Government tries to abuse the Bill of Rights政府試圖侵犯人權法案
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政府和眾議院議長共同勾結，試圖濫用十七世紀的人權法案，以遏制foia披露的法律辦事處網關審查身份證計劃
The該 Bill of Rights 1689人權法案， 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:一個歷史的一塊中英文憲法，其中的用意是維護人權和自由的公眾及國會議員的不受虐待，由政府行政部門 ，這在17世紀是：
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 .而已故國王詹姆斯第二所援助的多樣埃維爾會議員 ，法官和部長 imployed他沒有盡力，顛覆和消滅新教宗教和lawes和自由，這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"已故國王詹姆斯第二次"與"英國首相布萊爾"或"英國財政大臣布朗" ，換句話說適合一樣。
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Bill of Rights, is being abused in the High Court to try to weasel out of having to disclose the early (and now very out of date) Gateway Reviews of the Home Office’s Identity Cards Programme (as it was then, circa 2002 / 2003), by the lawyers for the Government’s Office for Government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.我們感到驚訝和憤怒 ，這條條例草案的權利，有被濫用在高等法院嘗試黃鼠狼出來的，無須披露早期（我現在很不合時宜）網關審查民政廳的身份證計劃（由於當時， circa 2002 / 2003 ） ，由律師為政府的辦公室，為政府商務部 ，支持，令人難以置信的是，律師為眾議院議長商品 ，在他們的決定提出上訴的獨立信息法庭後者訂購了充分的披露，符合公眾利益。
Are the Government and their lawyers desperate, or evil ?是政府和他們的律師絕望的，還是邪惡？
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 ?為什麼是眾議院議長共同幫助政府行政部門，以壓制言論自由和透明公開的政府，而不是在一開始的巨額公共利益？
Daily Mail / Mail on Sunday:每日郵/郵報週日： 319-year-old law used by Speaker Michael Martin to gag ID report 319歲的老人用法律由議長邁克爾馬丁的gag身分報告
Computer Weekly:電腦周刊： Government seeks to bury ID card reviews政府試圖埋葬身份證評語
[hat tip to [帽子提示 UK Liberty英國自由 for spotting this before us]探測這一擺在我們面前：
Bill of Rights 1688人權法案， 1688 ( “Act declared to be a Statute by Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689 (c. 1)”) （ "行為被宣布為一個章程，由官方和議會認定法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.這freedome的演講和辯論，或訴訟中parlyament不應該被彈劾或質疑，在任何法院或地方出於parlyament 。
See the history of this long running Freedom of Information Act disclosure suppression in our看到這個時代長時間運行的資訊自由法的披露鎮壓我們 OGC Gateway Reviews of the Identity Cards Programme法律辦事處網關評語的身份證方案 blog category archive.博客分類歸檔。
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.律師對於政府來說，似乎在拼命地落空秸稈中，並聲稱該法庭的資料，在其非常徹底四天聽證，其中涉及意見書，從上層大律師皇后區議會及專家教授的資訊自由法的規定，在某種程度上作出不當使用一份公開發表的報告書，由專責委員會的下議院，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，專責委員會的工作和退休金報告： Third Report - 7 July 2004 - Department for Work and Pensions Management of Information Technology Projects: Making IT Deliver for DWP Customers第三次報告-2 004年7月7日-就業及退休保障部的信息管理技術項目：使交付，為客戶多哈工作計劃 specifically具體來說 paras.段。 110 - 123 Publishing OGC Gateway Reviews 110 -1 23出版法律辦事處網關評論
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.如果讓他們拿走了這條線的推理，那麼就沒有一點任何的假定強大的專責委員會，無論如何 ，如果他們正式公開報導後，他們的詢問和調查，不能用來審核的政策和決定，中央政府部門或機構。
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. 令人難以置信的是 ，他們正得到律師代理代表眾議院議長的商品 ，以協助政府的行政部門（即不再是君主，而是中央政府部，它並非如此，在十七世紀） ，以壓制人權的一般公眾來說，和兩個人提交的原始信息自由法案的要求，這都被認為是一起由資訊法庭。 One of those people is actually a Member of Parliament !其中那些人，其實是一個國會議員！
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.這一點法，是目前所要保護的國會議員被控誹謗的案件，為他們的言行，與議會的權限，在演講或辯論，在眾議院提交眾議院。
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.這個基本的憲制性法律，日期甚至早於官方的訴訟記錄，即議會的議事錄，一開始時是以私人部門，新聞出版合資企業和普遍接受的新聞和媒體報導的有關程序的議會。 Neither of these existed back in the 17th Century.這兩項存在早在17世紀。
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.只要這些報告用公平和準確的報價，那麼這些媒體的報導是保護自己的議會特權，從被指控的頒布有什麼可能是一種誹謗，如果不是出自一個MP內提交眾議院。 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.這對保護誹謗或其他民事案件的範圍還擴大到了正式的書面報告的專責委員會的下議院，並上議院或聯合委員會，參眾兩院議長。
There are perverse consequences of this Parliamentary Privilege eg有有害的後果，這個議會的特權，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案件當時的國會議員尼爾漢密爾頓（ "現金為問題" ） ，試圖控告衛報誹謗，並不能做，因為監護人，也不會被能夠得到公正的審判，在英國一家法院中，不能引用他的任何言論或議事規則提交眾議院。 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..這種不正常現象，後來修正的具體立法，允許國會議員放棄他們的特權，議會就個人而言，會按個別情況，以控告誹謗..
See見 Defamation Act 1996 section 13 Evidence concerning proceedings in Parliament誹謗法， 1996年第13條有關證據的訴訟議會
The provisos in this section of the Act explicitly cover Select Committee evidence and reports.該附帶條款在本節中，該法明確涵蓋專責委員會的證據和報告。
Information Tribunal was not criticising, let alone libeling or even “Questioning” the Select Committee report.資訊法庭不批評，更遑論libeling甚至"質疑"專責委員會的報告。 The Information Tribunal simply cited this publicly published Report as evidence, noting the arguments, both for and against publication of such Gateway Reviews.資訊法庭簡單地舉出這公開發表的報告書作為證據，同時注意到論據，無論是支持和反對公佈這些網關審查。
para 23In the course of this hearing, the Tribunal was referred to the第23in這個過程中聽證會，法庭轉介至
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 .進行了調查，由專責委員會的工作和離退休養老金報導，在2004年對信息技術管理項目：它提供對多哈工作計劃的客戶 。 It considered, amongst other things, the arguments for and against publishing GR’s.它認為，除其他事項外，支持和反對的出版遺傳資源的。
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. "問話" ，由資訊法庭的判決是該辦事處為政府商務部，部分財政部，頭腦，在時間（ 2007年5月） ，由"控制怪物"校長/總理兼財政大臣布朗。
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 !這肯定不是什麼事都與" freedome的演講和辯論，或訴訟中parlyament " ，而這正是人權法案的條款是對約！
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 ?怎樣才能高等法院法官，法官先生赤柱國航此次可能決定讀或提一個專責委員會的報告違反了人權法案，如果沒有，也摧毀了會議紀錄，政府的官方新聞稿，更廣泛的言論自由和新聞自由？
How can he ignore the他又如何能夠繼續漠視 Parliamentary Papers Act 1840議會文件法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.眾議院議長的商品， 不應該相勾結，與政府及公務員的官僚作風 ，他應該命令他們，受到威脅的蔑視國會，要服從若干跨黨派的專責委員會，如公共帳目委員會，民政事務委員會，以及就業和養老金委員會等，甚至還沒有被允許見副本網關審查報告，即使在非公開會議上的證據。
That is the scandal which the Speaker of the House of Commons should be employing lawyers to remedy. 這是醜聞，其中眾議院議長的商品，應當聘請律師，以補救。
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.他不應該得到幫助，以制止其向公眾和議會審議的大規模政府資訊科技項目，涉及數百萬英鎊的公款，這將影響到每個人在英國逗留期間，單獨。
The publication of the High Court’s Judgment could take several weeks or months.出版高等法院的裁決可能需要數週或數月。 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.我們等待結果，越來越多的絕望和怨恨的英國法律制度，這是堆疊的，由政府如此沉重打擊正常的公民個人，並沒有堅持自己的基本人權，在一個迅速和公正的方式。
ID Cards 身份證 Section has more related reports 科更多相關報導 Help keep RINF going..有利於保持rinf去..Comment on 'Government tries to abuse the Bill of Rights' : 評論'政府試圖侵犯人權法案' ：
Related News: 相關新聞：
