MOB RULE
I found Les May’s glib comments somewhat limp and irksome, if not repellent, and felt compelled to write.
Les May said, "In a liberal democracy we should determine our course of action not by whether it is legal, but whether it is sensible and reasonable." In a Liberal Democracy indeed! I disagree. It must be one or the other. Or should I just do what I want when I want? That’s why we have Laws, a common set of rules that we must all obey or suffer the consequences. I may not think them "sensible and reasonable" but what’s that got to do with it? Laws act as a leveller whether we agree with them or not. With the Law we are not subject to the individual vagaries of what is or what is not "sensible and reasonable". It has already been defined or ordained somewhat within the Law.
"Behaved unwisely"? Do you mean unwisely because they simply might get arrested? It is indeed unwise to break the Law because one might get caught, because of the consequences, but that does not make the Law right or mean that those enacting the Law are doing so proportionately. I think this a misuse of the word ‘unwisely’. The police are well known for straining existing and new Laws to suit themselves. Just look at the use and proposed uses of Public Space Protection Orders, for example. "Potential to bring harm to other people". Who decides? 'Potential' indeed? This is where a Court of Law decides. My god, just where do we draw the line? That's what Laws are for, whether we love 'em or loathe 'em.
Hopefully, we are not dealing here with thought crime? The police arrest and the courts judge, and if the coppers are found guilty of wrongful arrest, of going beyond their power to act, then they too should be put in the dock! I would love to see some DWP employees in the dock for the abuse of their powers. Even if one wins a tribunal there’s no real justice because they keep doing the same thing to other people without any consequences. There must be consequences. Those with power must be accountable for their actions too. There’s far too little Justice in my opinion.
We are not living in a Police State, not yet anyway. I realise that many other countries are far worse than the UK, but we must not sleep walk into a creeping tyranny through feelings of insecurity and fear. We see far too much of this already with the fear of terrorism.
Some might argue that I personally have the "potential to bring harm to other people" simply because of the views and ideas that I hold and express. Who decides what is or is not potentially harmful to others? We’ll be advocating book burning next. And before you know it, we’ll be holding inquisitions and witch trials, burning people at the stake again for heresy, for those who don’t tow the line or tug the forelock!
Who is this 'we' to whom you refer that should decide? Do you mean 'we' the people, or those elected to represent them in this so-called Liberal Representative Democracy? That's why we have Laws. No one is above the Law, not even the Government. They too must obey the Law. Parliament must change the Law first before the Government can do things whether popular or unpopular. This is one of the great problems with Majoritarian Democracy, that it can be driven by the basest of fears or even by below average values of society, rather than led by the best or highest values that should be displayed by those who govern and lead. But then who decides what are the right values? We are delving into the marshlands of ethical philosophy and not the relative certainty of Law.
You refer to "sensible and reasonable, but who decides this? What I may consider sensible and reasonable you may not. That again is why we exist in a democracy where a kind of average position is taken through the ballot box despite all it's apparent failings. Or it would be an average if we had some kind of Proportional Representation. And some of this eventually becomes Law, or changes existing Law, like with the Coronavirus Act 2020.
It is my view that elected representatives should have the courage of their convictions, assuming they ever had any in the first place, to do what is best and right by the people, even if this means going against the ‘popular will’ or the ‘will of the people’, or perhaps rather, as we have here, standing up against the collective fears of the people. Our elected representatives ‘ought’ (should/ought debate) to be among the best of the people (not an elite), so that we are governed and led by some of the wisest among us, a high ideal I know given the difficulty of recognising wisdom when we see it.
We expect the electorate to differentiate between a fool and a wise wo/man or, as I more often see it, between one fool and another. Not much of a choice then. But a Court of Law for all its failings acts according to Laws as they stand and not according to moral or ethical positions. These may have been weighed in the balance when the Laws were drawn-up, and they may have a bearing when cases are held and the Law found wanting. Laws must change with the times.
Politicians should stand above the basest impulses of fear, with no concern for themselves remaining in power individually or as a political party. Let right be done. And if the people don't like what they've done during their term in office, then they can kick them out at the next election but not before.
We live in a democracy for all it’s failings, not in a dictatorship, not even really a ‘dictatorship of the masses’, which is what populism can lead to if our leaders, both elected and unelected, act out of fear or a desire for power and acquiesce to it. By all means show understanding and compassion, but the tail must never wag the dog, but which is tail and which is dog? The people must never dictate to Parliament save through the ballot box, unless we want chaos or a creeping tyranny or an outright revolution. That’s why we have agreed upon Laws. If we don’t like the Laws, we have the right to seek to change them. We must ever be on our guard against encroaching Laws that seek to unnecessarily shackle the people. It is a difficult balancing act to maintain between individual liberty and collective security.
What would we have if the nation was governed by pure populism? The fear impulses of the people would hold sway, swinging first this way and then the other, without recourse to the steadying power of reason and will as should/ought to be evidenced by our wise governors and leaders.
If things were simply left to the people they would likely bring back hanging at a whim even though that is currently against the Law. Laws act to protect the people both from outside forces and internal forces, they help to protect people from themselves, especially where they are incapable of ruling their passions and fears. These Laws should show the very best of what a people are capable, only seeking to curtail their freedom where absolutely necessary.
And I say all this about ‘the Law’ as someone who generally dislikes rules, imposed rules. I often assert that "rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men". Thus I think that I can decide for myself when and if to obey a rule or not. And once again we return to the problem of knowing or deciding when someone is or is not wise, but a Court of Law does not treat of the issue of wisdom. Perhaps one can consider the Judge to be the arbiter of Justice within the confines of the Law. The wise know, but the unwise do not know, because they are not wise. “In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king”.
Perhaps I’ve strayed a wee bit but I think the essence of my position is clear.
Love, Light & Laughter
Steve Starlord
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment