Sunday, January 24, 2010

The rights of freeborn Englishmen vs. European law...

... as articulated, brilliantly, by Lord T.
It saddens me that in the bastardised ruins of what was once an educational system even children taught the importance of what happened at Runnymede are often told that the barons forced King John to grant rights, such as free speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment and the right to a fair trial. No, not quite so. The King was forced to sign a declation that he would not interefere with, nor abridge, those rights which were were the inherent rights of English freemen (and women too, Harriet) according to rank.

Our fellow Europeans may well enjoy similar rights, but they are rights which have their origins in constitutions and laws. The right of a German or Frenchman to free speech is a grant by law – essentially an entitlement rather than a right. Here, it requires a law to set limits upon that right, which in this Kingdom is (I’m sorry Professor Dawkins) the God-given right of an Englishman or woman from birth.

What I discovered during many days (and not a few nights) negotiating and dealing around the table in Brussels was that my colleagues were, with a few wonderful exceptions such as Count Otto von Lamsdorff, not just corporatist by nature, but inclined to the unspoken assumption that man was made for the state rather than that the state was made for man. At its worst, that became an assumption that whilst the citizen must obey the law and his rights were limited by the scope of the law, the state could do whatever was not specifically forbiden to it.

The basic assumptions underlying the two systems of law, English Common law and European law, are such that they cannot exist side by side.

Very true, all of it.

Sorry for the lack of blogging recently—the continuing pressures of work, alongside a traditional bout of blogging fatigue, have rendered your humble Devil voiceless for a little while.

I shall be back...

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

In wanking over the common law, do not underestimate the role of the courts in establishing it.

Were it not for cases like Entick v Carrington, the rights you theoretically enjoy under the common law (the rights you ascribe to some fantasy vision of perfect liberty in the Anglo-Saxon past) would not exist in either a notional or concrete form.

It was with Entick that the courts first established themselves as bulwarks of individual liberty against state power; it was with Entick that the courts essentially began creating the mythology of "the ancient laws and usages of the English people", a mythology that we were essentially an absolutely free people - a vital mythology which has helped to keep our liberties in the face of the endless governmental drive towards tyranny over the centuries.

And you will note that it is only now, with the courts stuffed with leftists and essentially acting as an extension of the government, that our liberties are under challenge.

In the future, when some foriegn scholar comes to write the history of how Britain's liberties were lost, he will do much research and finally decide that Britain ceased to be a free country when the courts ceased to be concerned with defending liberty, when the courts became cowed by the parties, when the courts became a mechanism for imposing sociological theories instead of dispensing justice.

Captain Ranty said...

The courts are banks. Nothing more and nothing less.

Justice is not done in our courts. A negotiation takes place. A business transaction.

Lady Justice died quite some time ago.

CR.

Anonymous said...

You can see this in action here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fLFtgXFiNc