Some people may remember Natalie Solent writing a post on Samizdata about statist developments in Kenya (a post inspired by a BBC report – of all things).
Predictably a from-central-casting leftist commenter turned up – accusing Natalie Solent (and even nice, gentle, fluffy me) of lies, ignorance…
Well Glenn Beck has actually read the new Kenyan Constitution, passed last week (even I could think of better things to do than read the small print of the new Kenyan Constitution – for example pluck out some of my nose hairs, so if Glenn wants to use his failing eyes to read the thing for the rest us…) and he read out sections of it on Monday, live on his show.
There is a list of “positive” rights (i.e. nice things the government must do for you) – wild promises of health, education, and so on. The idea that these can be afforded even in a developed economy (in the long term) is problematic – as for in an economy like Kenya, the idea is absurd.
Also (as even the Economist magazine admitted – although, of course, it supported the new Constitution) large areas of what are presently privately owned land can now be taken by the government.
Lastly – we have an interesting definition of “freedom of speech” (the very thing that Natalie was pointing to) . “Hate speech” is excluded from “free speech” protection – and hate speech is defined as an attack on a group, or an individual (which just about covers everything one might use a right to free speech to do). I am sure that Frank Lloyd (President Barack Obama’s “Diversity” Commissar at the Federal Communications Commission) would love to introduce such a Constitution in the United States (no naughty Fox News, or talk radio or internet to upset him any more), Kenya may even replace the Venezuela of President Chevez as his favourite country.
Although there are no explicit use of words like “Marxism”, the style in which the Kenyan Constitution is written (and a lot of the content – see above) is very much like the old Soviet Constitution – not a nasty, negative, set of limitations on government power like the United States Constitution.
Almost needless to say Comrade Barack Obama spent a lot of money making sure the new Kenyan Constitution was passed – although Glenn Beck did not mention that point. Although Glenn did mention that this sort of Constitution was the “Dream” of Barack Obama’s Marxist pro Soviet father (not to be confused with his Marxist mother or socialist maternal grandparents, or his Marxist childhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis, or his fellow Marxists in New York whilst a post grad, or the Marxists he worked with for his whole adult life in Chicago, or his Marxist Liberation Theology Minister for twenty years Rev. J. Wright or…), as made clear (if one reads carefully) in Barack Obama’s own first book “Dreams…”
A friend of mine has looked into the Kenyan constitution – I hope I do not have to read it (i.e. I am forced to when some moron, or paid hack, comes along and say it is a wonderful example of truly limited government), from the sound of even this bit it seems like the Constitutional document equivalent of a snuff film.
His initial comments were:
I’ll stick to other countries’ coffee now, the rights enumerated are amazing, even goods and services. Why didn’t Marx think of simply enumerating legal rights to plenty? Were the massacres encouraged as a reason for the new Constitution? Clause 10 is bad enough; 34 (4); 43; 66, 73 etc.
How do I enforce my rights (were I Kenyan) under 43 (1) (c): By not paying in a restaurant? Everyone is obliged to uphold the Constitution 3 (1). OK, start saving up for the Famine relief now…
No wonder the Economist magazine supported it (no I am not saying they are Marxists – they are just whores who always try and get into bed with the powerful) and Comrade Barack spent American tax money to make sure it passed.
It wouldn’t be Friday without a Paul Marks attack on the Economist
One of the reasons I oppose a written constitution here in the UK is that it would undoubtably end up very similar, given the quality of those who would frame it..
Snag has a point – I do attack the Economist far more than I do Time or Newsweek (or, in fact, any publication).
Why do I do this?
Very simple – the Economist pretends to be a “free market” supporting magazine. In spite of its supporting TARP, the “Stimulus” concept (i.e. spending more money is the correct way to react in a recession – i.e. the “demand” economic fallacy) , Obamacare (yet more regulations to drive UP health costs) and so on.
And of course it declared (in an infamous front cover) that Obama was the “Renewal of America”.
It is the basic DISHONESTY of the Economist (a statist publication pretending to be a “free market” supporting one) that angers me. It is the FRAUD.
Still with a 17% decline in the Economist’s American sales (although Newsweek and Time declined even more – they declined by about a third paid copy sales) perhaps I am treating it as more important than it is.
whOOps – sadly I think you are correct. I wish you were not but…..
whOOps, yeah that’s pretty much why I’m against a “Bill of Rights” here in Australia as well.
FWIW, here in Ecuador we got ourselves a brand new constitution not long ago, which I believe is the longest in the world, and these comments about the Kenyan one make me think that there’s a fashion element here, and constitutions are being worn tight on the neck and loose around the government this decade. Ours gives citizens (and not only citizens, but also imponderables such as “nature”) an embarrassment of rights, but rather cleverly avoids the question of which rights prevail over which by explicitly stating that no part of the Constitution has precedence over any other, which in practice means that the Constitutional Court, composed of government appointees, has virtually unlimited powers of arbitrary interpretation. The Constitutional Assembly which came up with this ridiculous document was, as you might expect, packed with socialist government handwavers with no legal training who spent so much time chattering about the feasibility of such things as a “right to sexual pleasure” (I kid you not) that they were overtaken by a deadline and ended up voting for a document they hadn’t even read, that came down from On High amid a flourish of celestial trumpets.
Yes Sir – if a Constitution is a “Christmas tree of rights” then really it is saying that a “right” is just a nice thing the government gives you.
The opposite of the traditional view of a “right” as a limitation on government power.
It becomes, as you say, a joke – and a very bad joke at that.