WHAT IS THE ‘THREAT TO SOCIETY’?

[Stanley]

WHAT IS THE ‘THREAT TO SOCIETY’?

10 August 2005

There is much talk lately about threats to our society and culture. Infamous terrorist acts grab the headlines (thus fulfilling one of their aims) and politicians react. The result is a froth of ‘actions’ and ‘measures’ and the bald assertion that ‘it is a different country, the rules have changed’. It is perfectly proper that priorities should be adjusted in the face of current events and even a died-in-the-wool liberal such as myself can see the sense in examining things like entry qualifications to the UK, we may have been too lax in the past and unwittingly provided a base to fanatics by applying the compassionate but simplistic principle that we were honour bound to give asylum to those in danger of their lives. If it can be proved that this was a mistake, we should adjust our rules of entry even if this offends our humanitarian instincts because the end result is a greater evil.
The recent outpouring of new measures and the seemingly disjointed approach of the government in that measures are proposed one day and rejected the next has triggered me into closer consideration of what the mechanisms behind these actions are. I found myself asking the question, given the choice between the judicial system and the politicians, who do I trust the most to be objective and fair?
The first thing to say is that this question shouldn’t need an answer. One of the cornerstones of our system is that Parliament consults and makes the law. The judiciary, acting as equal and independent partners apply their experience and modify the way the law works by application and precedent. I believe that there is a deep-seated flaw in these arrangements at the moment caused by a shift in our method of government which has reduced the effectiveness of Parliament and swung over to a quasi-presidential mode of government, supported by the royal prerogative but lacking the checks and balances of a codified constitution. It is pick and mix governance, a powerful leader can pick the elements of our traditional system which give him power and by-pass those parts which would impose checks on him, in this case the judiciary.
Two things have influenced me in this. The first is the alteration in opening times which have given retailers of alcohol more freedom to stay open longer. The second is the mounting campaign against ‘meddling judges’.
The extended drinking hours are already law but a report from the senior judges in response to a request for consultation from the government on ‘Drinking Responsibility’ has just been made public and warns that the Home Office can expect an increase in rape, domestic violence and serious assaults if extended drinking time is allowed. The Association of Chief Police Officers have also opposed the change on the same grounds plus increased operational demands on their resources. It seems to me that these opinions should have been fully debated by Parliament and possibly allowed a free vote. As Judge Charles Harris said; ‘The situation is grave, if not grotesque and to facilitate this by making drinking facilities more widely available is close to lunacy’. Quite, and I suspect that this is the opinion of the vast majority of the country. The question is, how have we arrived at a point where we are ignoring the most experienced people in the country and putting into law measures that are almost universally opposed?
Secondly, let’s look at the political reaction to the London Bombings. Politicians hate to admit it but in terms of the real world they have very little power, all they can do is legislate. Add to this the pressure to be seen to be doing something, mix in a plethora of unelected advisers, issue statements to a largely privately controlled and irresponsible press and the result is fairly predictable during the silly season. Send the leaders on holiday and the mice start to play.
We often complain that the legal system is too slow. I am reminded of the quotation from the Longfellow’s poem ‘Retribution’; ‘Though the mills of God grind slowly, Yet they grind exceeding small; Though with patience he stands waiting, With exactness grinds he all.’ If ever there was reason for patience and exactness, major changes in the laws must qualify. Political imperatives for short-term gain are quite simply the wrong place for knee-jerk legislation but this is exactly what is happening. The judges have made quite plain their opinion that there are adequate powers in place already, there is no need to muddy the situation by removing Habeas Corpus and introducing new legislation. Their advice has been ignored and they are left in the situation where they have to strike the offending elements of the new laws down when the government seeks to apply them. See the recent case where prolonged imprisonment without trial was found to be contrary to our obligations under Human Rights legislation. The political reaction is that the judiciary are becoming unruly. Perhaps this is true but with good reason, they have to apply the law and if the law is flawed they are duty-bound to modify it by case law and precedent. This is how the system regulates itself and is not an example of anti-government actions.
My conclusion is that an imbalance has built up in the system bolstered by a large government majority, a reduction in the role of Parliament and an ineffective opposition. There is too much power at the centre exacerbated by a lack of statesmanship. Proper debate and more use of free votes would have improved this legislation. Even more important, proper consultation with the judiciary and police, giving their opinions due weight, would have avoided the apparent errors in the first place.
So, to return to my starting point, given the choice between the judicial system and the politicians, who do I trust the most to be objective and fair? I’m afraid my answer is obvious, it is not the politicians. They are prone to confuse activity with action and perhaps the best thing they could do at the moment is keep stumm, support the security forces and the judiciary and allow existing laws to be used effectively. One thing is certain, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, to ignore Parliamentary process, the judiciary and the police forces is hardly an effective way of combating any perceived threat.
There is a deeper question lurking in the background, has the government correctly identified the threat? I believe that by allowing terrorist actions to drive the tip of a wedge between our leaders and the mass of the country and compounding this by attempting to short-circuit well established mechanisms of law and order the government might be creating an even more serious threat to our society and culture.
Lord Acton, speaking about political power, is often quoted but it is very seldom that the full context is used, "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end...liberty is the only object which benefits all alike, and provokes no sincere opposition...The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern...Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

10 August 2005