hello all! Apologise for the two months absence- real life got in the way and all that! Will drop in on the ssotl tomorrow to see how that little microcosm is festering. No doubt the referendum which has infused scottish society with genuine constitutional debate is producing fine jurisprudence amoung the ssotl.
It seems only fitting that on the eve of what may prove to be the biggest constitutional upheaval since the end of empire to post about that most august group of britsovhood that nexus of psuedo law nuttery the British Constitution Group and it's firebrand leader Roger Hayes.
As is common for English sovs Roger Hayes l is considerably more pro active than the scottish variety, not only giving the usual round of speaches and conferences but also creating a brand and marketing it and infamously once trying to practice it by attempting the arrest of a Judge. The incident can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsgXWPRbKQE video is of sov quality. A news report here has some further details
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... judge.html
Rather than focus on Mr Hayes I really wanted to look at his new website which, while looking very slick, contains some of the poorest reading comprehension/ blatant lies I have ever seen.
The websites info page has several headers:
Introduction
Common Law
Magana Carta
First Statue of Westminster
Declaration of Right
Coronation Oath
Conclusion.
I may in a later post analyse each header in turn but for the moment I am going to address the bizarre dishonesty of the introduction and highlight again a concept that I feel addresses and dismisses all of their points; the supremacy of parliament. This is something they have an outraged article on so lets crack open that chink in the armour of idiocy.
In the introduction they talk about the nature and existence of the British Constitution. They Begin with this definition from the Ministry of Justice:
The British Constitution is not, as it is in many countries, a ‘written constitution’. It is not codified in a single document but is made up of a complex web of statutes, conventions, and a corpus of common and other law. It is also informed by an interweaving of history and more modern democratic principles. The legal premise of the United Kingdom constitution – that the UK parliament is sovereign – is a fundamental part of our constitutional arrangements. This means that an Act of Parliament must be obeyed by the courts, that later acts prevail over earlier ones, and that the rules made by external bodies cannot override Acts of Parliament.
The Bill of Rights 1689 and Magna Carta are important elements of our constitution. Magna Carta is Primary legislation and has the same status as any other legislation and is not immune from repeal or amendment. The same applies to the Bill of Rights which was an ordinary Act of Parliament passed in the ordinary way.
I'm not sure where that quote actually came from but I presume either an old version of the DoJ site or a Freedom of Information request. Either way I would say it is an accurate short summary of the byzantine British Constitution albeit a little misleading in that while the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights were important in the development of the constitution they are mostly repealed now. That said on the whole a very good short summary.
What do the BCG discern from it?
No proof of any kind offered naturally and the fact that the DoJ actually apply the law (so its their opinion that matters) ignored. If the consept of providing proof that ones claims are wrong as a persuasive technique the next paragraph is similarly interesting.This statement is untrue - it is a political interpretation, with a political agenda. It is designed to nullify our Constitution and the protections it provides.
The first line, for example, states that the British Constitution is "unwritten." This is untrue, often repeated and unqualified in the press. It is strange that the Ministry of Justice would make such a statement, since the British Constitution is the basis for many of the world's constitutions, including those of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India.
The section I have bolded in particular is bizarre. The first line says that the UK does not have a 'written constitution' like most other countries ie a singal codified document but rather that the constitution is spread across numerous acts and statutes. The fact that the writer does not deduce this from the phrasing and grammar suggests either extreme duplicity or stupidity and I honestly can't decide which.
The section then goes on to say:
I
Well just to start with it is not worth quoting Mr Adams because none of his opinions are at all binding on british law. But more to the point where is the evidence that he was not talking about the same constitution than the DoJ? Admittedly the constitution has changes in the past 250ish years but nonetheless there is nothing in that paragraph that in anyway contradicts the DoJ's definition. Indeed the DoJ is referrimg to the structure of the constitution and President Adams to its qualities. Very poor sophistry.t is worth quoting U.S. President John Adams here, because he makes a few points to which we should pay close attention. Discussing the British Parliament and Constitution, he wrote:
If the people are not equitably represented in the house of commons, this is a departure in practice from the theory. — If the lords return members of the house of commons, this is an additional disturbance of the balance: whether the crown and the people in such a case will not see the necessity of uniting in a remedy, are questions beyond my pretensions: I only contend that the English constitution is, in theory, the most stupendous fabrick of human invention, both for the adjustment of the balance, and the prevention of its vibrations; and that the Americans ought to be applauded instead of censured, for imitating it, as far as they have. Not the formation of languages, not the whole art of navigation and ship building, does more honour to the human understanding than this system of government.
So what is this Constitution that the Ministry of Justice denies, and yet was held in high regard by one of the authors of the American constitution? Why would they wish to brush it under the carpet? Could it be that it has been treasonously and unlawfully undermined?
Most of the other points of the BCG are countered simply with the doctrine of the Supremacy of Parliament, a complex doctrine in its ineraction with the rule of law admittedly but which expressed simply is that parliament can pass and amend any law it likes. For example the Defamation Act 1996 S13 amends Art9 of the Bill of Rights. For Common law confirmation see Edinburgh and Dalkeith railway v Wauchope (1842) 8 cl and f 710 or more recently Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1983] UKHL 6 for comment on the interaction between government and the courts.
the website is
http://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com ... troduction
the older website
http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/
That'll do for tonight- I'd forgotten how mind numbing sov arguments can be!
I also have to catch up on two months worth of goings on in sovsphere
Good times
yours
The Nidhogg
Any mitigation before I pass sentence Mr Ebert?
I'm innocent.
This court found you guilty.
No. Guilty.
Do be quiet Mr Ebert.
Right prison it is to try and stop you doing this again.
