logo
Published on The Brussels Journal (
http://www.brusselsjournal.com)
Fractured Society: The UK, the Relativity of Law, and a New Bill of Rights
By A. Millar
Created 2008-08-15 08:05
The cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights has said that there should be a new Bill of Rights [pdf] (or Bill of rights and Freedoms) for the United Kingdom, which will apply to both citizens and non-citizens. It will, it is suggested, draw on the ?UK?s distinctive [legal] traditions? (p. 42, No. 146), and set out certain rights, such as the right to trial by jury, right to administrative justice, and right to equality (p. 38).
A ?British? Bill of Rights was proposed last year, in part, it would seem, to aid the government?s attempt to reunify the British citizenry through notions of ?shared values,? etc., having split the country into various unrelated groups through the earlier promotion of it disastrous policy of ?multiculturalism? (pp. 24 -26, p. 28, No. 88). It is also seen as an antidote to devolution and the gathering pace toward independence for Scotland. Notably, the term ?devolution? was not mentioned in the government?s Green Paper, Governance of Britain, [pdf] in which a new Bill was proposed, but is considered in the report, (pp. 31 ? 32) which warns, for example, not to repeat the mistake of the Canadian provinces which ratified a similar Bill of Rights without the consent of Quebec. The Green Paper talks of, ?a shared national purpose, and a strong bond between people and government? (p. 5).
However, a specifically ?British? Bill would necessarily apply only to British citizens, and thus problematically would exclude citizens of Northern Ireland, and, as the Committee?s report makes clear, would be opposed by Scottish politicians, who regard Scotland as their country and who regard themselves as Scottish rather than British. However, while ?British? is defined, it would seem, as citizens of England, Scotland, and Wales, and, indeed, while it is advanced as a kind of social contract with a national stamp, and thus a protection against the EU, Britishness is also, in some quarters, regarded as a prelude to Europeanism. The Justice Secretary is quoted in the report as saying:
The ?British? adjective in my view is important because there is the implication in the air that these human rights which equal in some people?s minds [?] a terrorists? and criminals? charter, are a European imposition and by Europe it is meant ?the Other?, that somehow we are not part of Europe. I think it is important that we break that down. (p. 29, No. 94)
However, a United Kingdom (rather than ?British?) Bill of Rights is preferred by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, because this will supposedly, ?[?] demonstrate that the rights it contained are ?owned? by the people of the UK,? (p. 30, No. 99) including non-citizens.
The report strongly recommends that there be a process of dialogue with the public, and that the Bill should be ?confirmed by referendum? (p. 86, No. 328). There is also a concern that the process be ?bottom-up,? with the Bill developing through, if not from the public (p. 86, No. 329). Nevertheless, professor Vernon Bogdanor, quoted in the report, cautions that ?the danger is that the consultation is purely amongst the articulate? (p. 86, No. 330). A new Bill of Rights might be welcomed by some members of the public. The ineffectiveness of the police and justice system ? politicized and overwhelmed by bureaucracy ? makes daily appearances in the British tabloids. Simply put, the public does not expect the police to respond to their calls, nor does it expect justice from the justice system. Readers? comments at the end of tabloid crime stories reveal the depth of the contempt, as frustrated law abiding citizens mock the law, claiming that a violent murder will lead to a slap on the wrist.
Having witnessed a seemingly endless parade of criminals walking free from court ? though found guilty ? and having seen convicted terrorists given mere community service or house arrest, and the government powerless to deport foreign terrorists due to concern for their human rights, the public has every reason to be cynical. That it has, at the same time, witnessed law abiding citizens fined (and sometimes given a criminal record) for slightly overfilling their rubbish bags (US ?trash bags?), has seen the emergence of a surveillance society, or the arrest of people intervening to stop crime, has meant that members of the public are increasingly disengaged from society and from the politics. Though the law itself no longer appears to embody ?common sense? so beloved by the English, nor their morality or culture, the public obeys it; but as A. P. d?Entreves says in his Natural Law, ?When obedience [to the law] is no longer ?for conscience? sake? then alone can we surmise that the twilight of ?values? has set in, and that the reign of force has taken the place of the rule of reason? (second revised edition, p. 171).
Columnist Jenni Russell has recently written about the public?s disengagement from youths, whom many people now fear to reproach if they see them involved in crime or misbehavior. She suggests that this trend must be reversed, and that adults should correct youths where they can, as indeed they once did. Fear of attack is offered as the reason for this disengagement, but it is not the heart of the matter. The deeper reason is that as a result of the decline or loss of its traditional institutions (law, education, family, church, etc.) and the imposition of managerial law, British society no longer has an unshakable conviction of right and wrong. When attacked verbally or otherwise, modern man is unlikely to rise to a spirited defense of himself, because modernity is infused with moral relativism. In the heat of the moment, he does not know if he is right or wrong. It does not well up in him through his culture; fundamentally, he is alone. This is a very different type of man and society to that of even thirty years ago. But the same sentiment is found on the macrocosmic level: the British public has been silent in the face of the establishment of laws that are either absurd or patently hostile to their country, because they have failed to realize that law, like the architecture of the nation?s great buildings, are a part of the nation?s heritage, and represents ? or should represent ? its morality.
That the report by Joint Committee on Human Rights recommends building on the British tradition of law is to be cautiously welcomed, because while the sentiment is right, as we have seen in the past, ?British? has been divested of its proper meaning and, in the political arena, appears to indicate modernity, multiculturalism, etc. (The Justice Secretary has given four examples of ?British rights?: ?education, health, administrative justice and equality? (p. 37).) It is possible that a ?Statement of values,? supposedly British, would be articulated as a ?preamble? to a new Bill of Rights. (p. 34, No. 112), yet as the government has single handedly erased the people?s traditional notion of Britishness, and as the report indicates that local rights are mere specificities on international or global right, it seems that such values will be far more international and wide ranging, articulating, for example, EU law. Thus the report states:
Ever since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights norms have gradually become embedded at global, regional and national level. Provided the hierarchy between these levels is clear, there is a positive virtue in the broadly defined rights in the international standards being fleshed out into more concrete norms and standards at the regional, national and sub-national level. (p. 32, No. 107)
The majority of British laws are now made in the EU, a body that shares with Labour a vision of the future that is modern yet unclear, and the pathway to which appears to be an increase in rights and the specificities of rights, countering the established tradition. As David Green (CIVITAS) says in his crime reduction manifesto, ?Many Labour MPs remain in thrall to utopian theories of human nature and believe that criminals are driven to commit offences by social exclusion. They are not really responsible - it's society that should change.? It should be noted, then, that the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights also envisages change in British society:
We recommend that any new Bill of Rights should be both declaratory and aspirational. It should state and make fully enforceable all those fundamental rights which currently exist. But it should also look to the future by setting out a clear vision of the sort of society to which the country aspires. (p. 23, No. 69)
The sentiment seems to oppose the notion that the process of writing the Bill of Rights will be bottom-up, deriving from the people (who generally do not have ?aspirations? for their country, but merely desire such practical things as better policing, education, job prospects, etc). Laws introduced by Labour have reflected its own vision of a future Britain, based, as they are, on its ill-conceived ideology of ?muticulturalism,? which has broken the notion of law as something that aids the good of society, applying to all, equally, as ?a society.? As Green says, ?The criminal justice system [?] plays a part in moral education,? but Labour?s legal philosophy seems unable to state what actions are definitively right or wrong. It has led, in effect, to a multiculturalizing of the law. In one of the most striking examples, it was revealed earlier this year that Muslim men with up to four wives could receive income support benefits for each wife, adding up to a possible 10,000 pounds (20,000 US dollars) per annum, plus housing and council tax benefits, despite the fact that such polygamous marriages are illegal in Britain. Troublingly, the religion, sexuality, and culture of those appearing in court seem to be increasingly considered when making legal judgment or passing sentence. In James Brandon and Salam Hafez? CIVITAS review Crimes in the Community, [pdf] it is noted that:
In some instances, judges have [?] passed sentences which seem to indicate that in some cases violence against women by immigrants is acceptable on cultural or religious grounds. For example, in September 2003, Judge Neil Denison sentenced Abdulla Yones to 14 years for murdering his daughter Heshu rather than the recommended 20 years. Denison said that 16-year old Heshu had ?provoked? her father by having a Christian boyfriend. In his concluding remarks, he said:
?This is, on any view, a tragic story arising out of irreconcilable cultural differences between traditional Kurdish values and the values of western society?. (pp. 117 ? 118).
However, the multiculturalizing of the law has given rise to a steady stream of conflicting judgments that appear to display bias against traditional British culture. To give but one example, last year, Lydia Playfoot, 16, lost her high court battle to be allowed to wear, at school, a Christian chastity ring, which she viewed as emblematic of her faith, and her commitment ? as a Christian ? to refrain from pre-marital sex. Recently Sarika Singh, 14, won her high court case to be allowed to wear a silver bangle, at her school, as part of her Sikh faith. Miss Playfoot?s told the BBC, after losing her case, ?At my school Muslims are allowed to wear headscarves and other faiths can wear bangles and other types of jewelry and it feels like Christians are being discriminated against.? And this sense of discrimination by the authorities is becoming widespread among the indigenous population of Britain.
While the report by Joint Committee on Human Rights lists as one of its ?non-negotiables? that the Bill must apply to all, it does not suggest that the Bill will apply ?equally? to all citizens or residents of the UK. Indeed, the report states that:
There is a strong case for any Bill of Rights to include detailed rights for certain vulnerable groups such as children; and there should be consultation as to whether to include specific rights for other groups such as disabled people, religious, linguistic and ethnic minorities [my italics], workers (including migrant workers) and victims of crime. (p. 41)
There are numerous references to ?vulnerable? people or groups throughout the report, but, most significantly, perhaps, the Committee argues, ?[?] that a UK Bill of Rights and Freedoms is desirable in order to provide necessary protection to all, and to marginalised and vulnerable people in particular? (p. 5). The enshrinement of the rights of ?vulnerable people? ultimately opposes the tradition of natural law because the philosophy of natural law is one of a raising up, whereas the emphasis on ?vulnerability,? and on the necessary protection of the ?vulnerable,? has, as we have seen in recent years, meant that disadvantages have become desirable. It is, in a sense, an appeal to the worst of humanity, and thus an invitation to the permanent intervention of various government authorities.
Professor Dennis Hayes, visiting professor at the Westminster Institute of Education, has observed, for example, that the teaching profession now assumes that all children have problems, and by the practice of so-called ?therapeutic teaching,? has foisted upon children the desire to have some kind of issue. He cites one instance of a young girl who, asked to list hers, "[?] became very upset because she didn't have any worries." Having a mental health problem, he has also said, is seen by children as a ?badge of honour.?
Again, we have also seen in recent years the phenomenon of police, firemen, ambulance workers, etc., suing for minor injuries or emotional stresses that would, even a decade ago, have been regarded as an acceptable and expected hazard of the job. Only a few months ago a paramedic sued an older, married couple (both pensioners) because he sprained his ankle on one of their steps while in the course of his duty. Aware of their victim status in the new political ideology, criminals have even called the police when confronted by members of the public. Former Inspector Paul Lawson was recently arrested after he confronted youths who threw a beer can at his car ? and then proceeded to threaten his life and property. The youths, who themselves contacted the police, have not been prosecuted. Again, a few months ago, David Green, 64, who photographed a group of youths that had been terrorizing his neighborhood for months, was cautioned by police. Photographing the youths was ?assault,? he was informed. The youths were, again, not prosecuted. The recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that children be given specific rights to ensure their protection and well being is reasonable, however, in British society where ?the good? has given way to ?rights,? the above examples will serve to illustrate the caution and deliberation that is necessary even here.
The establishment of a radical multicultural ideology has fractured British society, given rise to moral and legal relativism, and thus ? although not the only factor ? has facilitated a sharp rise in antisocial behavior and violent crime, with criminals no longer afraid of the law. Moreover, multiculturalism has dangerously allowed no dissent. The British public is disengaged from society and politics; voting is at all time low, and membership of the Labour and Conservative parties has declined sharply in recent years. Blairism in one form or another seems set to continue. At such a moment in time a new Bill of Rights may turn out to be a Trojan horse. Still today is there significant debate over the exact meaning of the wording of the US Constitution?s Second Amendment, and thus its legal implication, but a new UK Bill of Rights will be far more complicated in comparison.
Having lost its notion of ?the good,? or rather, ?the higher,? the Right has no real view of the law, or sense of its history, and seems only able to muster the mantra of ?tougher punishment.? The Left, conversely, views the law as an instrument of social change, and has been adept at protesting for and advancing changes in its minutia at the expense of society as a whole. As the public views law as a set of rules that, in theory, protects the law abiding, it does not regard itself as having ownership of the law, and thus does not protest the damage inflicted upon it. The golden rule for its adequacy is, merely, that oneself is not arrested.
But the country cannot remain a Weimar Republic forever. Having chipped away at the temple of law, its rickety architecture threatens to crumble and give way to a less forgiving, and far uglier, structure. What might take its place a few decades from now remains unclear, but there are a few contenders. According to the Daily Mail forty percent of Muslims were found to want to live under sharia law in a recent poll. Sharia courts are already established across England (unofficially), and archbishop of Canterbury Rohan Williams and Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips have both signaled their approval of the use of sharia in Britain. Baroness Warsi, by contrast, rightly criticized Williams after this particular speech, saying, ?The Archbishop?s comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that already exists in our communities[?] All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts.?
But, if, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights has suggested, ?religious, linguistic and ethnic minorities? are given specific, additional rights, British law, and British society, will only further fragment and decline. Additional rights for select groups invariably come to be, or are perceived to be, rights over others. Countries that have established rights dependent on belonging to a specific religion or ethnic group have generally been recognized as totalitarian and even ?fascist? regimes. The manufacturing of additional rights for deemed ?vulnerable? groups, even where done with the best intentions, is nonetheless turning Britain and the EU into such regimes.
The citizens of the US rightly regard US law as their property, and are zealous in defending it. The British need to follow that example, and reclaim their ownership of British law. But, moreover, this needs to mean comprehending that there is a history and tradition of British law, and, moreover, reversing the factionalizing of the contemporary law, and its appeal to the ?vulnerable,? finding instead that basis in natural law, that will allow the people as a whole to be lifted up. d?Entreves stated some decades ago that, ? [?] natural law may provide that ?common ground where we can begin to draw all men, everywhere, together, in a unity that reflects what is common to human beings as human beings? (Natural Law p. 172). While one might find problems in his statement, to think through a philosophy of law established by the ancient Greeks, adopted into the Church, has influenced English philosophy, and that can be discerned at the basis of the US Declaration of Independence, strikes me as the only alternative to the multicultural philosophy that bends the law to it, to a totalitarian rule of ?rights for the few,? or to the sharia law that Williams and Phillips have suggested could be established in Britain.
Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3461
