Thursday 16 August 2012

Bill of British Rights

Constitutional Monarchy

The British government is classified as a Constitutional Monarchy Government this means that although we have an elected prime minister our head of state is actually a monarch however in the UK this has been largely ceremonial since the passing of the Bill of rights passed in 1689. Although the head of state has to write off on laws and the opening and closing of Parliament the monarchs ability to rule is very limited within the United Kingdom.
The other part of the title Constitutional is also quite fictitious as the ruling class otherwise known as politicians are able to change and amend the bill of rights as it suites them and the constitution is based across various documents and laws so in reality we do not have a strong solid legal precedent which actually defends the right of the individual.
Old as the Union
British law is quite literally as old the Union itself and many countries around the world including the mighty American Empire can trace its legal lineage back to the small island of England and this is something every British citizen can be proud of but all this history has a side effect.
The problem is now the system is so old and archaic and so entwined with business that it seems to have forgotten the little people and the gulf between individuals and courts have become so wide that many people within the United Kingdom do not actually know their rights which were set down by better politicians than we have today. Edmund Burke once said that Britain is likened to an “Organic Society” where things change slowly by evolution rather than revolution and I have to say I agree with this statement.
I think that being an organic society has allowed the United Kingdom to stay at the forefront of many other nations by showing restraint where others have powered ahead sometimes to devastating effect just as we saw in the French Revolution of the 1700s, This restraint however has been pushed to the extreme and has become antiquated and in cumbersome, its time to let go.

Rights of the Individual

In the western world we pride ourselves on our freedoms such as the freedom to live without fear of oppression but interestingly all of our freedoms are of society and can sometimes side step the rights of the individual. In law the person is defined as:
  1. a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages. http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1516
But nowhere is it said that a person is an individual and therefore they must only look at the rights of people or persons based as a whole society I think this to be the wrong way of looking at things as it becomes very easy to pass laws which may be of detriment to an individual but seem on the surface to benefit society. Under British law it appears to me that as a Human Being you have rights and as a person you have rights but as an individual you do not have rights.
The importance of defining the Human being as an Individual to me is the Key to ensuring that corporations do not continue to move into the realm where they become one of us, this is important because certain rules such as land ownership and privacy rights and that should be unique to the individual citizen.
Why change the Bill Of Rights
In my personal opinion I think we do not need a constitution but we do need an up to date and modern Bill of Rights that is governed by the people in the form of any amendments to be made must have the backing of the electorate by a vote of 70% or more for any change to be made.
The issue I have with our current bill of rights is that people who wrote it did not see the rise of mega corporations or the single minded way in which they strive for control of the individual and they couldn't even comprehend the way in which we use information and they way it is thrown around the internet so carelessly.
Right To Representation
You reading this currently do not have a set of rights tailored to you or to the needs of your family and unlike the large corporations who share the rights you currently do have, you don't have the understanding influence or money to lobby for changes that can affect your life. I find it very worrying that a non human entity has the above mentioned things to get the law changed to favour the corporation that could have a devastating effect on the way in which we live.
In law we have the right to fair legal representation so why is this not applied when it comes to how the law looks at us, simply because the legal system panders to the person with the most money. Is it fair that when a person (corporation) finds a law that stops it doing something it can lobby to have that amended in order to circumvent it? Is that fair representation.
By defining you and me as individuals we can write a Bill of rights that will truly champion people and not persons it will stop this massive invasion of our privacy and our rights to live in a society that is truly free.
Conflicts of interest
The vast majority of politicians active in politics today have either come from business or are guaranteed a position in business companies in highly valued positions when they leave office, many will argue that they get the jobs based on previous experience and contacts built up while working in government, But at what point does contact building become a conflict of interest I would like to see it put that if a politician is for example the minister for energy then they are not permitted to work that industry.
Even though the evidence is clear that Government and Business are bedfellows we will never be able to prove that key positions are held open for votes, but as the Cash for Honours Scandal in 2007 showed we do need to be vigilant and we do need a cast iron legal document to protect us from such abuses.
Bill of Rights 2012
If we do have a bill of rights we need to ensure it contains clauses clearly defined for the individual and not the corporation persons with no ambiguity.
  1. The bill must be clear and definitive.
  2. it must not allow corporations to abuse/harass individuals including families.
  3. all amendments must be publicly voted on by the electorate to keep stability
  4. it must include a mechanism that allows the individual that effects the state as a whole such as decelerations of war to avoid abuses such as Tony Blair forcing people into unlawful conflicts.
  5. Have a clause which protects the individuals assets from seizure by the state.
  6. A maximum cap on taxation to stop the government and corporations from returning us to feudelist state where people are taxed into poverty.

The above are in my opinion the bare minimum of what should be enforced to protect not just me and you but also the future generations of this country. The quicker we get a bill of rights enforced the less damage that I think will be done to society.
The electorate are disheartened with democracy because the will of the people is no longer enforced and this has been proven in the low turn out at the last few general elections. The reason people vote in droves for things like the X-factor is because they can see that their vote has a direct impact on the show in politics this is sadly no longer the case.
The United Kingdom may no longer be the power it once was but we can still show the world why we are the oldest continuous democracy in the history of the world it is time for us evolve once more enact a bill of rights for the rights of the people let us be the world leader again showing why Great Britain is still Great

No comments:

Post a Comment