs to waive their parliamentary Privilege on an individual, case by case basis, so as to sue for defamation..这种不正常现象，后来修正的具体立法，允许国会议员放弃他们的特权，议会就个人而言，会按个别情况，以控告诽谤..
See见 Defamation Act 1996 section 13 Evidence concerning proceedings in Parliament诽谤法， 1996年第13条有关证据的诉讼议会
The provisos in this section of the Act explicitly cover Select Committee evidence and reports.该附带条款在本节中，该法明确涵盖专责委员会的证据和报告。
Information Tribunal was not criticising, let alone libeling or even “Questioning” the Select Committee report.资讯法庭不批评，更遑论libeling甚至"质疑"专责委员会的报告。 The Information Tribunal simply cited this publicly published Report as evidence, noting the arguments, both for and against publication of such Gateway Reviews.资讯法庭简单地举出这公开发表的报告书作为证据，同时注意到论据，无论是支持和反对公布这些网关审查。
para 23In the course of this hearing, the Tribunal was referred to the第23in这个过程中听证会，法庭转介至
inquiry conducted by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions that reported in 2004 on Management of Information Technology Projects: Making IT Deliver for DWP Customers .进行了调查，由专责委员会的工作和离退休养老金报道，在2004年对信息技术管理项目：它提供对多哈工作计划的客户 。 It considered, amongst other things, the arguments for and against publishing GR’s.它认为，除其他事项外，支持和反对的出版遗传资源的。
The “Questioning” by the Information Tribunal Judgement was of the Office for Government Commerce, part of HM Treasury, headed, at the time (May 2007) by the “control freak” Chancellor / Prime Minister Gordon Brown. "问话" ，由资讯法庭的判决是该办事处为政府商务部，部分财政部，头脑，在时间（ 2007年5月） ，由"控制怪物"校长/总理兼财政大臣布朗。
That is definitely not anything to do with the “Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament” which is what the Bill of Rights clause is on about !这肯定不是什么事都与" freedome的演讲和辩论，或诉讼中parlyament " ，而这正是人权法案的条款是对约！
How can the High Court, Judge Mr. Justice Stanley Brunton possibly decide that reading or mentioning a Select Committee Report contravenes the Bill of Rights, without also destroying Hansard, official Government Press Releases, the wider Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press ?怎样才能高等法院法官，法官先生赤柱国航此次可能决定读或提一个专责委员会的报告违反了人权法案，如果没有，也摧毁了会议纪录，政府的官方新闻稿，更广泛的言论自由和新闻自由？
How can he ignore the他又如何能够继续漠视 Parliamentary Papers Act 1840议会文件法1840年 ? ？
The Speaker of the House of Commons should not be colluding with the Government and the civil service bureaucracy , he should be Ordering them, under threat of Contempt of Parliament, to obey the several cross-party Select Committees such as the Public Accounts Committee, the Home Affairs Committee, and the Work and Pensions Committee etc. have not even been allowed to see copies of Gateway Review reports, even in closed evidence sessions.众议院议长的商品， 不应该相勾结，与政府及公务员的官僚作风 ，他应该命令他们，受到威胁的蔑视国会，要服从若干跨党派的专责委员会，如公共帐目委员会，民政事务委员会，以及就业和养老金委员会等，甚至还没有被允许见副本网关审查报告，即使在非公开会议上的证据。
That is the scandal which the Speaker of the House of Commons should be employing lawyers to remedy. 这是丑闻，其中众议院议长的商品，应当聘请律师，以补救。
He should not be helping to suppress proper public and Parliamentary scrutiny of massive Government IT projects, involving millions of pounds of public money, which will affect every person in the UK, individually.他不应该得到帮助，以制止其向公众和议会审议的大规模政府资讯科技项目，涉及数百万英镑的公款，这将影响到每个人在英国逗留期间，单独。
The publication of the High Court’s Judgment could take several weeks or months.出版高等法院的裁决可能需要数周或数月。 We await the result, with mounting despair and resentment of the English legal system, which is stacked by the Government so heavily against normal individual citizens, and which fails to uphold their fundamental human rights, in a speedy and just manner.我们等待结果，越来越多的绝望和怨恨的英国法律制度，这是堆叠的，由政府如此沉重打击正常的公民个人，并没有坚持自己的基本人权，在一个迅速和公正的方式。
ID Cards 身份证 Section has more related reports 科更多相关报道 Help keep RINF going..有利于保持rinf去..Comment on 'Government tries to abuse the Bill of Rights' : 评论'政府试图侵犯人权法案' ：
Related News: 相关新闻：
