It appears to be that I have a problem with 'authority'... Often, when confronted, the Big Question 'Why?' pops up in my mind. I hope that I'm the kind of guy that wouldn't get very far in the Milgram experiment... Almost like something from Quantum Mechanics, it is still not clear what 'Project Passport' exactly is. It could be a Scientific Experiment, an Art Project, (graphic design or a performance piece), a Protest or.... just the Biggest Mistake Ever....
It all started as a Twinkle in my minds-eye a number of years ago but started to take form towards the end of 2011.(i'M afraid it Might Become a Rather Large Page....) |
Introduction: (or clickit to skipit)
I do like reading weird stuff to pass the time. Here is some stuff that got me thinking...
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION
OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
( what?)
Dec·la·ra·tion / dkl-rshn/ Noun: In the law of evidence, a statement or narration made not under oath but simply in the middle of things, as a part of what is happening. Also, a proclamation.
" UDHR is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states The Declaration represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law. "
" UDHR is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states The Declaration represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law. "
Ratification: The confirmation or adoption of an act that has already been performed
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ratification
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ratification
it 'took on the force' of International Law. Does that mean it is now more a Proclamation than a Declaration?
Proc·la·ma·tion (prkl-mshn): A document published to the inhabitants of an area that sets forth the basis of authority and scope of activities of a commander in a given area and which defines the obligations, liabilities, duties, and rights of the population affected.
This sounds like a terribly one sided thing... (luckily 'everyone is equal under the law') "scope of activities of a commander" ... Hmmm... Ah, Of Course! "the population affected" Maybe this is a good time to check the 'Person' page if you haven't done so already... (The more i read, the more i spot those little clues that tell me these things are true... The other pages that are of interest in connection with this page are 'Civilization' and 'Sovereignty' )
But anyway, back to the 'Declaration' It's Common Sense that you can't Declare on Someones Else his behalf. The Declaration is something the 'declarer' does want to be known, and therefore, in a way, what it wants to be known for;
'I declare my candidacy' for instance...
A declaration does not necessarily have to be true, it can be subjective...
'I declare the experiment a success' for instance...
...
In an article about "The Sovereign Military Order of Malta" ( a Sovereign entity that isn't a country), i found the next statement:
"Wengler—a German professor of international law—addresses the sovereign status in his book Völkerrecht, and rejects the notion that recognition of the Order by some states can make it a subject of international law. " (source)
Quick backstep to a line in the introduction of the UDHR;
".... which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law. "
It appears to be that ' International law' is based upon 'Treaties','Declarations' and 'Conventions' and the like. These, as i understand it now, are all forms of Contracts. According to West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2;
" A treaty is an agreement in written form between nation-states, (...) that is intended to establish a relationship governed by International Law. It may be contained in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments such as an exchange of diplomatic notes. Various terms have been used for such an agreement, including treaty, convention, protocol, declaration, charter, Covenant, pact, act, statute, exchange of notes, agreement, modus vivendi and understanding. The particular designation does not affect the agreement's legal character. " [emphasis added]
Definition: des·ig·na·tion (dzg-nshn) n. [...among other...] A distinguishing name or title
In 'Contract Law', there is something called 'The doctrine of privity'.
"The doctrine of privity means that a contract cannot, as a general rule, confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person except the parties to it." (The doctrine of privity (GH Treitel, The Law of Contract, Page 442)
It goes against All Common Sense to assume that if 2 parties made a contract and than 'recognise' an outsider party as similar, a peer or equal , and therefor consider this party to be bound to the contract... NO, this 3rd party has to agree! I think this is what Professor Wengler is saying. There is of course an other situation, if this 3rd party is under contract with one of the original 2. (think contractor and sub-contractor, but than still... Does the sub-contractor face the Same Obligations as the main contractor?)
i Think Professor Wengler's concept here is based upon Exactly the Same Principle as the relationship 'we' have with 'Our Authorities'; it's Voluntarily!!! and, to be even more Blunt to 'the Establishment', if you Claim the Moral High-Ground, you have to stick to Your Own Rules... 'Member States' create and/or subscribe to Rules of Conduct, with Benefits And Obligations. 'The People' than have the Choice if they want to live Under those Rules Or Not...
My (oh so limited) Understanding of it all; According to those 'Proposed' Rules themselves, they can Not Be enForced, unless the Human Being in question is a 'Subject' (that is a Citizen, National, Resident, Tourist, Refugee, Asylee or Alien, Taxpayer, Pasenger, Customer, Aplicant, Student... all those things you Register or, even better, Apply for using your 'Personal Details') ...
Back to the DECLARATIONS
Just some 'Random' Bits, with some added emphases ;
Article 12. "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." ( ar·bi·trar·y (ärb-trr) adj. 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle 2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference )
Article 13. "(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
Article 20. "(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association." Definition: ( com·pel (km-pl) tr.v. 1. To force, drive, or constrain 2. To necessitate or pressure by force; exact )
Article 13. "(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
Article 20. "(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association." Definition: ( com·pel (km-pl) tr.v. 1. To force, drive, or constrain 2. To necessitate or pressure by force; exact )
and, of course, these:
Article 9. "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
PREAMBLE "Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, " Definition: (Op-pres-sion [əˈprɛʃən] among others: the state of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority )
PREAMBLE "Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, " Definition: (Op-pres-sion [əˈprɛʃən] among others: the state of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority )
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
(What?)
Cov·e·nant /kv-nnt/ Noun: An agreement, contract, or written promise that frequently constitutes a pledge to do or refrain from doing something.
ICCPR is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 1966, and in force from March 23, 1976. It commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial. As of October 2011, the Covenant had 74 signatories and 167 parties
ICCPR is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 1966, and in force from March 23, 1976. It commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial. As of October 2011, the Covenant had 74 signatories and 167 parties
(So these are rights NOT granted to only Human Beings, but SPECIFICLY for Citizens,Subjects...)
Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
con·science /knshns/ Noun: The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong
ob·serv·ance /əbˈzərvəns/ Noun: The action or practice of fulfilling or respecting the requirements of law, morality, or ritual.
co·erce /(k-ûrs)/tr.v. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
and, last but not least, the legal-dictionary definition of Beleve: Mental reliance on or acceptance of a particular concept, which is arrived at by weighing external evidence, facts, and personal observation and experience.
ob·serv·ance /əbˈzərvəns/ Noun: The action or practice of fulfilling or respecting the requirements of law, morality, or ritual.
co·erce /(k-ûrs)/tr.v. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
and, last but not least, the legal-dictionary definition of Beleve: Mental reliance on or acceptance of a particular concept, which is arrived at by weighing external evidence, facts, and personal observation and experience.
exactly what i'm doing here...
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS.
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
(But of course it says 'peoples' and not 'people'...)
peoples: The aggregate of the individuals who comprise a state or a nation.
In a more restricted sense, as generally used in Constitutional Law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or a nation who are invested with political power for political purposes (the qualified voters).
In a more restricted sense, as generally used in Constitutional Law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or a nation who are invested with political power for political purposes (the qualified voters).
stat·us: the standing, state, or condition of an individual; the rights, obligations, capacities, and incapacities that assign an individual to a given class.
What about: the European Union ?
Treaty on European Union
|
The Return of the Doctrine of Privity...
|
According to West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2;
" A treaty is an agreement in written form between nation-states, (...) that is intended to establish a relationship governed by International Law. It may be contained in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments such as an exchange of diplomatic notes. Various terms have been used for such an agreement, including treaty, convention, protocol, declaration, charter, Covenant, pact, act, statute, exchange of notes, agreement, modus vivendi and understanding. The particular designation does not affect the agreement's legal character. "
So than; A 'Treaty' is Nothing but a Contract with a fancy name...
There appears to be something wrong here. If a Government of a Nation that calls itself "Democratic" ,(in the general understood 'of the people, by the people, for the people' way) includes certain acts in it's laws because it is bound to do so 'By Contract', isn't it 'per Definition' no longer Democratic?
A 'Maxim of Law.'
"Derivativa potestas non potest esse major primitiva".
The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
This however is possible in, or more precise under, a Parliamentary or 'representative' democracy...
Sorry, a line in Dutch....
Artikel 120 van de Grondwet:
"De rechter treedt niet in de beoordeling van de grondwettigheid van wetten en verdragen". (aHum...?)
"De rechter treedt niet in de beoordeling van de grondwettigheid van wetten en verdragen". (aHum...?)
(it's about Judicial review , the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review (and possible invalidation) by the judiciary. A specific court checks the acts of the state against a higher authority (such as the terms of a written constitution). Judicial review is an example of the separation of powers in a modern governmental system (where the judiciary is one of three branches of government). In the Dutch Constitution this concept is specifically 'outlawed')
Time to start 'PROJECT PASSPORT!'
and, to make it more interesting:
I'm going to do this right, use the 'Scientific Method'
( Reminder of the steps:
"A) Formulate the question. Describe (measure, classify) your subject.
B) Write a hypothesis, a testable statement describing the possible answer to the question.
C) Do the experiments to prove the hypothesis, and to prove the opposite of it.
D) Make conclusions and either publish results or jump back to the second step and adjust the hypothesis.
E) After all this and an article is published, the idea is for other scientists to be able to repeat the experiments in order to re-confirm or educate. " )
A) The Question:
Why do i need permission to go to an other country? A country is Nothing Else than some lines a bunch of people i don't know drew on a map!
Why do i need to go through all the hassle to get a state issued legal document called a passport to travel?
Surely, if i have to fill in a piece of paper to give to 'the government' so that they can copy that to another piece of paper....
i just LOVE those Law Maxim's...
“Nemo potest facere per obliquum quod non potest facere per directum."
No one can do that indirectly which cannot be done directly.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Unabridged, 8th Edition, pg. 2147
or, even stronger; anOther 'Maxim of Law.'
“Quod per me non possum, nec per alium."
What I cannot do in person, I cannot do through the agency of another.
[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Unabridged, 8th Edition, pg. 2159]
The Reason a 'state' can Restrict "cross border" movement of 'Men' is because this Man Himself Grands Jurisdiction to the state in question. By Refusing to do so and claiming "Sovereignty" no lawful argument Can be brought forward to stop a Human Being as an inhabitant of planet earth from going Wherever the Hell he Pleases...
C) the Experiment
First i have to Design the Experiment... (C.1)
"An experiment is a methodical trial and error procedure carried out with the goal of verifying, falsifying, or establishing the validity of a hypothesis. Experiments vary greatly in their goal and scale, but always rely on repeatable procedure and logical analysis of the results."
I obviously need some things for this experiment; To start with, a Man and a Border.... I also need to consider what can go wrong during the experiment and try to limit the chances for error... Very likely, the guy's with the Guns at border control might not all be so Open to Discussion...
There is of course a 'General Accepted Hypothesis', being: a State HAS the RIGHT to stop me from Crossing 'Their' borders.... my MAIN QUESTION HAS TO BE: NOT; I have a Right to Cross this 'Border' without interference, BUT: (to the Guy with the Gun) Why do You think YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO STOP ME?
'I; the Sovereign', will have to 'Issue' my Own Passport...
it's like the Saying "a Picture paints a thousand Words"sothat, when the 'Guy with the Gun' questions Anything, there's Something to break the ice...
(i need to Record my Findings as well...) hmm One Step at the time...
Experiment
Design Decision One: Find Subject; 'the Man'
Favourable Characteristics: Human. Experienced Multiple Border Crossings. Capable of Abstract Thought. Not affright to make a Total Arse of Himself. Willing to be responsible for own actions. Someone i can convince "this is going to work out Fine..." Hmmm... Has to be a Big Idiot... Has to be Me...
(Note to self: Need to Record my experiment as well... how can i record what happens...)
Experiment Design Decision Two: another subject? 'the Border'
Well, i'm born in the territory commonly known as Holland... I'm also the "bearer" of an Official Dutch Passport... Best reason; My whole blood Family lives there! I think the border of "the Kingdom of the Netherlands" is the chosen one!
(Note to self: i Need to Record my research as well... how can i record what happens?...)
Experiment
Design Decision Three: Get Object 'the Passport'
(this is going to involve 2 steps; Research and Graphics...)
C.1.1) Research: Because i Am Sovereign, i Can issue my Own passport. If the Dutch State than not "recognize" this passport....
Since this passport is Solely for the Benefit of the 'Guy with the Gun',what are the Things they may give as a Reason to Doubt the passport?
So a quick In Between ThoughtChapter on Possible Hurdles.. (C.1.1.½)
Expected Reaction One; "This is not a passport!"
Definition: Passport
legal: A document that indicates permission granted by a sovereign to its citizen to travel to foreign countries and return and requests foreign governments to allow that citizen to pass freely and safely.
With respect to International Law, a passport is a license of safe conduct, issued during a war, that authorizes an individual to leave a war-ring nation or to remove his or her effects from that nation to another country; it also authorizes a person to travel from country to country without being subject to arrest or detention because of the war. thefreedictionary.com
With respect to International Law, a passport is a license of safe conduct, issued during a war, that authorizes an individual to leave a war-ring nation or to remove his or her effects from that nation to another country; it also authorizes a person to travel from country to country without being subject to arrest or detention because of the war. thefreedictionary.com
So a passport is a 'document'...
Is there a restriction on who can create a 'legal Document'?
Definition: Document
Legal: A written or printed instrument that conveys information.
The term document generally refers to a particular writing or instrument that has a bearing upon specific transactions. A deed, a marriage license, and a record of account are all considered to be documents.
When a document is signed and the signature is authentic, the law accurately expresses the state of mind of the individual who signed it.
A false document is one of which a material portion is purported to have been made or authorized by someone who did not do so. It can also be a document that is falsely dated or which has allegedly been made by or on behalf of someone who did not in fact exist.
A private document is any instrument executed by a private citizen. A public document is one that is or should legally be readily available for inspection by the public, as a document issued by Congress or a governmental department.
Judicial documents include inquisitions, depositions, examinations, and affidavits. thefreedictionary.com
The term document generally refers to a particular writing or instrument that has a bearing upon specific transactions. A deed, a marriage license, and a record of account are all considered to be documents.
When a document is signed and the signature is authentic, the law accurately expresses the state of mind of the individual who signed it.
A false document is one of which a material portion is purported to have been made or authorized by someone who did not do so. It can also be a document that is falsely dated or which has allegedly been made by or on behalf of someone who did not in fact exist.
A private document is any instrument executed by a private citizen. A public document is one that is or should legally be readily available for inspection by the public, as a document issued by Congress or a governmental department.
Judicial documents include inquisitions, depositions, examinations, and affidavits. thefreedictionary.com
To Make Sure, some words from the Above definition Re-Defined in Legal dictionary:
legal instrument noun (law) a document that states some contractual relationship or grants some right [syn: legal document]par·tic·u·lar (pr-tky-lr, p-tk-) adj.1. Of, belonging to, or associated with a specific person, group, thing, or category; not general or universal individual noun autonomous being (autonomous (Independent), adjective detached, exxsting as an independent entity)
OK, it can be both Written or Printed but to be a document (and Not an instrument) it should be Made Particular by Stating it's a Passport. It should be Signed, an as long as it has been Made and Authorized by Me, it's Not false. Also;
i Must Exist...
(Of less importance, but nice to know; Private documents Exist!!! i Wonder what a 'private citizen' is though...)
(private citizen is not available in the legal dictionary. Try: general English dictionary and thesaurus)
Anyway; I Can Make a document!!! Maybe the crunch is in the 'skill' or 'language'?
Let's check "Legal writing"
Legal writing is a type of technical writing used by lawyers, judges, legislators, and others in law to express legal analysis and legal rights and duties.
i Reckon i can be an "and others in law", especially since 'all Men are Equal under law'...
Maybe it's "Legal drafting"
Legal drafting creates binding, legal text. It includes enacted law like statutes, rules, and regulations; contracts (private and public); personal legal documents like wills and trusts; and public legal documents like notices and instructions. Legal drafting requires no legal authority citation, and generally is written without a stylised voice.
I reckon a Private Individual is according to law Capable of Creating a "Legal Document" hiphip hooray!!!
So, will it Be a passport?
The way i Understand it now, As long as it 'States' that it is a passport, Is 'Signed' and is 'Issued by a Sovereign',
it indeed Is a passport...
Expected reaction Two; "This passport is not valid!"
Definition of VALID: Of binding force. A deed, will, or other instrument, which has received all the formalities required by law, is said to be valid. (blacks law dictionary.)
So, in Legal Terms, it's the Same Question as 'Is This a passport'.
In spoken language (googeling "validity of passport", it seems to be so if the Current Date is between the "Date of Issue" and "Valid Until" ... that Can Be Arranged...
Expected reaction Three; "This passport is False!"
Back to: Definition of Document;
"A false document is one of which a material portion is purported to have been made or authorized by someone who did not do so. It can also be a document that is falsely dated or which has allegedly been made by or on behalf of someone who did not in fact exist."
So that seems to be Easily Disputed, As long as the document is made by Me (and i Don't Hide that) and the fact that i Exist, it Should be AllRight...
Expected reaction Four; "You can't Enter Without a State Recognized passport!"
Can't 'The State' look up the Definition of Passport and than Recognize one?
Or would it be: "You can't enter without a Recognized State's passport!" (a Nationality...)
Ok, the reaction has to be; Why? We're Back where we Begun... (if you didn't skip the intro) :
the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Art 20.2
Article 20.2. "No one may be compelled to belong to an association."
Legal: Association n. any group of people who have joined together for a particular purpose, ranging from social to business, and usually meant to be a continuing organization. It can be formal, with rules and/or by-laws, membership requirements and other trappings of an organization, or it can be a collection of people without structure
Legal: Association n. any group of people who have joined together for a particular purpose, ranging from social to business, and usually meant to be a continuing organization. It can be formal, with rules and/or by-laws, membership requirements and other trappings of an organization, or it can be a collection of people without structure
so This is the foundation, or the A Question; May i be 'compelled to Belong to a State'
Also, is the 'State' and the 'Territory' the same thing? i'M starting to believe the state only occupies the territory, but according to their own rules, can't claim 'exclusive rights' to do so.
...
Same Question, different Starting point:
Is it possible to 'Enter' a state's 'Territory' without automatically falling under the Jurisdiction of That state?
So, may 'I; Sovereign' be denied entry?
Back again to where we Begun: the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Articles 9 and 13...
Article 9. "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
Article 13. "(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
Article 13. "(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
Especially if i'm on a Family visit. (art 12)
Article 12. "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
Think there's enough Here to Seriously Falsify the General Accepted Hypothesis... Think i should Start to Consider the Passport itself... Sńit, Two parts again: contents and actual Design of the thing... What Needs to be in a Passport
So a quick In Between ThoughtChapter on Compulsory contents.. (Point C.1.1.⅔)
a look at the definition again, there are 2 parts;
"A document that indicates permission granted by a sovereign to its citizen to travel to foreign countries and return... "
as 'I' am claiming back my 'Sovereignty', i don't think i have to ask myself permission to travel... hereby 'I declare' this point irrelevant...
"... and requests foreign governments to allow that citizen to pass freely and safely."
Considering that apparently the UDHR is (international) 'Law', and the 'Legal Definitions' of both the 'Passport' and the 'Document' are in a way also part of the 'Law', putting them together shows there has to be a major difference between 'a Human' and 'a Citizen'... (do i repeat myself by telling you to check the 'Person' and 'Civilization' pages?)
What else?
i Think the easiest way is to have a closer look at some 'legal' passport to see what they have in common...
"The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) issues passport standards which are treated as recommendations to national governments. The size of passports normally comply with ISO/IEC 7810 ID-3 standard, which specifies a size of 125 × 88 mm (4.921 × 3.465 in). This size is the B7 format.
The standard passport format includes the name of the issuing country on a passport cover, a national symbol, a description of the document (e.g., passport, official passport, diplomatic passport), and -- if the passport is biometric -- the biometric passport symbol. Inside, there is a title page, also naming the country. This is followed by a data page, on which there is information about the bearer and the issuing authority, although passports of some European Union member states provide that information on the inside back cover. There are blank pages available for foreign countries to affix visas, and to stamp for entries and exit. Passports have numerical or alphanumerical designators ("serial number") assigned by the issuing authority."
so; On the Cover:
All passports seem to have have the word 'passport' on the cover. This makes sense as it is in accordance with the definition of a document that tells us that in order for it Not to be an instrument, it should be Made Particular by Stating what it is Supposed to Be... It is (only) a passport if it says "Passport" on the front...
All passports seem to have have the Issuing 'Authority' on the cover... That will be 'The Sovereign Man Me' than ...
Most passports seem to have have some kind of 'Coat of Arms' and Motto.... I can do that!
That will cover my cover...
On the Inside:
Passports seem to contain information in more than one language. Normally English, French and the Sovereign's native in question... The purpose of the passport is to ask "to pass freely and safely."
Most of these statements are by or on behalf of the highest authority of the state in question.
Maybe i should go one step higher...
( in the paragraphs below, i replaced my real name with [...] )
in Dutch: In God's Naam, verzoekt de Sovereine Mens [...] alle overheden van bevriende staten aan de eigenaar van dit paspoort vrije en ongehinderde doorgang te verlenen alsmede alle hulp en bijstand te verschaffen.
in English: In God's Name the sovereign Man [...] requests all authorities of friendly powers to allow the owner of the presented passport to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer every assistance and protection which may be necessary.
in French: Au Nom de Dieu, l' Homme Souverain [...], prie les autorites interessees de bien vouloir lui accorder libre passage sans entraves ni retenue, de meme que l'aide et la protection dont il aurait besoin.
Mine can't.... In stead of being 'personal' the details given should enforce the notion that i am a 'Human'
It's heading will be; "Identificerende Gegevens van de Mens". This is in Dutch ( as this is the 'Chosen Border' and my Mothers tongue), and it roughly translate as Identifying property or attribute of the Man.
It will state my 'roepnaam' (what my Mum called me, comonly known as) and not a 'voornaam' (first name).
It will also state my 'doopnaam' (baptised as) and not 'voornamen' (given names), my 'familie naam' (family name) and not my 'achternaam' (surname), my 'geboorte plaats' (place of birth) City-Province-Country, my 'Afkomst' (heredity) as 'het nederlandse volk' (the peoples of the netherlands), my 'geboorte datum' (date of birth) as 'hoogst waarschijnlijk' (almost certainly) day-month-year*, my 'geslacht' (sex) 'Man' (male) and my 'lengte' (hight) 1.82 meter.
On top of this, it will have a Document Number: SME001, a 'Document gecreëerd op' (Date document creation) entry; 11/11/2011, a 'Geldig tot' (valit untill) entry; 10/11/2021, a 'Uitgevende instantie' (Issuing authority); 'De Soevereine mens [....]' ('The Sovereign Man [....]') Of course it will also have my photo and signature. To remove all Doubt, as a 'Grand Finale', the statement; "Geldig voor alle landen. Valid for all countries. Valable tous les pays" and a series of numbered pages ready to receive visas!
|
* I am unable to be certain about my date of birth, as I was unable to read and count at the time; "The hearsay rule is a rule of evidence which prohibits admitting testimony or documents into evidence when the statements contained therein are offered to prove their truth and the maker of the statements is not able to testify abouit in court."
Passports always seem to be Property of the Issuing State, with the citizen being 'the bearer' Mine should be, and stay, mine and therefore this will go on the back cover (once again in dutch/english/french):
Dit Paspoort is het eigendom van [...]. Het mag slechts met zijn toesteming ter beschiking van anderen worden gesteld. Het aanbrengen van wijzigingen of aanvullingen zonder zijn toestemming is strafbaar. Vermissing van het Paspoort door diefstal of anders zal bij de plaatselijke politie aangegeven worden.
This Pasport is the property of [...]. It may only be pased to others with his permision. To alter or to add information without his permision is punisable. Loss through theft or any other reason will be reported to the local police.
Ce passeport est la propriete de [...]. En aucun cas, il ne peut etre utilise ou altere par qui que soit, sans sa permission. La perte ou le vol seront reportes a la police locale.
© [...]. Alle rechten voorbehouden. All rights reserved
All this in combination with a bit of (open source) software, a trip to the shop for some nice paper and a bit of experimenting with the printer to make things line up nicely results in something thats visible in the header photo...
We are still somewhere in step 3 of the scientific method; I have researched what exactly a passport is and what mine should contain. I have decided where to do the experiment. I have done the graphic design and printed it. The next step:
C) Do the experiments to prove the hypothesis, and to prove the opposite of it.
I feel most things are prepared! As i brainwaved before, the need to prove the 'opposite' is not needed as i 'personally entered' the territory of 'the Kingdom of the Netherlands' on more than one occasion using the state issued passport...
The only thing that is not 100% of my liking is the lack of recording opportunity i have.
I have decided not to let that stop me and just need to make notes as i go along .
The date, Wednesday 30/11/11. Fly to Shiphol, Amsterdam airport.
i Landed around 11am. As i walked up to 'Passport Control' i spotted of to the right a Information Window of the 'Koninklijke Marechaussee' (Royal Military Police), and realized that this was the First Point where i could contact a 'Spokesperson Of The State' after leaving the plane. Apparently there were 3 basic questions that needed to be ask...
The window was manned by a friendly young woman. After some initial pleasantries;
The first question was regarding my status at that particular location. (after leaving the care of the 'common carrier', the airline, and having the status of 'passenger', and before identifying myself at the point of 'entering the Kingdom of the Netherlands', for instance as a 'citizen' or a 'tourist'). She was not sure but explained to me "i was on 'international territory" and "therefore would 'fall' under International Law". I asked if there was anybody who could give more clarity on this and was informed about a specific office. This was on 'the Plaza', on the other side of passport control with, according to her, no opportunity before that.
The second question was more straight forward, and so was the answer;
Q: If i have more than one passport am i free to those which one i use to enter? A: Yes, you are.
The third was the killer:
Q: What is the route to the railway station for Sovereigns that does not lead through Passport Control?
A: ..... pardon? ... Q: If ,for instance, a 'Head of State' or 'Royal' lands at Shiphol, where do they go? Do they have to show their passport? A: they don't land here, they normally go to Zestienhoven... (Rotterdam The Hague Airport)
At this point i showed her My Passport.
Q: What about this one? A: This is not a passport that is recognized by the state and therefore no permission would be granted to enter. Q: under what law would i be denied to enter? A: The " vreemdelingenwet" (= 'aliens Act')
The conversation with her continued quite pleasantly. We spoke about being a 'Burger', the Germanic concept similar to that of 'citizen' or 'civilian'. Unfortunately i had no way of recording this conversation but nothing really shocking revelations were made during this. As the window was part of an 'open plan' office, some of the other officers came over, looked at the passport and commented. One thing that stood out for me was the remark made by the women, regarding questioning why are we a citizens, that she "never thought about these things before..." (quote of course translated) Surely these 'armed professionals' are schooled if not educated ... ( Is 'Border Control' a 'Specialisation'? )
page not finished
The European Convention on Human Rights, ARTICLE 5 Right to liberty and security
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(f ) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(f ) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
A bit .NL:
Soevereiniteit
In Nederland aanvaardden de gewesten in 1588 zelf de soevereiniteit. Dit betekende dat zij voortaan de volheid van bevoegdheden zouden hebben in de staat en zij aan niemand onderworpen zouden zijn. Na de Franse Tijd komt dit begrip terug bij koning Willem I. Hij aanvaardde in 1813 de soevereiniteit 'onder voorwaarde ener wijze constitutie.'
In het Orderecht is de soeverein van de orde het hoogste gezag binnen een Ridderorde. Niet iedere orde kent een soeverein, de Nederlandse en Belgische koningen zijn grootmeester van hun orden. De Britse koning is de soeverein van een aantal orden en laat zich daarbij bijstaan door een grootmeester. In andere orden van Groot-Brittannië of landen van het Gemenebest is de koning zèlf grootmeester en ontbreekt een soeverein. Otto aartshertog van Oostenrijk is "hoofd en soeverein" van zijn Orde van het Gulden Vlies.
In Nederland is bij wet geregeld dat het Grootmeesterschap van de ridderorden is opgedragen aan de Koning. In de Huisorde van Oranje is vastgelegd dat de grootmeester zelf zijn opvolger benoemt.De Huisorde van de Gouden Leeuw van Nassau kent twee grootmeesters; de beide chefs van de Ottoonse en Walramsche takken van het huis Nassau. Op dit moment zijn dit de Koningin der Nederlanden en de Groothertog van Luxemburg
In het Orderecht is de soeverein van de orde het hoogste gezag binnen een Ridderorde. Niet iedere orde kent een soeverein, de Nederlandse en Belgische koningen zijn grootmeester van hun orden. De Britse koning is de soeverein van een aantal orden en laat zich daarbij bijstaan door een grootmeester. In andere orden van Groot-Brittannië of landen van het Gemenebest is de koning zèlf grootmeester en ontbreekt een soeverein. Otto aartshertog van Oostenrijk is "hoofd en soeverein" van zijn Orde van het Gulden Vlies.
In Nederland is bij wet geregeld dat het Grootmeesterschap van de ridderorden is opgedragen aan de Koning. In de Huisorde van Oranje is vastgelegd dat de grootmeester zelf zijn opvolger benoemt.De Huisorde van de Gouden Leeuw van Nassau kent twee grootmeesters; de beide chefs van de Ottoonse en Walramsche takken van het huis Nassau. Op dit moment zijn dit de Koningin der Nederlanden en de Groothertog van Luxemburg
“Zelfbeschikkingsrecht houdt eigen keuze van normen en waarden met betrekking tot het eigen leven in, ook al kan dat een afwijking betekenen van in de samenleving van dat moment gangbare normen en waarden. Een in de samenleving als positief
beleefde waarde kan door een individu negatief worden beoordeeld en omgekeerd. Zou men in de samenleving geldende waarden moeten volgen, dan kan niet van zelfbeschikking worden gesproken. Het wezen van de vrijheid is dat men deze zelf inhoud kan geven.” (H.J.J. Leenen . Handboek gezondheidsrecht 2000, p. 33.)
beleefde waarde kan door een individu negatief worden beoordeeld en omgekeerd. Zou men in de samenleving geldende waarden moeten volgen, dan kan niet van zelfbeschikking worden gesproken. Het wezen van de vrijheid is dat men deze zelf inhoud kan geven.” (H.J.J. Leenen . Handboek gezondheidsrecht 2000, p. 33.)