It seems the Human Rights Act is to be repealed and replaced with a British Bill of Rights. Here is my suggested draft of such a document. All comments welcome. SIG
A Draft Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom
Prepared by Sean Gabb, May 2015
ARTICLE I
No person shall suffer punishment for breach of any law or other ordinance, whether made by Parliament, or by any person or body exercising power delegated therefrom, that shall not:
i apply to all other persons, without distinction of rank, sex, sexual orientation, religious persuasion or national or ethnic origin;
SAVE THAT this Clause shall not prevent the making and enforcement of such laws as shall be required to protect the person and Common Law dignities of the Crown;
SAVE ALSO THAT this Clause shall not prevent the making and enforcement of such laws in respect of aliens as shall be required for the defence of the Realm or the preservation of public order therein;
ii have been made and clearly published in advance;
iii be enforceable by an independent court of law situated as close as reasonably possible to the place where the alleged offence shall have been committed, and in which court the accused
- a) shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by a jury of his peers, which shall be at liberty to judge both facts and the merits of the relevant law,
- b) shall have previously been informed of the nature and cause of the accusation,
- c) shall be presumed innocent until found guilty,
- d) shall be confronted by the witnesses for the prosecution,
- e) shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses for the defence, and
- f) shall have the right of assistance by counsel in all points of law and of fact.
ARTICLE II
No person, having been arrested, shall be detained for an unreasonable length of time before the laying of charges; nor shall any person, while in custody, be denied access to legal advice, or be subjected to cruel or degrading treatment.
ARTICLE III
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
AND THIS RIGHT shall apply in both criminal proceedings and in civil proceedings, where a power of entry and search and seizure is to be granted to any party
ARTICLE IV
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
ARTICLE V
No person shall be subject for the same offence, or for a substantially similar offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty or property; nor shall a person accused of any offence be compelled to give evidence for the prosecution.
ARTICLE VI
No law or other ordinance shall be made, whether by Parliament, or by any person or body exercising power delegated therefrom, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the media, save as shall be required
i for the protection of rights determinable under the laws of torts, of contract, of intellectual property and of confidence;
ii for the preservation of public order in the light of a clear and present danger;
iii for the effective conduct of legal proceedings;
iv for the preservation of official secrecy, it being for the prosecuting authority in any proceedings sanctioned by this Clause to show (where necessary in camera) why the matter in dispute ought not to be revealed, and stating on oath or affirmation the nature and extent of the harm to be expected from revelation.
ARTICLE VII
The right of the people, whether jointly or severally, to keep and bear arms sufficient for the defence of their life, liberty or property shall not be infringed
SAVE THAT this Article shall not prevent the making and enforcement of such laws in respect of aliens as shall be required for the defence of the Realm or the preservation of public order therein.
ARTICLE VIII
No private property shall be taken for public use except on payment of its open market value, such value to be determined in the event of dispute between the parties by an independent valuer mutually agreed, or, in default of agreement, by a valuer to be appointed by an independent court of law on application.
ARTICLE IX
Any person whose rights recognised in this Bill of Rights may have been infringed shall in all cases have the right to an effective remedy on application to an independent court of law
AND in any conflict of laws, whether explicit or by implied repeal, this Bill of Rights shall be received by the courts as a Constitutional Statute.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
The Clean Air (Human Rights) bill
Citizenship and Survival: A Draft British Citizenship and Public Office Bill
Comments on Together’s draft “Digital Bill of Rights”
Using International Law to Protect Property Rights and International Investment
The Crime and Policing Bill: Another Spasm of a Dying Regime
The UK Climate and Nature Bill
Ethics, Obligations and Rights
Saifedean Ammous on Property Rights and the Palestinian–Israeli Conflict – PFS Bodrum 2025
Natural Rights: Kinsella v Mercadente
Antinous the God: Sex, Power, and the Pagan Alternative to Christ
Kemi Badenoch’s Speech: The Last Act of an Unfunny Farce
Powered by YARPP.
It could do with some kind of explicit statement as a preamble to make it clear these are positive rights under common law not entitlements. Without that it can be whittled away by commies.
Waste of time. It’ll be a grab-bag of GramscoFabiaNazi positive rights, a comprehensive list of citizens’ responsibilities to the government, a formal statement of the absolute sovereignty on all matters of that government, and some flowery nonsense about equality and diversity and victims’ and social justice. It will also remove any redresses that have been formerly available under the ECHR, which is of course its main purpose.
Anyone hoping for it to contain a single negative right or restraint on the State’s power, or legal means to restrain the Parliament or Executive, is in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
I am aware of that. All I hope to set is some criterion by which the HMG version can be found wanting.
In practice, I rather hope the HRA doesn’t get repealed.
Chris Grayling has said that the Bill of Rights proposed by the Conservative Party as a replacement for the Human Rights Act will be based on the European Convention. Their policy paper states that they will “put the text of the original Human Rights Convention into primary legislation”, so one assumes it will have the same articles as the Human Rights Act.
I do not think there will be any substantial changes.
Do you have a link to that policy paper?
Here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/03_10_14_humanrights.pdf
It is reaffirmed on page 73 of their election manifesto:
“We will scrap Labour’s Human Rights Act and introduce a British Bill of Rights which will restore common sense to the application of human rights in the UK. The Bill will remain faithful to the basic principles of human rights, which we signed up to in the original European Convention on Human Rights. It will protect basic rights, like the right to a fair trial, and the right to life, which are an essential part of a modern democratic society. But it will reverse the mission creep that has meant human rights law being used for more and more purposes, and often with little regard for the rights of wider society. Among other things the Bill will stop terrorists and other serious foreign criminals who pose a threat to our society from using spurious human rights arguments to prevent deportation”
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf
Any BoR legislation will have to confirm with applicable international treaties in force – which means it will end being for all practical purposes identical to the current situation.
In reality it’s just Cameron doing the usual bullshit political posturing. If I understand Sean’s point correctly its to come up with something that throws this up in stark relief and becomes a useful tool for debating against commies. Obviously it will never fly.
Sean, what are the centralist implications of such a bill of rights? When a provision says for example, “No person, having been arrested, shall be detained for an unreasonable length of time before the laying of charges;” — is this provision a *grant of power* to some higher level of the state (say, the courts of the UK itself) to review and overturn the decisions of local courts in, say, Wales–? I.e., which level of government do these restrictions apply to, and which level of government is empowered to enforce them?
The UK is a centralised state with an absolutely supreme Parliament. Every other authoritative body in the country has only those powers that are granted by Parliament. The provision you quote is directed at the police and prosecuting authorities. The hierarchy of courts in this country was established by the Judicature Acts.
Sean, thanks. In the US I am leery of such language in the federal constitution (e.g. in the 14th amendment and other formulations) because it seems to be a way of sneaking in a grant of power to the central/federal government under the guise of protecting rights. In a more unitary/centralized state I can see this concern not being as apparent. Still, even in a unitary state such as yours, I am leery of passive language such as “No person, having been arrested, shall be detained for an unreasonable length of time before the laying of charges; ” — such language always amounts to a grant of power to some department or agency of the state. I would prefer it be stated directly, or, as a limitation on state power rather than an assertion of rights. For example, in the US First Amendment it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” etc. It basically specifies what powers Congress does not have. If instead it said “people have a right to freedom of religion” then this is ambiguous about how it’s construed or enforced or what impact it has on state power–does it mean it’s a limit on state power, or the state never had the power in the first place, etc.
As a general point, any vague adjective like “reasonable” or “just” is worthless in any such document. In fact the evidence is that such documents are useless anyway, because human minds will simply interpret them as they prefer. The only purpose I can see of this proposed “Bill Of Rights” is to certainly grant powers to the State which may have up until now been a matter of contention or dispute.
There also does not seem to have been any statement of whether the BOFR (Bill Of Fake Rights) is to stand above other legislation (as in the USA) or is merely legislation (as with our previous one, in 1689, which has since been mostly legislatively overridden).
See the last article
“As a general point, any vague adjective like “reasonable” or “just” is worthless in any such document. ”
I tend to agree. Most constitutions/bills of rights/international human rights treaties I’ve seen outside the US system usually add a weasel-word/qualifying clause like “except as according to law”. Well that’s refreshing! The state can’t take your rights away–except as according to law!!
e.g. note 29 of this article: https://mises.org/library/what-libertarianism : “State laws and constitutional provisions often pay lip service to the existence of various personal and property rights, but then take it back by recognizing the right of the state to regulate or infringe the right so long as it is “by law” or “not arbitrary.” See, e.g., Constitution of Russia, Art. 25 (“The home shall be inviolable. No one shall have the right to get into a house against the will of those living there, except for the cases established by a federal law or by court decision”) and Art. 34 (“Everyone shall have the right to freely use his or her abilities and property for entrepreneurial or any other economic activity not prohibited by the law”); Constitution of Estonia, Art. 31 (“Estonian citizens shall have the right to engage in commercial activities and to form profit-making associations and leagues. The law may determine conditions and procedures for the exercise of this right”); Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 17 (“Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others… No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”); Art. 29(2) (“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society”).”
Ah, I love those qualifiers. What damnable, revolting State act has not been carried out in the name of at least one of those?
Reasonableness has been used for at least a century in the growing body of judicial review. You should not apply American concepts to English law. The two systems are very different.
Just because it has been used, it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. “Reasonable” means nothing. Reasonable according to whom? What you think an imaginary stereotype on an omnibus would consider reasonable? What use is that?
If you’ll pardon the observation, you need to commence on a legal education. Start here: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/reasble.html
lol
England is a country where Parliament is already supreme. There are no powers left to grant. My provision is a semi-entrenchment of habeas corpus, and it is left to the courts or to subsequent legislation to lay down what is meant by unreasonable. You cannot apply American constitutional thought to a country as radically different as England.
In other words, it’s useless. Just write “everything should be reasonable” and be done with it. No need for any more clauses.
Unless a BoR stands above the legislature, is extremely precise and explicit, and has copious notes to prevent every possible interpretation other than the one intended, it is useless. However, it may as Stephan implies, be useful *to* the State in explicitly and eternally enabling a State action. For instance, “The government shall take those actions which are necessary to protect the people from unreasonable media”. Etc.
Whatever the government comes up with for this, it’s going to be shit on a stick.
Reasonableness is a standard concept in the common law, and is routinely used against the authorities. It is not vague and arbitrary. You should try reading through some cases. As for entrenchment, that is impossible, given the present nature of the our Constitution. But the courts have created a special category of Constitutional Statute that is exempt from implied repeal, and that must be repealed or amended by explicit legislation.
A further point is that a written constitution or bill of rights is worthless to restrain an Establishment that is committed to violating it. What I have written is the sort of thing we shall be able to demand only after winning the battle of ideas. It is still worth publishing.
“My provision is a semi-entrenchment of habeas corpus, and it is left to the courts or to subsequent legislation to lay down what is meant by unreasonable. You cannot apply American constitutional thought to a country as radically different as England.”
Sean, I follow you. I agree that some of my concerns are applicable primarily to a federalist/officially decentralized system. But not all of them, and I fear the differences between the US and English law are not as great as they might appear–both have increasingly eroded their common law with centralized and legislated control/domination. IN the US case, English common law applied in the private law (state law) of 49 of the 50 states (sans Louisiana, which is continental), but has been increasingly encroached upon by federal law and legislation (both state and federal). In Britain, the English common law has been encroached on increasinbly by legislation from Parliament and also by central (remote, legislative) control from Brussels.
In any case, my point is different. I am concerned about protecting rights from state interference, by simply declaring those rights in a state-legislated document. I think it would be better to do two things: first, to state the *limitations* on specific branches of the state (that is: to withold from the state the power to infringe those rights, instead of just asserting that the rights may not be violated); and, second, to be very specific about the process and institutions/agencies that are authorized to police these limitations–whether it be the democratic right of the people to petition, complain, rebel, nullify, etc., or the duty and right of other departments of the state to check the abuse of power (ultra vires) of other agencies/departments of the state.
In other words, granted, the US and UK systems are somewhat different–still, state-authorized assertions of rights are usually ineffectual and end up being interpreted and seized as grants of power by some department of the state, so it’s better to do it in a different way that makes it clear it’s not a grant of power to the state or any departnment thereof, but rather it’s a limitation on the state–with teeth (checks and balances).
The plain meaning of the BoR is that the courts have the right and obligation to police its terms. It gathers together a set of dissolving common law rights and semi-obsolete statutory assertions of those rights, and sets them out in a comprehensible form for the courts to take as a sort of supreme law.
I think there should be a clause giving people a right to decide who comes to live in their country. All other laws are useless if they don’t protect the indigenous population from being invaded and replaced by others of a different race, culture, religion, etc. Every country has a right to protect itself against invasion, but historically, this meant the use of military force. The law has yet to take account of the invasion by stealth (immigration) that has being going on for over half a century.
English Common Law was made by and for Englishmen. Some other peoples can successfully adopt it, but there are limits. To the burgeoning population of theocratic Muslims in the UK, it is meaningless.
This is a question for a British Nationality Act, not a Bill of Rights.
Come off it Sean. While your response merely recognises that Parliament has the power to legislate on anything it likes – I thought the discussion about a Bill of Rights was meant to see how much liberty we could wrest back? So my answer to Rob again: A new Bill of Rights does not need a clause giving us the right to decide who comes to the UK as that merely confirms the government’s right to grant rights. What I suggest it needs to do is reconfirm our ancient liberties no matter in what area we choose to exercise them by challenging ALL the anti-discrimination laws which inhibit our freedom to reject these people by not giving them jobs?? Yes/No? UKIP has been totally useless in that respect as it says “immigration is good for the economy” (!!!!) but refuses to say it would repeal these laws, thereby placing the total burden on the State to control immigration rather than have the gratuitous assistance of the native population. It is getting VERY late in the day? I am beginning to suspect that UKIP’s/ largely favourable media coverage was to neutralise the BNP who are not “soft on immigration” and who have been destroyed by UKIP’s publicity. We now have Cameron for another 5 years.
The clause you want doesn’t belong in a bill of rights. A BoR is there to limit government power against individuals. It contains provisions about censorship and the right to a fair trial. These are individual rights. The “right” you want to decide who settles in the country is a matter for other legislation. You might as well speak of the “right” to have English as an official language, or the “right” not to be in the European Union. Regardless of the merits of your demand, it just doesn’t belong here.
“The plain meaning of the BoR is that the courts have the right and obligation to police its terms. It gathers together a set of dissolving common law rights and semi-obsolete statutory assertions of those rights, and sets them out in a comprehensible form for the courts to take as a sort of supreme law.”
Sean, how do you know this–that “The plain meaning of the BoR is that the courts have the right and obligation to police its terms”? I would have thought this controversial. I ask because this was a pretty controversial thing in the US–it took Marbury vs. Madison and other decisions to make this clear. and this was with a new state with fairly clear tripartite division of powers. Is this clear in English common law as well–? If so, I wonder why the Marbury decision in the US would even have been controversial. It seems to me that to be clear, in a unitary system such as yours, that the statute would have to explicitly grant courts the power to review and overturn “illegal” or “unconstitutional” legislation.
Traditionally, the courts have had the right to interpret subsequent Acts as overriding earlier Acts. More recently, they have declared that there can be no implied repeal of Constitutional Statutes, thereby taking the right to void subsequent Acts. The law of judicial review is clear enough for the meaning of the BoR to be obvious.
” The law of judicial review is clear enough for the meaning of the BoR to be obvious.”
Ah. That may be what I was looking for. If that is the case, I see your point. I was not clear on the status of judicial review in English law. I had assumed it was not the same as it has developed in US constitutional/federal law, simply because the Marbury decision in the US was controversial. I would not have thought it would have been controversial, had English law at the time already established the principle of judicial review in this manner. Maybe it developed later in the UK parallel to its development in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law
Sean–this is what I was thinking of: “Unlike the United States and some other jurisdictions, the English doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means that the law does not allow judicial review of primary legislation (laws passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom)” —
So if there is a Bill of Rights, and it cannot permit the courts to review a UK statute that violates rights, I’m unclear how the courts could strike down the law. Do you see what I mean–?
They can strike down primary legislation if it conflicts with a later Act, and they can strike down later Acts if they impliedly repeal a Constitutional Statute. They are moving steadily to a point where they will announce that Constitutional Statutes are supreme law.
What part of what documents counts as a Constitutional Act is purely an arbitrary decision for a judge. He being a reasonable man who thinks reasonable man thoughts, he reasonably knows which parts are reasonably constitutional. Apparently.
Rob is totally right.
My first suggestion is that if the LA is worth its salt this subject above all must be tackled by it and won. We must all adopt a common countrywide strategy and all over the country MPs and newspapers must be getting the same point of view. Use the idea of historic Magna Charta to boost our campaign.
Surely we need to define what a right is. I use two similar, since without a definition “they” can modify at will. Ayn Rand ” a right is a freedom of action in a social context” Mine, borrowed from Don Martin, ” the ability to accept OR reject ONE course of action at a time”.
In effect there are two sorts of rights, positive and negative Positive, the liberty to go to work, earn a living etc in order to survive. Negative the ability to reject a course of action which does not suit your concept of what is acceptable. The latter is the most important because it has been violated so much. Robert Relf went to prison for publicly refusing to sell his house to a black man, as was his Common Law right. The Race Laws and Anti-Discrimination laws are violations of that freedom to choose and to protect your society from unwelcome changes.
Rights are not something granted by government, though that is what they have become. Another correspondent is quite right. The Tories say they accept the Human Convention as the basis of the New Bill of Rights. When you look at their columns “Protecting Human Rights in the UK” it reads like a subtle Stalinist blog because everywhere you turn the government has a counter in that it is against this or that law. I have already written a letter to the Malton Gazette and Herald on this subject. May I return to my previous subject as it is relevant. ALL party manifestos are “packages” forcing the voter to accept the whole package whether they want it or not. So any vote for a PARTY confirms that you have accepted the whole package (wittingly or not). This totalitarian concept is the opposite of the freedom to choose ONE policy at a time. IT really IS as simple as that. The party system is the revolution against our liberty (see my website http://www.camrecon.demon co.uk)
Finally, I am told that Grand Juries used to be convened in England prior to 1914 in order that the true facts of a case be ascertained (as recently in the USA) so that corrupt officials cannot cover up crimes, as we are now experiencing.
Slight diversion. How many of us are aware of the term “jury nullification” in that an accused may be acquitted by a jury if they find the law oppressive etc. and no matter what the judge may direct as to the politician s law the people are supreme. This is a right which ought to be used much more often as a means of nullifying oppressive political laws.Tell your neighbour if he is going for jury service. This is also called “legal democracy”.
Over to you Sean. you are the leader. Can we develop a common theme please and then go for it? Whitehall here we come?
Sean, Thoughts as I have them given Epstein, Hayek, and what we have seen in the states…
a) No law shall be applied retroactively (no law no crime, no law no fine, no law no fee)
b) Specify that unreasonable time be determined independent of the resources or constraints of the courts. (this will solve the vast majority of problems)
c) Search and seizure does not prohibit freezing of assets, and it must, since this has gotten out of control in the states. American courts abuse this to starve you or impoverish you into submission.
d) All persons acting in a crown capacity: police, administration, and judiciary, are required to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, at all times. Police in america are incentivized to lie and have become very good at it.
e) Prohibit entrapment. This has gotten out of hand in the states.
f) Jury nullification for unjust laws. (Obvious)
h) Separate violent and non violent offenders. Use single person cells if cells are required.
g) Restore Libel Defamation and Slander (unless statements are true)
h) prohibition upon infringement not violation.
If possible (hard to swallow):
i) universal standing in cases of violation of these (BoR) rights ( meaning that one need not be harmed, only possess direct knowledge of an infringement of these rights. If one possesses direct knowledge and does not act to prosecute infringement, then one is a conspiracy to the infringement.)
j) all persons engaged in the administration of the law: police, administration and judiciary are personally liable for their actions, and must possess private insurance (bonds) to perform their duties.
I think the issue of personal liability is definitely important – and it was established at Nuremberg so it seems to me those who resist this concept are the ones who have the explaining to do.
Not for a BoR, but for a Criminal Procedure Act.
i is already dealt with to some extent by the rules of locus in judicial review. Entrapment doesn’t go easily into a BoR, but is for a Criminal Procedure Act. Jury nullification is already an established right here, but could do with statutory protection. Ditto other constraints on police power. I did consider something about asset forfeiture, but was in a hurry and couldn’t think of the wording. I will think again.
Should something be inserted so as to protect the right of the jury to judge both the law and the facts? I am keen that jury nullification be re-enthroned as a means to block bad laws or laws that are applied badly.
Enjoyed your comments, Stephan.
Great Bill, Sean.
Peter Bone MP appeared on Victoria Derbyshire this morning presumably as the Tory representative and did not even seem to know that the ECHR is considered desirable by every democratic nation and therefore will be the basis of the new Bill of Rights. I am advised that the Bill of Rights 1689 was a Contract between the monarch and the people REAFFIRMING THEIR LIBERTIES from time immemorial. Thus Parliament has no legal power I am informed to repeal something not enacted by it.
Most of us have a fair idea how much our liberties have been eroded and will be further eroded by the government “granting rights ” to all and sundry.
Please read the British Constitution Group website as well and challenge your local Tory MP about this
An important right is not to be fined without a judicial process. A fine through the post from HMRC is an outrage. Also all individual cases of fines should be subject to separate court cases. The situation where magistrates hand down 2000 fines to 2000 people for non-payment of council tax in one go based on a long computer printout of names from the council has to be a constitutional nonsense.
I think Article One deals with that.
The following is a draft which I wrote with some input from others, a while ago, and which has been doing the rounds recently.
I owes much to the work of the late John Gourriet on the Magna Carta, and in applying those underlying principles to some modern problems. and questions.
NOTES TOWARDS A NEW MAGNA CARTA
We, as a freeborn and sovereign people, are entitled to establish government in our own image and or our own desire.
For the preservation of that inalienable liberty and in furtherance of the justice, peace, harmony, and general welfare and fulfilment which is the birthright of all people, therefore ordain and declare;-
Sovereignty, whether mediated by the Crown or other, shall forever reside with and in the People.
Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as in any way repealing, diminishing or revoking any previously settled liberties, whether established by Charter or the precedents of Common Law, those that the passage of time has rendered otiose notwithstanding.
Such sovereignty of the people shall consist of the ability to establish government of our own making, to control, enjoy and fulfil our own lives and circumstances, free from hindrance from any state, potentate, oligarchy, or interest beyond our mandate, power and purview, and shall always afford us the both the right and the duty to defend ourselves against any such hindrance.
The Common Law shall in all circumstances be rooted in natural justice and morality and shall control all Statutes and Acts of Government and Public Office and Authority. No action by any such Authority shall place any purported statute, regulation, charter, executive decision or otherwise beyond the purview of the Common Law.
________________________
All stand equal before the Law.
None may be denied justice by due process properly constituted.
All shall be deemed Innocent before the Law. Until and unless the contrary is proven by due process, properly constituted, nothing shall deem or presume any general guilt or suspicion of guilt by the people at large, or of any person, of any crime or misdemeanour, nor of any general propensity to commit such crime or misdemenour.
________________________
Due process, properly constituted, shall consist as follows;-
No penalty or forfeiture, whether of liberty, property, life or reputation, shall be imposed without a finding of guilt by due process.
Justice shall not be bought, sold, or otherwise corrupted.
Justice shall not be delayed.
Habeous Corpus shall apply in all instances.
Justice shall not be conducted in secret.
No guilt shall be established, or penalty or forfeit inflicted, without proof of intent, according to the principle of mens rea.
All justice shall be decided by jury, except that the accused or plaintiff freely agrees otherwise, or in the case of minor misdemeanours, where the accused freely consents to trial by magistrates.
A jury shall be a sovereign body and shall be free to nullify any statute or action of Public Authority, whose application it deems repugnant or unjust in either the specific or the general instance, at their discretion. At all times juries shall be informed of their sovereign right to try not only fact but law.
No penalty shall be so severe as to deprive a person of their livelihood.
All penalties shall be proportionate to the crime. No penalty shall be gratuitous, cruel or excessive.
Unless that aquittal be procured by perjury or crime, no acquitted person may be tried again for the same offence.
All subject to due process shall be entitled to appoint their own representative. All shall be entitled to representation of their own choice and committed to their own cause and case during due process.
No party shall shall stand as judge and beneficiary in their own matter.
The Law shall not be concerned with trivia nor shall it impose forfeit or penalty for victimless crimes.
Neither privacy, person nor property may be molested, entered or searched without warrant stating justifiable cause.
No communication may be intercepted, stored, opened, read or decrypted without a warrant of justifiable cause.
_________________________________
All shall be entitled to petition for grievance.
Sovereignty lies with the people. Within the nation as a whole, or any locality within the nation so affected, a petition of one tenth of the electorate, properly attested, shall cause the Crown, or its representative, to summon a referendum whose conclusion shall be binding except that such conclusion stands in contradiction to the Common Law and the provisions of this Charter.
Only thus, and in circumstances so egregious as to deprive the people of their sovereignty and ultimate right to determine their affairs and Acts of Government, and in circumstances which both deprive the people of any reasonable remedy and which constitute a threat to the supremacy of the Common Law, the sovereignty of the people, and the terms of this Charter, shall entitle the people to declare Lawful Rebellion against those who would deprive them of their liberty.
The will of the people shall not be bought or sold.
No consideration of any kind, made in furtherance of any public debate or free discourse, shall conceal its ultimate source.
No threat, intimation of a threat, offer or intimation of gain, advantage or proffering of any kind shall be made to any holding public office, whether elected of otherwise, in consideration of their support or allegiance.
No Act of Government shall occur at any higher level of government, that cannot be performed at the lowest possible level of Government.
____________________
There shall be no abridgement of free expression, whether by thought, knowledge, word, deed, discourse or act of worship. Except that otherwise than in Lawful Rebellion, no purported exercise of such liberty shall be wilfully and malevolently be used to create or to incite violence and disorder or to disturb the public peace;-
Unless they be felon, hypocrite or exhibitionist, all shall be entitled to privacy of life, and the ability to remain anonymous and shall not be molested in that privacy or anonymity.
All shall be judged prima facie to be in full possession of their own persons, bodies, minds and lives and shall likewise be deemed sensible, rational and possessed of reasonable common sense and ultimately responsible to take reasonable care and caution in the conduct of their own lives and actions and to hold responsibility for their actions.
All shall, in all circumstances, possess full control over their own labour.
No action of government shall purport to create any general state in loco parentis over the people.
No blame or tort shall arise out of small causes, or otherwise derive from any failure to predict strange and unusual eventualities, or to exercise perfect foresight
________________________
No currency shall be created out of debt, or otherwise than for the benefit of the Common Weal.
All shall have full custodianship of all they have during their lifetime except that;-
No construct of nature shall be claimed as patent or property.
There shall be an abiding duty on all to preserve, protect, nurture and enhance any possession, inheritance or custodianship in such a way as to pass such on to our descendants in a fit and proper condition.
No institution or interest shall attain such scope, reach and power as to place it above the Common Weal, beyond the purview of the Common Law or above and beyond the mandate of the people. To prevent the creation of any monopoly, oligopoly or oligarchy, the people shall be able to limit the size, scope, reach and mandate of any interest or institution.
No property, patent, copyright, asset or knowledge shall be selfishly, wilfully and malevolently held in dereliction and desuetude.
No interest may conceal its ultimate ownership.
“Unless they be felon, hypocrite or exhibitionist”
Hypocrites and “exhibitionists”? What?
In general, this whole thing is full of vague and arbitrary terms which would enable the arbitrary expansion of the State on the basis of the opinion of “reasonable men”.
I agree with Ian B that the word “exhibitionist” seems strange here – do you mean gay men flaunting themselves?
It could mean anything. Dancing. Short skirts. Sunbathing, even. It is this kind of word that lets legalism spread like a cloud of fog. GK Chesterton wrote very well about all this nigh a century ago in Eugenics And Other Evils; how the progressives (of his time) would insist that they knew what a word meant and be sure it was applied in a right manner.
Looks good. I prefer my own wording, but would vote for this if it were put to a referendum.
I wouldn’t. It is a document that appears to provide assurances but actually does not. As I sniped above, it is just the arbitrary rule of your “reasonable men”.
And this for me I think is a general problem with conservative formulations. They are not really about liberty, but just a complaint that the current reasonable men are not the right kind of chap, and so long as they are replaced by more reasonable reasonable men, everything will be fine. Rather like those whose complaint about the BBC is that it is too left-wing, rather than that it exists at all.
There seems to be a problem regarding the clause “Unless they be felon, hypocrite or exhibitionist”. The intention is to create a right to privacy and anonymity unless a person acts so as to forfeit such a right.
Felony is straightforward in that regard. A hyprocrite would be a person who, for example, makes public statements on the sancity of family life whilst being a serial philanderer. An ‘exhibitionist’ is aimed at those who make good livings by selling salubrious details of their lives to the celebrity press, of who otherwise deliberately admit the public gaze into their personal life.
Much of Common Law is founded on the premise that we act rationaliy and reasonably, and are possessed of a natural sense of ethics, justice, fair play and equitability. I don’t see that this passes any particular or special comment on our rulers. This clause is also aimed at curtailing the blame culture in that it must be expected that people act rationally and reasonably even when acting in error.
We are confronted with a ‘Bill of Rights’ in the current parliament. Unless this bill is to even further entrench Roman Law and Dicean notions of ‘legal positivism;, those who support a return to ‘proper’ Common Law must have their script ready.
So I think this is a line which must be pursued. I look forward to further arguments and suggestions. But please be specific.