This is the question asked by Anthony Daniels over on the Social Affairs Units blog. His article conveys the sense of mounting unease that I certainly share. Read the whole thing.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
So how free is Britain?February 22nd, 2005 |
 14 comments to So how free is Britain? |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
It could be a lot freer if (this) is true and someone dares attempt it.
test
How does a 1985 Act on a specific subject implicitly repeal a general grant of authority on a vast range of subjects made in 1972?
EG
It’s hard not to agree with Dr. Daniels – particularly in the light of the latest efforts by the ruling junta (I’m sorry, I believe I meant to type “the Government”) to ram house imprisonment by ministerial diktat through Parliament, by force of the Blair Babes.
Earlier today (stuck in the car, driven by the relentless Leftism of BBC R4 to listen to R5) I heard a BBC drone enquire of a caller to his programme why he thought a “Left-leaning” government would want to impose draconian restrictions on the public. For what possible reason? He did this, apparently oblivious of the fact that in the history of the 20th Century “Left-leaning” governments have “Right-leaning” governments beat hands down in the police state league tables.
Governments govern – it’s what they do. And Leftist governments do it with a will because they believe in the perfectibility of humanity. By force, if need be.
What GCooper said about BBC R4. I must have a masochistic streak in me because I never get around to changing the tuning of my morning radio.
Euan: did you actually read the article Joe links to? The explanation is given therein.
Is there a national news/current affairs radio service that is not leftist? Please copy any suggestions to my e-mail, such a discovery would be too important to miss.
I get particularly fed up of the R4 Today crew missing all the obvious questions, allowing themselves to be distracted onto the point the politico want to mak rather than posing the questions he/she doesn’t want to answer etc. Are they too busy concentrating on the next item to listen to the propaganda their interviewees spout, or are they just too thick to engage in debate and argument without a script?
While in no way supporting the Today programme I do feel some sympathy for them. Think of all the dreadful Labourite scum they have had to put up with – Alistair Campbell constantly telephoning them and screaming to be allowed his ‘right’ to use profanity against the BBC plus the oafish Prescott doing his usual response to a question he can’t answer, by threatening John Humphrys.
Joe’s article is interesting but flawed: the UK’s Bill of Rights is not like the American one. It dictates Parliament’s relationship with the Crown, rather than the government’s relationship with the citizenry.
The ‘bearing arms’ section bars the Crown (effectively, the Government) from disarming citizens without an Act of Parliament. It does not bar Parliament from passing an Act to disarm citizens.
(Dalrymple’s article, meanwhile, reminds me more than anything else of Craig Brown’s parody Charles Moore column in the latest Private Eye…)
Yes. The argument doesn’t hold water, IMO.
You can read the final judgement in the Thorburn case here, and a perusal thereof quickly dismisses the constitutional argument. It’s worth a read.
The article linked to doesn’t consider the whole of the judgement, which it really should. It also wilfully misinterprets the Bill of Rights’ provision on the right to keep arms.
Essentially, if the metric “martyrs” are correct and the 1985 Act implicitly repeals part of the 1972 Act, which is constitutional law, then current firearms law implicitly repeals the arms provisions of the Bill of Rights and parliament could with equal ease override anything in the Bill of Rights without explicit legislation. On the other hand, if they are wrong, then the 1972 Act enjoys the same constitutional law status as the Bill of Rights and an explicit repeal would be needed. This appears to be something of a no-brainer.
Even if we ignored all of the constitutional law arguments and the 1972 Act was considered simply as an ordinary act of parliament, there is nothing in the 1985 Act which even implicitly repeals anything in the 1972 Act since the latter does not explicitly concern itself with weights and measures. You might also want to read the 1985 Act, since it is under this legislation that some of the metrication directives are made.
EG
Much as I hate to agree with EG, it is quite correct that the 1972 Act referred to cannot be implicitly repealed.
It is an illegal act though…..
Mark, I think that was the point of the article. The article claims that the judgement claimed that the act couldn’t be repealed because there was a constitutional hierarchy. The article then goes on to say that in that case, later firearms laws could not repeal the constitutional acknowledgement of the right to bear arms.
The article is more in support of firearms rights than trying to claim that metricisation was repealed. That said, it may well be flawed as Euan claims but even if not, it is hopelessly naive.
Rich
How do you come by this conclusion John?
A link will do.
How so?
I find it most illuminating, when an aritcle on a site is linked, to read other articles on the same site by the same author. In this case, the author seems convinced that the EU is the Fourth Reich and will use the Turkish army as a mercenary force to occupy Russia. One questions his balance, frankly.
On weapons, the Bill of Rights says:
The last clause is important. It is not a blanket declaration of the right to keep arms, and nor does it say that no law may be passed denying this right. The linked article assumes that “as allowed by law” reads “as allowed by THIS law,” for which there is no justification.
Considering the historical context in which the Bill was created, it is fairly obvious that the key issue was arbitrary government by the sovereign. Since the country had gone through a civil war, regicide, military government and eventually the army inviting a foreigner to take the crown, all because of this issue, it is not hard to see that the intent is to restrict the power of the sovereign to the benefit of parliament. In Britain, parliament is supreme, not the people and not the constitution. If parliament says you cannot have guns, and if it says so in accordance with the laws at the time, then whether you like it or not, and IRRESPECTIVE of whatever any prior law says, you cannot have them. However, because parliament is supreme, any successor parliament can reverse this if it wishes.
There is nothing the constitutional law of the UK that prevents parliament suspending, varying or withdrawing any rights of the people, and this of course includes the right to keep arms. Both the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the European Communities Act of 1972 may be lawfully repealed by parliament, but this must be done by explicit legislation and not implicitly.
EG
Craggy Steve,
The Jon Gaunt show on BBC Radio London from 9am to 12pm on weekdays is a pretty good call-in show, and one often wonders if the BBC knows about it, as a broad cross-section of opinion is represented. He’ll let anyone have their say.
Regards,
James