Very bad ideas
I would like to frame this mornings disjointed & rambling tome with the words of Rev Martin Niemoller upon his release Dachau in 1945:
“First they came for the Communists & I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, & I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, & by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.”
Not so long ago, I would have pontificated at not inconsiderable length that in the legal traditions held dear in merry Albion would never allow this sort of thing to happen here – yet changing my tune quicker than the government has changed its position of the publication of certain dossiers, I cast a bloodshot eye over the destruction of rights & freedoms that go back nearly 800 years.
No, I haven’t suffered a Road to Damascus style conversation & started snacking on fairtrade pumpkin seeds & dolphin free yoghurt while adorned in this seasons must have Icelandic lesbian tie dye smock. But even I believe strongly that even the worst terrorist scumbag has the right to be found guilty by a jury of twelve stout bulldogs … & then marched outside & shot … definitely on camera & preferably at prime time. This would make more compelling viewing than those mongs on Big Brother & the commercial possibilities would be endless. I can assure you that FMTV would certainly bid for the exclusive worldwide TV rights & as a part of the deal, there would be a lot of errrr sponsorship & product placement deals to be stuck.
We now have a government that is talking about ‘secret pre-trail hearings’. Now I am not all together sure what on earth these would comprise of but I am getting a mental picture of something akin to a cross between the Spanish Inquisition & one of Jeremy Paxman’s ‘Newsnight’ interviews. Now this is fine if it’s a Monty Python sketch or indeed BBC2’s Newsnight programme, but we used to have a concept in Blighty of justice being seen to be done & being seen to be done, in public - & as ideas go, not only is it a pretty good one, but it has stood the test of time.
However, Mr Blah has already introduced a trial system where the defendant is not told of all the prosecutions evidence & instead is represented by a security cleared ‘special advocate’. From this, it is only a very very small step to court procedures that were last seen at the last witchcraft trails in Cornwall, during the mid 1970’s.
Regular readers will know of my loathing for both the Judiciary & the wider legal profession; but at the moment I have to side with the enemy. The moment that politicians start telling judges to ignore the law & just do what the government wants, we as a nation have much much bigger issues than a few rag’eads blowing themselves up on London transport.
No, I haven’t suffered a Road to Damascus style conversation & started snacking on fairtrade pumpkin seeds & dolphin free yoghurt while adorned in this seasons must have Icelandic lesbian tie dye smock. But even I believe strongly that even the worst terrorist scumbag has the right to be found guilty by a jury of twelve stout bulldogs … & then marched outside & shot … definitely on camera & preferably at prime time. This would make more compelling viewing than those mongs on Big Brother & the commercial possibilities would be endless. I can assure you that FMTV would certainly bid for the exclusive worldwide TV rights & as a part of the deal, there would be a lot of errrr sponsorship & product placement deals to be stuck.
We now have a government that is talking about ‘secret pre-trail hearings’. Now I am not all together sure what on earth these would comprise of but I am getting a mental picture of something akin to a cross between the Spanish Inquisition & one of Jeremy Paxman’s ‘Newsnight’ interviews. Now this is fine if it’s a Monty Python sketch or indeed BBC2’s Newsnight programme, but we used to have a concept in Blighty of justice being seen to be done & being seen to be done, in public - & as ideas go, not only is it a pretty good one, but it has stood the test of time.
However, Mr Blah has already introduced a trial system where the defendant is not told of all the prosecutions evidence & instead is represented by a security cleared ‘special advocate’. From this, it is only a very very small step to court procedures that were last seen at the last witchcraft trails in Cornwall, during the mid 1970’s.
Regular readers will know of my loathing for both the Judiciary & the wider legal profession; but at the moment I have to side with the enemy. When politicians start telling judges to ignore the law & just do what the government wants, we as a nation have much much bigger issues than a few rag’eads blowing themselves up on London transport.
Comments
The problem of Governments dictating to the Judiciary effectively undermined the rule of law in Hong Kong. The administration, on not liking a High Court judgement, sought a 're-interpretation' from Beijing. This related to a clause of our mini written constition - The Basic Law - and was not well received.
Subsequently, the Government attempted to introduce laws to prohibit acts including treason, secession, sedition or subversion against the Central People's Government. This became a subject of considerable controversy as the proposed Article 23 legislation gave much power to the police, such as not requiring a search warrant to search a home of a "suspected terrorist". This led to public outcry, and resulted in massive demonstrations, where over five hundred thousands people took to the streets, in July 1, 2003. After the demonstrations, the government indefinitely shelved its drafted law.... Power to the people indeed.
Posted by: Tricky | August 11, 2005 11:36 AM
Cornish witch trials in the mid 1970's? Do you mean 1670's?
Posted by: Kevin Judd | August 11, 2005 2:34 PM
You obviously don't know Cornwall...
Posted by: John K | August 11, 2005 5:00 PM
I think you forget how these laws come into being in the first place. The ones that we pass aren't simply passed by parliament; instead the lobbyists/pressure groups get them introduced as government policy in the first place. And of course some of the biggest lobbyists are the practising lawyers and judges. Who is it that pushed and pushed for the Human Rights Act and the international court: mainly lawyers. Notwithstanding that I trained as a lawyer, I am afraid I cannot agree with you on this one.
Posted by: ESBONIO | August 11, 2005 7:43 PM
As long as we can have our own secret trials of the politicians when The Reckoning comes...
Sauce for the gander, and all that.
Posted by: Kim du Toit | August 16, 2005 7:01 AM