Cameron's "Bill of Rights" Epiphany...

David Cameron the other day called for a Bill of Rights to be drawn up so as to protect the rights of the citizen, be it from government, the European Union, terrorists or anyone else who would dare to mess with our freedoms. He wants the European Human Rights Act scrapped, and in its place a niche product resembling the U.S. Bill of Rights.

However, nowhere has it been mentioned that for the past one hundred and seventeen years that we have already had a Bill of Rights (in England and ergo Wales) and a Claim of Rights in Scotland. Nowhere is it mentioned that our rights are already enshrined to a great extent in one of history's greatest documents; the Magna Carta. Does he not realise that the U.S. Bill of Rights was mostly based on our own and the Magna Carta before it?

Replacing the Human Rights Act is not the answer; we already have a perfectly ample constitution which far outstrips any other in the world; the problem here as demonstrated by the very existence of the Human Rights Act and the perceived need for a "new" Bill of Rights is that our system is far too open to abuse by anyone who wants to play God with it.

Cameron has already come under fire from noted politico Kenneth Clarke, and the usual ribald rumblings from the Labourites. Clarke is right; Cameron has not thought this through in the required detail. That Clarke, the head of the Conservative policy unit on the Constitution, was not informed of this new master-plan is indicative of a man rushing around like a headless chicken. He had already criticised David Davis when the latter brought up the exact same idea in the leadership contest, so there shouldn't be any cries of "stab in the back". The party is already on a rising wave - we have years with which to come out with sound, balanced and sensible policies to prevent the further erosion of our rights.

At any rate, we would have to wait for a Conservative government before enacting such a plan - thanks to the outrageous political make-up of the House of Commons (thanks to Blair we can't even rely on the House of Lords any more) we would never in a chance in hell of removing the government's European crutch.

My main problem with Cameron's proposal is that it is so vague, with no consideration or explanation of the consequences;

1. If we replace the HRA, then we have struck a blow at European encroachment, and would have to make major changes in the way the Britain forms part of the EU.

2. If we have a Bill of Rights, who will enforce and monitor it? I have heard nothing on that score, and not surprisingly at a time when the judiciary is being spat on left, left and centre...

3. If we did introduce a Bill of Rights, how would we reconcile it with the Scottish Claim of Rights? In the devolved world of today, will we be seen to be "imposing" Westministers "idea" of rights and freedoms on the poor huddled masses to the North and West (please note the Sarcasm)?

These are questions which have not been asked, let alone answered. Let Kenneth Clarke do his job - that's what you put him there to do if you recall, DC.
For what it's worth, my solution, and one which the late Ivor Jennings, noted British political commentator would hopefully agree with, is to finally form a real Supreme Court out of the Law Lords (in an all-appointed, mixed House of Lords, of course) and have them oversee all facets of the British constitution and the rights of its citizens. Guardians if you will of the ideas and tenets which form the backbone of every modern civilised society today.
David Cameron, when dealing with such matters, should take them a hell of a lot more seriously.

Copyright ©2006 Simon Harley

Back - kind of...

I thought that in the spirit of sharing, and because I'm arrogant enough to think someone cares I'll start publishing all my posts as "The Wind of Change" on http://www.makesocialismhistory.com. How exclusive! And as time goes on I'm sure that I'll be criticising the party more and more, and not for reactionary reasons either! We'll see...

Death of a Blog

I know that this was the most pointless undertaking I ever made, and therefore I must abandon it. I had hoped to catalogue my annual trip to the United States and Canada, but writing it up and an imperfect memory in the face of University pressures made it an impossibility.

I do write occasionally for the Conservative blog http://makesocialismhistory.com which is an excellent place to enter the right of centre Blogosphere.

And so, farewell to the number of people who might actually have come back every so often!

Real Snow At Last!

Here's a picture I took last night of the Parkinson Building, the centerpiece of the University of Leeds, one of the finer institutions of learning in Great Britain today. In unrelated news, I am reapplying for Politics here, at the University of Leeds.

R.I.P. John Vernon

It's always sad when another great Thespian dies, but today we pay tribute to John Vernon, who played the splendidly nasty "Dean Wormer" in the classic comedy "Animal House". Mr Vernon, born Adolphus Raymondus Vernon Agopsowicz in Zehner, Saskatchewan, 1932 was a talented actor who trained at RADA then honed his skills in Canadian Theater and Television. From the 1960s onward he became a star in films such as "Point Blank", "Topaz" and "Dirty Harry", portraying devious, morally bankrupt men, with a sense of presence heightened by his marvelous deep voice and commanding stature. He is however noted here for his beautifully hilarious performance as the Dean of Faber College in "Animal House", Universal's nostalgic exaggeration of 60s College life. As a foul-mouthed bastard, used to getting what he wants without a fight, he is the perfect nemesis to the Delta Chi fraternity, led by the zany "Bluto" (John Belushi). One can only laugh and laugh hard at his performance, both frightening and hilarious at the same time. Reprising the role for a Mockumentary last year, 25 years on he still brought a sense of sinister overkill to the character. He died in his sleep following complications due to Heart Surgery. He was 72.

"Roe vs Wade"

One of the more lasting legacies of the free-wheeling '70s, for Americans at any rate, was the Supreme Court's opinion in the matter of "Roe v Wade", which decided that the anti-abortion laws of the State of Texas were unconstitutional, and therefore invalidated the abortion laws of nearly every other State in the Union in what can only be called a massive impingement on State rights, however noble the cause.

Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) challenged a state's right to ban abortion in all cases except to save the mother's life, invoking the XIV Amendment's Right to Privacy. Henry Wade, the Texas Attorney General had to argue that the Supreme Court did not have juridiction. Mr Justice Blackmun, in delivering the verdict of the Court, January 22 1972, found that the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction, reaffirmed a woman's right to privacy under the XIV Amendment, held that "person" does not apply to the unborn, and that the States had no right to regulate abortion (i.e. ban it) in the first three months, but could act if life-threatening in the 2nd Trimester, and ban it in the 3rd Trimester thereafter.

Roe v Wade effectively created the Constitutional Right to have
an abortion.

Whilst of course this proved to be somewhat liberating-it meant that women could get a legal abortion instead of a more dangerous illegal one-and extremely controversial concerning the right to life of fetuses, it also challenged the rights of the States to decide on their own matters. Blackmun's interpretation of the XIV Amendment's "privileges and immunities" can be called into question, as indeed they have over the past quarter century, whilst the X Amendment makes it perfectly clear where power lies;

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.

And the states fought back; and the Roe-supporting elements of the Supreme Court were unable to challenge them effectively. Between the Roe v Wade verdict of 1972 and Planned Parenthood v Casey of 1992 there were 4 Republican Adminstrations for one Democratic Administration (and President Carter appointed no new Justices)-the Justices of the great reforming years retired and liberal and hardline conservatives filled their places.

Through the two decades after Roe, the States progressively won back their right to regulate certain aspects of abortion, and to place certain limitations, such as Parental Consent for Minors and Spousal Notice Requirements, as they so chose. An attempt in 1992 to halt these infringements onto the original decision failed, and the Trimester framework was effectively abandoned in favour of a floating "Viability Line" whereby a State can act to have an abortion banned.

Thanks to the efforts of the moderates in the Court the Constitutional Right to have an abortion was upheld, and so it remains today. But is it Constitutional-there lies the rub. States rights can quite rightly be called a thorny issue-it was the issue of States rights which were the direct (or indirect) cause of the Civil War, States rights which led to the destruction of the NRA in the 1930s and which could cause a great schism over the issue of Gay Marriage in the upcoming century. No Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the States from acting in what they believe is in the best interests of its citizens. The Court took a bold step in declaring that the unborn are not "Persons", and its creation of the Trimester framework was admirable. At the time, in the prevailing sense of liberalism (it was the '70s after all, and the '60s were still fresh in the mind) it was right for what could be called a fundamental right of a woman to have an abortion to be affirmed.

The United States has "enjoyed" what can only be called an Abortion holiday, and many women have taken advantage of their right to have one. But with ever-growing opposition to the mere concept of abortion and the "abuse" of States rights, it is my opinion that Roe v Wade be overturned, and the right to decide be returned to the States. Abortion is after all a matter of health, and to the State should be given the welfare of its citizens.

However, if and when the States are given back the right to ban abortion, and a substantial number will, the Supreme Court and Congress should move to introduce a Constitutional Amendment giving the Female citizens of the United States of America the right to have an abortion. As far as I can see this is the only way to Constitutionally strip the States of their right to ban Abortion. Needless to say, it is sad to note that with the likelihood of an all-Conservative Court in the near future, the Court will overturn Roe and the States will reign supreme once more, and a great number of women will have been denied an inherent right enjoyed by at least a generation of American women in need.

That this could and probably will happen is testament to the growing conservatism of a majority of Americans and a steady polarising of opinon Pro and Con Roe, and is a sign that something seriously needs to be done to educate that majority in the right now implicit in the Constitution of the United States, albeit an unrecognised one.

And Now For Something Completely Different

Britons, Citizens of the Empire & Commonwealth; Rally to the flag! Once more our nation and the nations which we founded and nurtured until they were snatched away are in mortal peril. Great Britain faces total amalgamation with the European Juggernaut, Canada is doomed to be totally reliant trade-wise with the tyrannical United States of America, Australia is in danger of becoming an undemocratic Republic, New Zealand is under threat from an army of sheep, India and Pakistan are going to nuke one another into oblivion and the whole of former Greater British Africa wallows in self-maintained idiocy. What are we to do? The United States, under the leadership of the miscreant Bush, has brought about a modicum of peace, but at what cost? An Iraq which hasn't been so full of trouble since the glorious liberation of it in the First World War. An Afghanistan which survives on the full-scale farming of Opium. A Free World which lives in total fear of the enemy within and without. Is this the kind of World in which we want to live? Why is it we could conquer and subdue Germany, Japan and Italy and not be able to do the same to Iraq? Obviously, U.S. leadership is to blame, where the balance of power is so weighted in their favour that another extreme, the international terrorist, must exist to counteract this. We of the Greater British English-Speaking Peoples must say NO to the American hegemon. It was American short-sightedness which led to the failure of the League of Nations, the total end of the Greater British Empire, the Cold War and the rise of the Taleban and Al Qaeda and the terror in which we now live. With our backs to the wall, we Britons and the peoples whom we raised from the primordial muck must stand shoulder to shoulder, ranks closed and deal with terrorism once and for all. We need a leader who is a cut above the rest, one who is willing to make bold decisions for the Greater good of Britain, the Commonwealth. Brethren of the Empire, join with us in selecting a man who takes no crap, delivers his insightful observations with dry wit and calls journalists as a body "scum". I present to you, His Royal Highness Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh. Seeing as Britain, unlike nearly every other member of the Commonwealth, has no formal Constitution, I propose that Parliament introduce a Bill which will create the position of Grand President of the Empire, which would give the holder unparallelled powers and total control over the Grand Armies of the Empire. Strong men are needed for dangerous times, and a proven combat veteran with the wisdom of ages is just the man we need. All Hail Prince Philip!

This was a party political broadcast for the Democratic Party

The Way Things Are

I know I don't look very old in the picture to the right, but believe me. I feel it. One of my annoying little idiosyncracies is to go around philophosising on every damn thing which I come across, and I have made some interesting discoveries.
Nearly everyone lies in the course of one day. The size of the lie varies, but whether it's a white lie or a huge full-blown cover-up, someone will use one. I belive that there are some people, however, who are so morally reliable and independent who will never tell a lie in their lives, whether for religious, social or personal reasons. These are people I admire well and truly.
The rest however, well, we're just doing what comes natural I'm afraid. But we need to clean up our act. Therefore, henceforth, courtesy of Are We There Yet? December 7th will now be known as

NO LIE DAY

Even if tell one teeny little lie once a day, like "Mom, these cookies are really good" as you retch miserably, or a lot of big lies everyday, for example "The situation in Iraq is under control", then i beseech you to stop your lies for just one twentyfour hour period. For all you non-insomniacs out there that means only roughly 12-14 hours of struggling not to lie in practice. Really none us should lie anyway, but it happens. Human nature is perhaps too hard to conquer, our DNA too clear cut in the way we are for us to be able to change what seems to be a normal mechanism of the human mind. But we can sure as hell bloody try! This site is devoted to morals in a big way, and I just hope some people might either learn something from it or recognise that what they've been doing is right.