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]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – exhume William Shakespeare “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
Have I or have I not done anything different here? I don’t suppose they will be exhuming William Shakespeare any time soon, but what she said was no worse than this. It was words, nothing more. We are now firmly in an authoritarian police state. A substantial custodial sentence for hurty words is the kind of thing we thought was confined to the old Soviet Union, but it looks as if the ghost of that monstrosity is alive and well in modern Britain.
– Longrider
|
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.
|
If I say about the judge “fuck you” am I going to be arrested for inciting rape?
BTW, regarding “kill all the lawyers”, People hate lawyers until they need one, then they love their lawyer. There is plenty wrong in that profession, but there are also a lot of good guys and gals providing a very valuable service to people who really need help. In a lot of respects the problem is not the lawyers but the law they work with, which is often ridiculous. As is the case in this quite terrifying development in British law. I really wonder how you all can, in good consciousness, continue to live in such a dreadful place. (In fairness to you Brits, as we approach a Kamala Presidency, I am asking myself the same question about the US almost every single day as the thread supporting the sword of Damocles over all of our heads twists and frays with every one of her cackling laughs.)
In defense of the Brits, I'll note that the 34 felony counts against Trump are just as nonsensical vis-a-vis the essence of the statute in question as is your scenario.
I’ll say what I told a friend in Rhodesia in the 1980’s – get out.
I’ll never leave the US, they can’t make me run. But I’m an idiot.
Run.
-XC
It’s a good thing they don’t need that cell for burglars, car thieves, or rapists.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=britain+prison+overcrowding
Fraser is right: it is the 99% that give the other 1% a bad name (sic).
It would appear that free speech is dead in this country.
From a personal perspective, I have been too blind to see that free speech has been stood on a trapdoor of its own demise for some time. Simply put, I thought we had more time.
What has hit me, with a painful dawning, is that Labour have changed no major laws, nor have they enacted any new ones to outlaw this speech. All it took was the implementation of laws that were already on the books.
The judges, both by the selection process (a Blarite Quango selects judges here) and by the cultural environment they operate in, believe that certain opinions, which they call “far right” opinions, are crimes.
They will not send to prison officials for “Hope Not Hate” for social media disinformation (“Muslim women are suffering acid attacks from the far right”) designed to stir up violence from the Muslim Defence League and other groups (not that the government would likely prosecute “Hope Not Hate” officials anyway) because “Hope Not Hate” is not “far right”.
It is the opinion, being “far right”, that is the crime – not what someone does.
And, please remember, everyone on Samizdata, regardless of our many differences with each other, is “far right” by the standards of the judiciary and the rest of the British establishment.
We are all here “criminals” because of our beliefs – regardless of what do or do not do.
After all, as Herbert Marcuse stated, there can be no Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Conscience for people with Reactionary opinions – as such opinions (by their very existence) “harm” “marginalised and oppressed groups” – so allowing Reactionaries liberty would be “Repressive Tolerance”.
Imagining what the great judges of the past, such as Sir John Holt (Chief Justice from 1689 to 1710 – the Glorious Revolution period when British Constitutional thought was at its height – before Sir William Blackstone came along and helped ruin things) would have done in the case of, for example, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – “Tommy Robinson”.
“This is not a mortgage fraud case you scoundrels!” (and in his day a mortgage would have only been a matter for the courts if the person borrowing money failed to pay it back – application forms would not have gone to the courts) “you are attacking this man because he opposes your power – case dismissed!”
As for having the man beaten up in prison (lots of broken teeth), and then threatening to send him back to prison (to be murdered by Islamic gangs) on a false burglary charge – if he refused to work as a informer for the authorities…..
If anything like that had come out in the court of Chief Justice Sir John Holt, the representatives of the government would have left that court room in shackles – off to prison themselves.
Of course today Sir John Holt, and all the great judges of the past, would be considered “far right”.
Natural Justice is a universal – it is not one thing among one group of people and another thing among another group of people, or different things in different “historical stages”.
I remember a Japanese television series of the old Chinese story “The Water Margin”.
One of the future heroes of the story is an army officer falsely removed from the army and then, later, framed by a military court – and about to have his head sawn off.
An honest judge bursts in – this man is now a civilian (due to being dismissed from the army previously) the military court has no jurisdiction over him – he must be tried in a civilian court for his alleged crime!
No – “they will go to prison”, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer – before the accused had even been tried, an honest trial – with a demand for clear offenses – actual crimes (rather than “we do not like you” “you are a racist” or whatever) and no presumption of guilt (Sir Keir is a lawyer – there is no excuse of ignorance for his conduct).
Of course the honest Chinese judge pays a heavy price for being just – he is soon framed himself and led off in chains.
But the just must always expect to pay a heavy price for being just – the rulers hate those who stand for justice against what is politically useful.
Is Jury Nullification a thing on the other side of the Pond?
Steven R – only for leftists.
For example, the CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) people who organised the escape of George Blake (a Soviet agent) from prison had a defence council who was allowed to make long speeches to the jury justifying what they did – it was for “peace” and to prevent “nuclear war” you see.
All a pack of leftist lies – but the judge and the prosecutor allowed the defence council to get away with it, and “Hey Presto” the CND (technically “the 100” organisation – created by the late Bertrand Russell) people were found “not guilty”. Even though they had indeed arranged the escape of a Marxist Soviet agent (George Blake) who had sold out Britain.
If you tried jury nullification for a “right wing” person things would go very differently.
“Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury – my client is being prosecuted for shouting at a police dog, yes shouting-at-a-dog, and if you find him guilty the judge will send him to prison for years – but a Muslim Gentleman broke the nose of a policewoman and has not even been charged”.
Try that and the judge will come down on you like a ton of bricks, and you will be disbarred.
There is no “jury nullification” for people “on the right” – it only applies to leftists.
@Steven R
Is Jury Nullification a thing on the other side of the Pond?
Jury nullification isn’t really so much an explicit right so much a consequence of the basic jury process. Ask a judge in the US and they will tell you that jury nullification is not a thing. But it is a consequence of two simple facts:
1. Judges cannot punish juries for the wrong verdict
2. Double jeopardy prevents a defendant from being tried twice.
Which is to say the jury can go against the judge’s instructions or the evidence or common sense and there isn’t anything the judge can do about it. This is true in all common law countries including the UK.
What the judge can do though is restrict what the lawyers can say to encourage juries to behave in this way. Which is why what Paul says is true to some degree.
Oh and needless to say INAL.
Power to an official is like blood to a fly.
They’ll tell you a lot more than that!
One of my few periods of personal incarceration was the result of obliquely mentioning to a jury that jurors could make up their own minds about the moral justice involved in a charge against my client. The judge was not amused.
Frasor Orr – sadly what I said is true.
Over here – “jury nullification” is very much a one way street.
A leftist will be allowed to present a political defence (basically “this law is unfair to me” or “I did it – but it was justified”), but a “right winger” will be shot down in flames if they try this.
Judges will not acknowledge that jury nullification is a real thing, but in the real world
it’s a big part of the reason trial by jury was put in the bill of rights in the first place.
If you’re called up for a case where jury notification might be an issue and you would prefer not to server,
you can probably get out just by saying “Zenger”. If the judge asks you to elaborate, say “for transporting us beyond the seas to be tried for pretend offenses.”
Paul Marks
Over here – “jury nullification” is very much a one way street.
Sure, but if you are on a British jury judging someone accused of wrongthink or wrongspeak, you are not going to vote guilty, and will therefore nullify the guilty verdict, and there is not a damn thing the judge or prosecutor can do about it. So it still exists in Britain, though I don’t doubt the shenanigans you mention happen a lot in these political cases.
I bet that in Great Britain any Marxist, Socialist etc can still say “kill the rich” in protests with the police just nearby.
Fraser
In England and Wales, a jury (of 12) can return a majority verdict if the judge so directs, and 11/1 or 10/2 can be enough to convict. Also the double jeopardy rule has long since been scrapped and the Crown can apply for a person to be tried again in limited circumstances.
In Scotland, the criminal jury is 15 but a majority of 8 can convict and similarly the double jeopardy rule no longer applies automatically.
In Northern Ireland, the right to jury trial is limited due to the terrorism situation.
Bobby:
I’d like to know, if you don’t mind:
(a) did the trial go ahead or did the judge declare a mistrial?
(b) did the judge send you straight to jail or was it necessary for him/her to send you on trial?
These are obviously questions from a legally-naive perspective.
SG:
It was long ago, a marijuana (sale amounts) charge. My client was a cancer patient who was buying pot to quell his nausea, and he was buying enough to share with his buddies in chemotherapy. (Never speed while carrying 8 ounces of pot.)
So, he had enough in his possession to satisfy the “for sale” elements of the more serious charge, even though he never took any payment from anyone – he just shared it.
A pure personal-use charge would probably earn him a suspended sentence and likely wouldn’t even have been charged in that (federal) court. A sales-amount charge was mandatory prison (not jail) time.
I could obliquely allude to all of these factors in my closing, but I couldn’t get into the meat of the “is this law really fair in this application?” discussion. I skirted it a bit, but got too close.
The judge interrupted me nicely (I knew why, and he didn’t have to explain anything or issue a corrective instruction.) I moved on. The jury got the case – it was Friday afternoon, and so would be re-convening Monday for deliberations.
They were excused, and the judge nicely indicated to the rest of us that “Mr. B will be our guest tonight in the detention center.” It was all friendly, and I and everyone else knew what I had done, so no drama. He was nice enough to give the guards instructions to let me out at 9pm, so I only sat in there for 3 hours. But, point made.
(When you violate the rules in the presence of a judge, you can be charged with and punished for Criminal Contempt of Court without a separate trial. “Criminal contempt” shows contempt for the rule of law in the presence of the Court, which is the type of contempt that comes up in situations like this. “Civil contempt”, which would include violating a court order outside of the judge’s presence, requires charges and a trial.)
(The jury found my guy Not Guilty. The proof of guilt was pretty well nailed, so I’m guessing they went where I couldn’t guide them. The judge was pretty happy with this result, I think. The state’s attorney, not so much.)
I should add to the above – there was no such thing as “medicinal marijuana” back then.
Belated thanks to bobby for the interesting tale and explanation of the legal aspects.
Frasor Orr – for a jury to find a “far right” “racist” innocent would risk members of that jury being considered “far right” “racists” themselves.
That might mean they lost their jobs, and so on.
True story. I used the phrase in a piece for an Iranian economics column. To be published in Iran. My translator got three days questioning at the local nick in response. Mullahs are, well, they’re the lawyers, see?