One of the most influential judges of the 20th century, former Master of the Rolls, Lord Bingham makes the case for the rule of law as the foundation of a fair and just society.
I knew I was studying the right subject when I came here and actually loved and was genuinely interested in the topic I was studying. I could listen to speeches like this all day.
Rule of Law is a familiar expression, used by politicians and judges and dignified instruments e.g. ECHR What does it actually mean? Nothing in this act shall detract from the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law. But there's still no definition - probably wise, as it's quite difficult. Vague obfuscation of what it means cannot be pursued. One sentence legalistic summary of crux of the concept: "All individuals and organisations in the state whether public or private are bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts." 8 principles to flesh it out: Clarity, Minimal Discretion, Equality before the Law, Fair Exercise of Public Powers, Dispute Resolution, Human RIghts, Fair Trials, International Law compliance. 1. Clarity. Law should be Clear, Accessible and Intelligible. Parliament and judges equally culpable for contemporary complexity. 2. Minimal Discretion. We should be governed by law and not discretion - by and large. We don't want to be governed on the whim of an autocrat. 3. Equality before the Law. Slavery, religious persecution, suffrage, non-nationals all suffered from lack of equality. 4. Fair + Reasonable Exercise of Public Powers - powers publicly conferred by statute, should be exercised by those on whom they're conferred reasonably, fairly, honestly and for the purpose for which they are conferred. 5. Dispute Resolution. Private vengeance is discounted in our society. 6. Human Rights. 7. Fair Trials at court/tribunal. 8. Compliance with International Law.
I've got a brain injury and can be very stupid and am sometimes quite easy to brainwash/manipulate and it's late and I'm very tired but here are my first thoughts: 1. Clarity & accessibility & equality of every kind (including equality of arms = same level of legal help) = YES, from that flows fair trial IF there is no delay = delay only helps/protects the guilty. From what I've read the laws are way too complicated and there are far too many of them: we only need to say 'this is wrong' and 'it's caused these harms & losses to this person/these people/all of us/into the future' and examine the evidence. 2. When old laws/judgements are out of date/wrong = there MUST be discretion: to continue same old because of case law is nonsense = we need to continue to move forwards. 3. We must remove religious protections when these cults perpetrate abuses (such as circumcision) and discriminations which cannot be reconciled with basic rights including right to bodily integrity/rights of the child, and laws that outlaw sex discrimination and other equality & anti-discrimination laws. No religious beliefs can trump our basic (human) rights. 4. What states claim to be 'reasonable' may not be (& isn't often) at all - apparently they can create 'statutes which mean our other basic rights are denied, this must change. 5. People revert to vengeance when the judicial system & our laws fail. Legal cases can be seen as vengeance if/when people don't truly understand the harms & losses suffered. The state & laws are biased and often protect those who need it least which causes misery, poverty, civil unrest & maybe riots because we can't access our rights - including (I read) our right to demonstrate is severely curtailed. 6. Our most basic rights & freedoms - but they mostly don't really exist for most of us - unless we're wealthy/powerful, no wonder people sneer: they must be REAL & ATTAINABLE rights. 7. No trial can ever be impartial so they can't be 'equal' = that is impossible: we have to choose who & whose rights need most protection; a fair trial must include NO DELAY and equal access to legal advice & help = sadly that is still a very far-off dream. 8. Not everyone everywhere agrees on everything but most of us (is that good enough though?) agree on what we call our most basic rights; 'no torture' is one law spoken of here but (I read) torture of so many sorts is going on around the world - including here in the UK - but often 'invisibly' and denied by states/the guilty; many things that are not currently accepted as severe enough to even to be allowed to be described as 'inhuman & degrading treatment' will, in the future, I believe and sincerely hope, (and based on our histories and how our understanding is evolving = I expect), be included within and understood to be 'torture', you'll see... Thank you.
The rule of law is supposed to be promoted by our government here in the UK. Unfortunately, they have turned their back on their constitutional obligations and consistently violate the rule of law. The hypocrisy and violations of the rule of law and human rights of the UK government are beyond disgusting!
2:54 The crux of The Rule of Law is: "All individuals and all organisations within the state, whether public or private, are bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts."
The Crux.. meaning where it crosses the rule of law. 'within the state' ..that itself being an artifice of law. It soon becomes candescent that Bingham uses circuity on the one hand and shows by his own statement that the rule of law he talk about is a departure from something A Priori to his Crux, though he is reticent to draw further attention to it, which is hardly surprising given he supports the idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty which is a constitutional inversion if an Independent Judiciary is to be upheld.
When the authoritative legal reference to applicable statutory “law” is that of reference to: Halsbury’s Statutes. And this publication is no longer available in the libraries of England and Wales (because these institutions can not afford to stock it) and access to law libraries within the public court system is restricted to those only who process a bar card. It would appear, that the only individuals who may still be governed by statute are members of the law society. Any other application could only be be considered with knowledge of the failed “access to justice” principle; meaning the failing of justice for all when using the courts “at law”. Convenient money maker as to access the real law courts, ie. the courts “in law”, may only be accessed (allegedly) after exhausting all possible avenues of the “courts at law”.
Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act (“PSDA”), the so-called medical Miranda, which requires health care providers who accept money from Medicaid or Medicare to inform patients of their rights regarding advance directives and the refusal of medical treatment prior to admission. The goal of the PSDA is to inform patients of their health care rights prior to admission so that they can assert those rights before pressed into an unfamiliar environment in which they face possible isolation and coercion.
I must have read the book :Rule of Law by late Lord Bingham and regard him as a giant of the 20th century legal minds and recommended all should have his book on their book shelf.But then if not for Stephen Hawking challenged late Sir Fred Hoyle astrophysicist at one of Royal society ? meetings in his twenties and become famous from that time onwards ,no one would have heard of him. Shami is a well known rising legal mind of the 21st century and a fearless articulator of human righs issues.
What is law? Law is the observation of the active will. Positive observations are referred to as rights which are the powers of observation of the heart. (Thus morality and conscience are highly regarded.) Negative observations are referred to as wrongs which are the negative powers of the living heart. Thus common rules are imposed on folk to observe the rights and to help prevent wrongs from being committed. Natural law is therefore the foundation of all law. When one looks further one finds that perception and manifestation are the two primary components. What one believes is key. Authority (sovereignty) resides with every individual but it is assumed (negatively thought) to be given to those in office or uniform. And as a result the manifestation of "force of law" is created. Oaths are the living body of active observations and are valued highest which is why testimony, confessions and oaths are held as ultimate authority in and out of court.
That was Germany 1933-1945; the Enabling Act of 1933 made it possible for Hitler's will to be equivalent to law and this priciple was upheld and directed the practice of Fritz Gurtner the Minister of Justice.
Is it not slightly ironic that Lord Bingham at 5:08 when talking about judges not being clear, uses the word 'prolixity' which really isn't common, rather than wordiness?
I think there should be a 9th principal that addresses the very serious problem, that the rule of law cannot be enacted on its own, if processes and procedures in order to ensure that things that should happen to enable the rule of law, do happen, are not first in place. That includes processes and procedures set out distinctly and clearly, of the need for judicial independence versus matters where those powers may be above the rule of law by judge's action of powers in contravention of the rule of law. For example, if a thousand or more phone calls, letters emails, still fail to find a solicitor for legal aid for a vulnerable party despite their best efforts, and where it is an entitlement for an individual vulnerable party, then the rule of law cannot be enacted. Similarly, rule of law will also not be enacted if a judge oversteps the mark and misuses his/her powers and position. For example, media recently showed that alleged criminals (as ruled at the present time) , such as Lucy Letby cannot be forced by law to attend a sentencing hearing, so how come a civil judge, who knew someone was ill and who had seen medical evidence, and where a request for a postponement was made, could use her powers to attempt to arrest a protected party who was too ill to attend a hearing? Who is judging or in fact, training the judges in the lower courts, who are the least experienced, and are they appropriately supervised? Who is ensuring that judges are acting within the rule of law? It seems to me that nobody is! Just as the question arose about why Lucy Letby became a nurse, why did this judge who used powers above the law to arrest a vulnerable individual, become a judge? The rule of law must also surely apply to judges who cannot act above the law to misuse and abuse their powers and authority? Where such power was revoked in a new act, they also cannot make judgements that they did not have the power to make, when no longer within their statutory remit of the rule of law, if jurisdiction is revoked. Coram non judice. If you are a solicitor reading this and have suggestions to make to get help, or know of legal points or case precedents that will assist, to act on regulatory powers of the rule of law, do please respond. that person needs help and cannot get it, which makes the rule of law, by itself, to be unsustainable in today's society. We are moving into a lawless society, not because people do not believe in the rule of law, but because our government is not ensuring fairness and inaction of those principals are upheld.
To be fair, they would almost certainly have met backstage before the event, and I would bet good money that, after calling him by his proper title, his first words to her were: "Oh, please call me Tom." That's simply the sort of person he was. The very epitome of English gentility.
I read bible and watch this because I am in a deep trouble ,my neighbours with my management company who have used many ways to doggy the account and none of England government want to do anything about it ,even I willing to donate money to children hospital as long as the justice can be done ,how many people believe in GOD in London Great Britain GOD teach people to be good and fair but why those people who have such privilege job and in power could not only allow and also encourage this kind of criminal be carrying on which has caused a pensioner had serious heart attacked and 2 stroked ,please teach me to be wise to deal with give £ 7,000 every year to those doggy people.this is still a society rich protects only rich, that's why people chosen briexit
+Sid Farkus I just had the same question in my mind. He did a mistake when he said 6 but is truth in fact there are 8 principles. 1. Clear,accessible and inteligent 2. Governed by law not discretion 3. Equality 4. Public powers exercised reasonably,fairly, etc. 5. (which he named 6) Dispute resolution 6. (I'd say the real 6, but he didn't count it) Human rights 7. Fair trial 8. International law
The rule of law says, ' a court cannot make a ruling that adversely affects a person without letting that person be heard....." But I was condemend as teh criminal by Lord Bingham et al in the case Dextra vs Bank of Jamaica.... i was not allowed a lawyer, i was not heard by the court, i was writing those in authority asking what i had done wrong .... all the rules of law were broken in this case....
Law firstly should be made independent and should not be interfered by the politicians they are monopolising the legal system. Which is not right and not fair. Then I beleive law should be managed and run by its own legal peers and should work closely with democracy. Then rule of law would be respected
Why don't these people be held accountable for causing harm to people if proven in writing and facts? I say hell with them all if they cant be held accountable
Justice is subjective. One person’s justice will always be the opponent’s injustice. Justice as the law demands is the best way forward. All laws are available to see on legislation.gov.uk free of charge and everyone can know what their rights are as afforded by the law.
In ancient Rome at the time of the Republic It has become customary in all courtrooms prominently displayed the capital lettering FIAT IUSTITIA ET PEREAT MUNDUS ! "Let there be justice at least the world failed" If there is no rule of law and the Law then there is no talk of any civilized let alone a society that is just! Justice, that's true And the truth is one that cannot be disputed. I have one question for distinguished lawyers. It is impossible to dispute the fact that the bombing and aggression of the NATO alliance against Yugoslavia in 1999 executed without a United Nations decision by a unilateral decision of the NATO Military Alliance, which is essentially the private military power of the world's largest capitalist corporations! It is meant to mean a private war against a sovereign state members of the United Nations since its establishment The consequences of that war are the incredible devastation of civilians in the hospitals of factories and schools , that were never intended to be targeted because they were protected by international conventions from war. Tons and tons of illicit uranium were thrown into Yugoslavia. The half-life of uranium is measured in thousands of years !! International law was violated, the United Nations was circumvented and NATO committed a series of war crimes against humanity! The result of this criminal act should be, according to all the decisions of most Western countries and NATO members the creation of an "independent state of Kosovo" on the part of the sovereign territory of Yugoslavia, - Serbia occupied by NATO and troops because Yugoslavia was not militarily strong enough to counter the aggression of the world's largest military alliance! What is the international law behind the attempt to create an independent state from the occupied and abducted part of an independent and sovereign state, especially since the aggression to which that part of its territory was abducted and occupied by military troops was an illegal contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law? Why is it so persistently demanded of all countries of the world and that there is enormous pressure on them to acknowledge this illegal and illegal action by the NATO alliance by recognizing Kosovo's independence? Such a precedent and flagrant violation of international law and order will at the end ,peel off the heads of all mankind If we do not have the rule of law our civilization is doomed to fail.
I can honestly say that I agree with the majority of what Lord Bingham has said, however, I remain as unconvinced with his 8th principle as I was when I finished reading his book 'The Rule of Law'. Perhaps I am in a minority, perhaps not, but the fact remains that, in my opinion, the degree of international law which we now endure is counter-productive. By all means create an area of tariff-free trade (as the EU was originally intended) but in my mind the British Parliament remains sovereign.
The rule of law.... as the Magna Charta states.. to no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or dely justice or right..... the question is who is the we? take the case of Dextra vs Bank of Jamaica the Law Lords failed to follow the basic rule of law, as they said it was me who perpetrated the fraud at the heart of the case. But it was me who was paying in part to bring this very case, and for the life of me i can't discern who i defrauded so i can make them whole.
The academic challenges to the rule of law always come from the same people the progressive highlighting the plight of terrorists. What they consistently failed to understand is that the terrorists have already breached the fundamental rule of law and therefore should not expect to benefit under the rule of law which they themselves have rejected and defiled. of course the starting base is that all men are equal under the law but once a man decides he doesn't want to live under the law or respect it then he must give up all rights and benefits allowed by such laws. The process for challenging the law is the democratic process and not violence & criminal behaviour.
The American Revolution is the perfect refutation of your pompously presumptuous contention. It was treason,rebellion & sedition unquestionably, crimes clearly against the laws under which the 13 colonies were governed in 1776.
Jesus said love God and love your neighbour,Jesus said love fulfills the law.he I think simplified the law down to one word LOVE.LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS I HAVE LOVED YOU JESUS SAID .HE FUFILLED THE LAW!!!!CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES WAS BURIED AND ROSE AGAIN ON THE THIRD DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES 1CORINTHIANS 15:3-4
Just reading Bingham's book now. Great book and great conversation here. I disagree on one point only, the human rights as applicable to convicted terrorists. I do believe it would be wholly just and fair to exempt this group of criminals from the protection of their human rights, this should be the legally and morally right thing to do. The deportatipn of a terrorist to a country where their human rights would not be protected sounds fully justifiable to me.
Problem is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's a very slippery slope when you start choosing who lives and who dies, anyone prepared to cast judgment of death over another human should be the one who carry it out.
@@mrdelaney4440 i didnt say we should sentence a terrorist to death. What I said is we should not be obliged to protect him. We should not kill or torture him, but deporting him out of the country is reasonable. What anyone does to him outside of this country is not our business, the way I see it. And I undertand your point about who gets labelled a terrorist or a freedom fighter. But ultimately, it is about who gets labelleb a terrorist by the UK on the grounds of threatening the national security of this country. If the UK identifies a foreign national as a threat to the national security, I dont think we should kill the person, but I equally dont think we should be responsible for protecting him any longer. Deporting him back to his own country sounds fair and just.
She's entitled to disagree with him. Although his book on the rule of law is excellent, it would be wrong to treat him as infallible. Probably the most famous case he was involved in, Pinochet, he got wrong.
I guess it is perfectly normal for the condemned criminal to be chasing around the judges, the police, and those in authority asking them to tell him who he has committed the fraud against and how much he defrauded and they are all running away from the condemend criminal... rule of law ha ha.... ok maybe some legal eagal reading this blog can say who i defrauded in the case of Dextra vs bank of Jamaica.. because no one in authority will tell me...
he completely ignores the fact the English Constitution and common law refuse permission to the Queen to do a great many things, handing England over to a foreign power is one of them. Albert Burgess of the English Constitution Group. Support the campaign to have Cameron, Blair et al arrested for Treason.
statutes are made for the top 1% to rule everyone else ,councils act like small fiefdoms,bailiffs for the poor bailouts for the rich this is utter bollocks
martin jeffery What you're describing is a dictatorship or oligarchy. I believe we in the UK live in a democracy with power distributed (between different organs: the press, Parliament, judiciary, executive & electorate) to the point that the selfish concerns *of a single group* are not dominant.
martin jeffery You are making me think about stuff e.g. the separation of powers doctrine. Here are some examples: Tory culture secretary Maria Miller bought her parents a house with our taxes but was challenged by the press and lost her job. Tony Blair's government went to war in Iraq "because of the threat of WMD" but was punished by the electorate when no WMD were found. The Sun hacked the phones of dead children and celebrities in order to create sensational stories and sell newspapers. Later the electorate, judiciary and government were unhappy about this and now the press face greater regulation. These examples have common characteristics. In each example, 1 of the organs of democracy exerts power in a way which makes other organs unhappy. Normally this is because of selfishness (but perhaps Tony Blair wanted to please the Americans or perhaps he hates dictatorships). The unhappy organs then object and try to use their power to regulate the bad organ. This can create tension and if the bad organ has too much power then retribution and *obscurantism* may occur e.g. the Chinese government might have investigative journalists declared insane and have them sectioned.
martin jeffery I think your position is quite good if you think about: Credit Suisse report says 1% own 50% of the world's wealth and 50% of the world's population own only 1% of the world's wealth. The bank -HBOS- HSBC helped the rich to hide billions of £££ in taxes. No-one has been prosecuted = big lack of accountability = no challenge from government or the judiciary & the electorate is powerless to stop them. Heck I haven't even stopped banking with Barclays and they are shit too e.g. Libor scandal. There is however, a problem of just assuming we are oppressed and there's a big conspiracy and the tories and Labour are just puppets for the Illuminati and aliens from another dimension etc. Where's the evidence?
The Miranda warning outlines the following rights: . you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, is therr a medical Miranda
He sounds like a subversive , we know she is . The tide is beginning to turn because people are waking up to the administrative unlawfulness that blights our judiciary .
Bingham is wrong Parliament is not Sovereign its the junior house at Westminster and indeed in order for any Bill to become legislation it must get the assent of the more senior House of Lords. Now Parliament does not create Law it creates laws which are rules and codes which require our consent. We can withdraw that consent at any time. I think old Bingham needs a reminder of what our past Famed English Judges have said: “Parliament may pass a law which is repugnant against common right and reason or impossible to perform. In which case the Common Law will intercede and strike it down” Sir Edward Coke When there is a conflict between Common Law and statute, statute must yield. Sir William Blackstone
The law making process hasn't required the assent of the house of lords since the parliament act 1949. the house of lords hasn't truly existed since the constitutional reforms act 2005 (now the supreme court). The only assent needed is the assent of the monarch which in itself is a mere formality. But parliament is sovereign. Judges are required to follow any legislation created by parliament, and if they are wrong it is up to parliament to sort out. common law is more of a mechanism that fills in the blanks, the statute is the guidelines. Judges have some discretion and precedence, but common law has no power over parliamentary legislation.
nathaniel sutcliffe Clearly usurped by the Zionist Rothschilds which is why a growing number of people are claiming we have a Rothschild on the throne of England who repudiated her coronation oath of 1953 by failing to maintain the lively oracles of God which she swore to do. As for Parliament being sovereign it has historically always been the junior partner in the tripartite because it represents the Common Man. Not surprisingly much of the legislation created by these fallible men and women gets repealed in other words their laws which are rules are not immutable and neither are they sacrosanct. They could pas a law tomorrow instructing everyone to murder blond haired blue eyed babies, do you seriously think God fearing people are going to obey just a nefarious law. “Parliament may pass a law which is repugnant against common right and reason or impossible to perform. In which case the Common Law will intercede and strike it down” Sir Edward Coke
No I don't believe that the common man would ever agree to a law like that, however if the process was carried out, the courts wouldnt be able to do anything about it, it would be enforceable in all courts. It would be up to the pressure groups and the media to make notice of the law, whilst it is being made, so that the common people may act. The only restraint parliament has that stops it from being as supreme as A V Dicey said, is the EU. But everything else that the EU does not have dominion over, can be overruled by parliament, and there decision will always be supreme in these instances. I'm guessing the tripartite system you are referring to is the separation of powers. If this is the case then the legislature (parliament) can only use checks and balances to ensure the executive (cabinet members, pm and monarch) don't go overboard with there power. The great french political philosopher, montesqui , even said himself that the role of the judiciary is to apply the law (the third party in this system). This system was created to benefit the people as it made the system more democratic. The people we voted for have the most power, which seems fair to me. The house of lords and the judges are unelected by the common people, so there power limited to that of the application of law, but all appeals that come from the court are generally just appeals on possible wrongful decisions.
nathaniel sutcliffe Of course they would if the courts were under Common Law jurisdiction, That is our heritage and we have sat back and let the Zionist usurpers destroy it. No more thousands and soon to be millions of people will say enough is enough and we are going to take back our power. No one can sideline the Magna Carta it had the caveat built into it that it can never be repealed. Remember the difference between Lawful and Legal can be elucidated by Nazi Germany. Everything Hitler did after he seized power was said to be legal but the international Law courts declared it to be UnLawful and 18 of his henchmen were hung at Nuremberg. Parliament is not Sovereign indeed they are trying to murder this Nation through Treason and the EU whom they are trying to give us away to can go to hell.
Parliament is made out of the House of Commons, the Queen and the House of Lords. So basically, you cannot say that the requirement for a Bill to go through the HoL is a limitation on Parliamentary Supremacy, because HoL is the Parliament.! Furthermore, because the Commons are elected they have 'greater' power and can pass legislation without HoL's assent as since 20th century the role of HoL is largely advisory.
This is a load of shit! DO NO HARM, is the rule of law. What he is talking about is POSITIVE LAW, which is man made law and is the further thing from the RULE OF LAW.
Yeah "do no harm" seems to be important to the rule of law. Good point. mmm positive law as in law that has been posited by man = man-made law. As opposed to the principles of natural justice e.g. cruelly murdering someone without justification is always wrong, even in a country without laws. Yes this is also I good point you are making. IMO human rights existed even before laws were first made. The laws were *then* made to protect human rights and thereby stop conflicts between families.
Daniel B "Human rights" existed before laws were first made" - where did one go to enforce those rights? Human rights are legal recognition of rights that we believe should apply to all people. But a right is not a right unless you can enforce it.
totally agree its legal positivism his appealing to and its nothing to do with our Common Law. This is all down to Dicey who took lawful maxims and inverted them. Bingham was another establishment figure living in his ivory tower. Case in point when he say's "We don't hire heavies to resolve disputes." That is exactly what millions of us are up against on a daily basis with debt collectors pretending to be bailiffs knocking on doors demanding monies. The Law is now breaking down because the Lawful Maxim All men are equal in the eyes of the Law seems to no longer hold water! Plus Major, Blar and Cameron have all committed Treason.
DHTCF You're wrong to say a right is not a right unless you can enforce it e.g. the Jews could not protect themselves from the nazis, but by your logic they had no right to be protected from the nazis because, despite the fact many of them were loving families non-the-less they could not enforce their rights. If human rights are a legal recognition of human rights that we believe should apply to all people then it follows that human rights cannot exist. This is because in order for them to be recognised they had to exist, but in order for them to exist they had to be legally recognised. Where did one go to enforce those rights before they were enshrined in law? They were either not enforced i.e. there was injustice, or they were enforced by vigilantism and punishment by the community. At which point, consistent rules about what is prohibited (i.e. laws) started to be made.
+Louaner If "DO NO HARM" is the rule of law, then the rule of law is "DO NOTHING". Ridiculous. All law is positive, and only positive; except when we talk about the laws of nature, which the state needn't bother enforcing, because they enforce themselves.
I study law at uni and any time I read a case where Lord Bingham gives the judgement it always strikes me that the man is surely a genius.
What did you end up doing? I’m guessing after 9 years you aren’t still studying haha.
@@hoodedr6 still wondering lol
we're still waiting...
I knew I was studying the right subject when I came here and actually loved and was genuinely interested in the topic I was studying. I could listen to speeches like this all day.
Rule of Law is a familiar expression, used by politicians and judges and dignified instruments e.g. ECHR
What does it actually mean?
Nothing in this act shall detract from the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law. But there's still no definition - probably wise, as it's quite difficult.
Vague obfuscation of what it means cannot be pursued.
One sentence legalistic summary of crux of the concept:
"All individuals and organisations in the state whether public or private are bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts."
8 principles to flesh it out: Clarity, Minimal Discretion, Equality before the Law, Fair Exercise of Public Powers, Dispute Resolution, Human RIghts, Fair Trials, International Law compliance.
1. Clarity. Law should be Clear, Accessible and Intelligible. Parliament and judges equally culpable for contemporary complexity.
2. Minimal Discretion. We should be governed by law and not discretion - by and large. We don't want to be governed on the whim of an autocrat.
3. Equality before the Law. Slavery, religious persecution, suffrage, non-nationals all suffered from lack of equality.
4. Fair + Reasonable Exercise of Public Powers - powers publicly conferred by statute, should be exercised by those on whom they're conferred reasonably, fairly, honestly and for the purpose for which they are conferred.
5. Dispute Resolution. Private vengeance is discounted in our society.
6. Human Rights.
7. Fair Trials at court/tribunal.
8. Compliance with International Law.
Rule of Law means feudal "ism."
I've got a brain injury and can be very stupid and am sometimes quite easy to brainwash/manipulate and it's late and I'm very tired but here are my first thoughts:
1. Clarity & accessibility & equality of every kind (including equality of arms = same level of legal help) = YES, from that flows fair trial IF there is no delay = delay only helps/protects the guilty. From what I've read the laws are way too complicated and there are far too many of them: we only need to say 'this is wrong' and 'it's caused these harms & losses to this person/these people/all of us/into the future' and examine the evidence.
2. When old laws/judgements are out of date/wrong = there MUST be discretion: to continue same old because of case law is nonsense = we need to continue to move forwards.
3. We must remove religious protections when these cults perpetrate abuses (such as circumcision) and discriminations which cannot be reconciled with basic rights including right to bodily integrity/rights of the child, and laws that outlaw sex discrimination and other equality & anti-discrimination laws. No religious beliefs can trump our basic (human) rights.
4. What states claim to be 'reasonable' may not be (& isn't often) at all - apparently they can create 'statutes which mean our other basic rights are denied, this must change.
5. People revert to vengeance when the judicial system & our laws fail. Legal cases can be seen as vengeance if/when people don't truly understand the harms & losses suffered. The state & laws are biased and often protect those who need it least which causes misery, poverty, civil unrest & maybe riots because we can't access our rights - including (I read) our right to demonstrate is severely curtailed.
6. Our most basic rights & freedoms - but they mostly don't really exist for most of us - unless we're wealthy/powerful, no wonder people sneer: they must be REAL & ATTAINABLE rights.
7. No trial can ever be impartial so they can't be 'equal' = that is impossible: we have to choose who & whose rights need most protection; a fair trial must include NO DELAY and equal access to legal advice & help = sadly that is still a very far-off dream.
8. Not everyone everywhere agrees on everything but most of us (is that good enough though?) agree on what we call our most basic rights; 'no torture' is one law spoken of here but (I read) torture of so many sorts is going on around the world - including here in the UK - but often 'invisibly' and denied by states/the guilty; many things that are not currently accepted as severe enough to even to be allowed to be described as 'inhuman & degrading treatment' will, in the future, I believe and sincerely hope, (and based on our histories and how our understanding is evolving = I expect), be included within and understood to be 'torture', you'll see...
Thank you.
The rule of law is supposed to be promoted by our government here in the UK. Unfortunately, they have turned their back on their constitutional obligations and consistently violate the rule of law. The hypocrisy and violations of the rule of law and human rights of the UK government are beyond disgusting!
You are a lifesaver
2:54 The crux of The Rule of Law is: "All individuals and all organisations within the state, whether public or private, are bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts."
The Crux.. meaning where it crosses the rule of law. 'within the state' ..that itself being an artifice of law. It soon becomes candescent that Bingham uses circuity on the one hand and shows by his own statement that the rule of law he talk about is a departure from something A Priori to his Crux, though he is reticent to draw further attention to it, which is hardly surprising given he supports the idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty which is a constitutional inversion if an Independent Judiciary is to be upheld.
Absolute beauty...Sir Tom Bingham...👌👌
Absolutely amazing speech top lad
Bingham was the new Denning.
A very smart man! Great listen!
Very helpful, a useful resource, a pleasant utensil.
A pleasant utensil ?
Isn’t that an ergonomic serving spoon 🤣
When the authoritative legal reference to applicable statutory “law” is that of reference to: Halsbury’s Statutes.
And this publication is no longer available in the libraries of England and Wales (because these institutions can not afford to stock it) and access to law libraries within the public court system is restricted to those only who process a bar card.
It would appear, that the only individuals who may still be governed by statute are members of the law society. Any other application could only be be considered with knowledge of the failed “access to justice” principle; meaning the failing of justice for all when using the courts “at law”.
Convenient money maker as to access the real law courts, ie. the courts “in law”, may only be accessed (allegedly) after exhausting all possible avenues of the “courts at law”.
hes great!
I knew him when he was Bingham QC at Fountain Court.
Shami should bow her head in awe! Respectful individual indeed but this is Lord Bingham
10:03 I'm Italian, I can totally confirm it: the times of justice here are INSANE!
Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act (“PSDA”), the
so-called medical Miranda, which requires health care providers who
accept money from Medicaid or Medicare to inform patients of their
rights regarding advance directives and the refusal of medical treatment
prior to admission.
The goal of the PSDA is to inform patients
of their health care rights prior to admission so that they can assert
those rights before pressed into an unfamiliar environment in which they
face possible isolation and coercion.
One of my favourite male judges
Brilliant Man. I always admire the reasons he give in his judgments.
Ah my first law lecture I am very excited
I must have read the book :Rule of Law by late Lord Bingham and regard him as a giant of the 20th century legal minds and recommended all should have his book on their book shelf.But then if not for Stephen Hawking challenged late Sir Fred Hoyle astrophysicist at one of Royal society ? meetings in his twenties and become famous from that time onwards ,no one would have heard of him. Shami is a well known rising legal mind of the 21st century and a fearless articulator of human righs issues.
I seen, Lord Bingham- The Rule of law.
small point - it was Herodius's daughter who did the dancing (not Herod's)
What is law? Law is the observation of the active will. Positive observations are referred to as rights which are the powers of observation of the heart. (Thus morality and conscience are highly regarded.) Negative observations are referred to as wrongs which are the negative powers of the living heart. Thus common rules are imposed on folk to observe the rights and to help prevent wrongs from being committed. Natural law is therefore the foundation of all law. When one looks further one finds that perception and manifestation are the two primary components. What one believes is key. Authority (sovereignty) resides with every individual but it is assumed (negatively thought) to be given to those in office or uniform. And as a result the manifestation of "force of law" is created. Oaths are the living body of active observations and are valued highest which is why testimony, confessions and oaths are held as ultimate authority in and out of court.
That was Germany 1933-1945; the Enabling Act of 1933 made it possible for Hitler's will to be equivalent to law and this priciple was upheld and directed the practice of Fritz Gurtner the Minister of Justice.
Is it not slightly ironic that Lord Bingham at 5:08 when talking about judges not being clear, uses the word 'prolixity' which really isn't common, rather than wordiness?
The speech is from November 2006, right?
I would like to remind Lord Bingham of the bill of rights 1688/89, and should be fully respected.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🏴
Nice 👍
Somalia is the poster child for those who reject the rule of Law. Take Care.
Somalia improved by every metric since ousting their govt. Take care.
Frank I'm fairly sure that even Somalians can afford better than that shitty old gun from 1947
I think there should be a 9th principal that addresses the very serious problem, that the rule of law cannot be enacted on its own, if processes and procedures in order to ensure that things that should happen to enable the rule of law, do happen, are not first in place. That includes processes and procedures set out distinctly and clearly, of the need for judicial independence versus matters where those powers may be above the rule of law by judge's action of powers in contravention of the rule of law. For example, if a thousand or more phone calls, letters emails, still fail to find a solicitor for legal aid for a vulnerable party despite their best efforts, and where it is an entitlement for an individual vulnerable party, then the rule of law cannot be enacted. Similarly, rule of law will also not be enacted if a judge oversteps the mark and misuses his/her powers and position. For example, media recently showed that alleged criminals (as ruled at the present time) , such as Lucy Letby cannot be forced by law to attend a sentencing hearing, so how come a civil judge, who knew someone was ill and who had seen medical evidence, and where a request for a postponement was made, could use her powers to attempt to arrest a protected party who was too ill to attend a hearing? Who is judging or in fact, training the judges in the lower courts, who are the least experienced, and are they appropriately supervised? Who is ensuring that judges are acting within the rule of law? It seems to me that nobody is! Just as the question arose about why Lucy Letby became a nurse, why did this judge who used powers above the law to arrest a vulnerable individual, become a judge? The rule of law must also surely apply to judges who cannot act above the law to misuse and abuse their powers and authority? Where such power was revoked in a new act, they also cannot make judgements that they did not have the power to make, when no longer within their statutory remit of the rule of law, if jurisdiction is revoked. Coram non judice. If you are a solicitor reading this and have suggestions to make to get help, or know of legal points or case precedents that will assist, to act on regulatory powers of the rule of law, do please respond. that person needs help and cannot get it, which makes the rule of law, by itself, to be unsustainable in today's society. We are moving into a lawless society, not because people do not believe in the rule of law, but because our government is not ensuring fairness and inaction of those principals are upheld.
what case is he referring to at 4.40?
guys what are the 8 principles set out for rule of law in this video
To be fair, they would almost certainly have met backstage before the event, and I would bet good money that, after calling him by his proper title, his first words to her were: "Oh, please call me Tom."
That's simply the sort of person he was. The very epitome of English gentility.
People as great as Lord Bingham are rarely pompous and he most certainly was not. Quite the reverse.
Wouldn't that be based on like the War Powers Act?
Goat
I read bible and watch this because I am in a deep trouble ,my neighbours with my management company who have used many ways to doggy the account and none of England government want to do anything about it ,even I willing to donate money to children hospital as long as the justice can be done ,how many people believe in GOD in London Great Britain GOD teach people to be good and fair but why those people who have such privilege job and in power could not only allow and also encourage this kind of criminal be carrying on which has caused a pensioner had serious heart attacked and 2 stroked ,please teach me to be wise to deal with give £ 7,000 every year to those doggy people.this is still a society rich protects only rich, that's why people chosen briexit
Hey! What happened to #5??
It goes without saying that one.
+Sid Farkus I just had the same question in my mind. He did a mistake when he said 6 but is truth in fact there are 8 principles.
1. Clear,accessible and inteligent
2. Governed by law not discretion
3. Equality
4. Public powers exercised reasonably,fairly, etc.
5. (which he named 6) Dispute resolution
6. (I'd say the real 6, but he didn't count it) Human rights
7. Fair trial
8. International law
The rule of law says, ' a court cannot make a ruling that adversely affects a person without letting that person be heard....."
But I was condemend as teh criminal by Lord Bingham et al in the case Dextra vs Bank of Jamaica.... i was not allowed a lawyer, i was not heard by the court, i was writing those in authority asking what i had done wrong .... all the rules of law were broken in this case....
Bro please explain your points? What were you hoping to happen? What wrong/harm has been
I spent an incredible amount of time reading his judgements I'm my LLB
what's so special about them
Law firstly should be made independent and should not be interfered by the politicians they are monopolising the legal system. Which is not right and not fair. Then I beleive law should be managed and run by its own legal peers and should work closely with democracy. Then rule of law would be respected
:) poetry
Yup. And Nixon got drunk a lot. So once Kissinger answered a phone call, saying "Sorry, the President's loaded." Lol!
A question-are you British? And do you feel that he should be addressed with more respect? And why?
I wonder what he would think of today's situation with trump and the impeachment situation.
Who is this man
This man is, by more of less unanimous consent, the greatest English judge of the latest 40 years.
Why don't these people be held accountable for causing harm to people if proven in writing and facts? I say hell with them all if they cant be held accountable
Is justice only a abstract?
Justice is subjective. One person’s justice will always be the opponent’s injustice.
Justice as the law demands is the best way forward. All laws are available to see on legislation.gov.uk free of charge and everyone can know what their rights are as afforded by the law.
In ancient Rome at the time of the Republic
It has become customary in all courtrooms
prominently displayed the capital lettering
FIAT IUSTITIA ET PEREAT MUNDUS !
"Let there be justice
at least the world failed"
If there is no rule of law
and the Law
then there is no talk of any civilized
let alone a society that is just!
Justice, that's true
And the truth is one that cannot be disputed.
I have one question for distinguished lawyers.
It is impossible to dispute the fact
that the bombing and aggression of the NATO alliance against Yugoslavia in 1999
executed without a United Nations decision by a unilateral decision of the NATO Military Alliance,
which is essentially the private military power of the world's largest capitalist corporations!
It is meant to mean a private war against a sovereign state
members of the United Nations since its establishment
The consequences of that war are the incredible devastation of civilians
in the hospitals of factories and schools ,
that were never intended to be targeted because they were protected
by international conventions from war.
Tons and tons of illicit uranium were thrown into Yugoslavia.
The half-life of uranium is measured in thousands of years !!
International law was violated,
the United Nations was circumvented and NATO committed a series of war crimes against humanity!
The result of this criminal act should be, according to all the decisions
of most Western countries and NATO members
the creation of an "independent state of Kosovo" on the part of the sovereign territory
of Yugoslavia, - Serbia occupied by NATO and troops
because Yugoslavia was not militarily strong enough
to counter the aggression of the world's largest military alliance!
What is the international law behind the attempt to create an independent state
from the occupied and abducted part of an independent and sovereign state,
especially since the aggression to which that part of its territory was abducted and occupied
by military troops was an illegal contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law?
Why is it so persistently demanded of all countries of the world
and that there is enormous pressure on them to acknowledge
this illegal and illegal action by the NATO alliance by recognizing Kosovo's independence?
Such a precedent and flagrant violation of international law and order will
at the end ,peel off the heads of all mankind
If we do not have the rule of law our civilization
is doomed to fail.
I can honestly say that I agree with the majority of what Lord Bingham has said, however, I remain as unconvinced with his 8th principle as I was when I finished reading his book 'The Rule of Law'. Perhaps I am in a minority, perhaps not, but the fact remains that, in my opinion, the degree of international law which we now endure is counter-productive. By all means create an area of tariff-free trade (as the EU was originally intended) but in my mind the British Parliament remains sovereign.
The rule of law.... as the Magna Charta states.. to no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or dely justice or right..... the question is who is the we?
take the case of Dextra vs Bank of Jamaica the Law Lords failed to follow the basic rule of law, as they said it was me who perpetrated the fraud at the heart of the case. But it was me who was paying in part to bring this very case, and for the life of me i can't discern who i defrauded so i can make them whole.
The academic challenges to the rule of law always come from the same people the progressive highlighting the plight of terrorists.
What they consistently failed to understand is that the terrorists have already breached the fundamental rule of law and therefore should not expect to benefit under the rule of law which they themselves have rejected and defiled.
of course the starting base is that all men are equal under the law but once a man decides he doesn't want to live under the law or respect it then he must give up all rights and benefits allowed by such laws.
The process for challenging the law is the democratic process and not violence & criminal behaviour.
The American Revolution is the perfect refutation of your pompously presumptuous contention. It was treason,rebellion & sedition
unquestionably, crimes clearly against the laws under which the 13 colonies were governed in 1776.
The governing advisory board or body failed
Jesus said love God and love your neighbour,Jesus said love fulfills the law.he I think simplified the law down to one word LOVE.LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS I HAVE LOVED YOU JESUS SAID .HE FUFILLED THE LAW!!!!CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES WAS BURIED AND ROSE AGAIN ON THE THIRD DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES 1CORINTHIANS 15:3-4
Just reading Bingham's book now. Great book and great conversation here. I disagree on one point only, the human rights as applicable to convicted terrorists. I do believe it would be wholly just and fair to exempt this group of criminals from the protection of their human rights, this should be the legally and morally right thing to do. The deportatipn of a terrorist to a country where their human rights would not be protected sounds fully justifiable to me.
Problem is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
It's a very slippery slope when you start choosing who lives and who dies, anyone prepared to cast judgment of death over another human should be the one who carry it out.
@@mrdelaney4440 i didnt say we should sentence a terrorist to death. What I said is we should not be obliged to protect him. We should not kill or torture him, but deporting him out of the country is reasonable. What anyone does to him outside of this country is not our business, the way I see it.
And I undertand your point about who gets labelled a terrorist or a freedom fighter. But ultimately, it is about who gets labelleb a terrorist by the UK on the grounds of threatening the national security of this country. If the UK identifies a foreign national as a threat to the national security, I dont think we should kill the person, but I equally dont think we should be responsible for protecting him any longer. Deporting him back to his own country sounds fair and just.
Lord Bingham would be breaking new ground if he mentioned, just once, equity and its vital importance to men.
She's entitled to disagree with him. Although his book on the rule of law is excellent, it would be wrong to treat him as infallible. Probably the most famous case he was involved in, Pinochet, he got wrong.
Excellent address by Lord Bingham and what a delight to hear perfectly spoken English - Lord Bingham's English, I mean, not the other person's.
I guess it is perfectly normal for the condemned criminal to be chasing around the judges, the police, and those in authority asking them to tell him who he has committed the fraud against and how much he defrauded and they are all running away from the condemend criminal...
rule of law ha ha.... ok maybe some legal eagal reading this blog can say who i defrauded in the case of Dextra vs bank of Jamaica.. because no one in authority will tell me...
he completely ignores the fact the English Constitution and common law refuse permission to the Queen to do a great many things, handing England over to a foreign power is one of them. Albert Burgess of the English Constitution Group.
Support the campaign to have Cameron, Blair et al arrested for Treason.
@PosthumousAddress Err, pithy.
statutes are made for the top 1% to rule everyone else ,councils act like small fiefdoms,bailiffs for the poor bailouts for the rich this is utter bollocks
martin jeffery What you're describing is a dictatorship or oligarchy. I believe we in the UK live in a democracy with power distributed (between different organs: the press, Parliament, judiciary, executive & electorate) to the point that the selfish concerns *of a single group* are not dominant.
A student called Daniel love your last bit of your comment ,I think you will find that this has been happening for the past few decades if not longer
martin jeffery You are making me think about stuff e.g. the separation of powers doctrine. Here are some examples:
Tory culture secretary Maria Miller bought her parents a house with our taxes but was challenged by the press and lost her job.
Tony Blair's government went to war in Iraq "because of the threat of WMD" but was punished by the electorate when no WMD were found.
The Sun hacked the phones of dead children and celebrities in order to create sensational stories and sell newspapers. Later the electorate, judiciary and government were unhappy about this and now the press face greater regulation.
These examples have common characteristics. In each example, 1 of the organs of democracy exerts power in a way which makes other organs unhappy. Normally this is because of selfishness (but perhaps Tony Blair wanted to please the Americans or perhaps he hates dictatorships). The unhappy organs then object and try to use their power to regulate the bad organ. This can create tension and if the bad organ has too much power then retribution and *obscurantism* may occur e.g. the Chinese government might have investigative journalists declared insane and have them sectioned.
martin jeffery I think your position is quite good if you think about:
Credit Suisse report says 1% own 50% of the world's wealth and 50% of the world's population own only 1% of the world's wealth.
The bank -HBOS- HSBC helped the rich to hide billions of £££ in taxes. No-one has been prosecuted = big lack of accountability = no challenge from government or the judiciary & the electorate is powerless to stop them. Heck I haven't even stopped banking with Barclays and they are shit too e.g. Libor scandal.
There is however, a problem of just assuming we are oppressed and there's a big conspiracy and the tories and Labour are just puppets for the Illuminati and aliens from another dimension etc. Where's the evidence?
If you're talking to a member of the Order of the Garter, you have some respect
is she seriously calling him Tom?
Well that _is_ his name...
i was thinking the same thing :p
Quite honestly, it is likely she asked beforehand what he wanted to be addressed by and that was his preference.
Another person, she calls him Tom because that is his name.
Iraq war was not authorised?... Says lord B.
The Miranda warning outlines the following rights: . you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, is therr a medical Miranda
hate shamu
He sounds like a subversive , we know she is . The tide is beginning to turn because people are waking up to the administrative unlawfulness that blights our judiciary .
That's why we must resist a US style progressive Judicial Review of Laws by left leaning judges.
English Democrats.
Thanks Tom for that pity tutorial? W..t..f?
Bingham is wrong Parliament is not Sovereign its the junior house at Westminster and indeed in order for any Bill to become legislation it must get the assent of the more senior House of Lords.
Now Parliament does not create Law it creates laws which are rules and codes which require our consent. We can withdraw that consent at any time. I think old Bingham needs a reminder of what our past Famed English Judges have said:
“Parliament may pass a law which is repugnant against common right and reason or impossible to perform. In which case the Common Law will intercede and strike it down”
Sir Edward Coke
When there is a conflict between Common Law and statute, statute must yield.
Sir William Blackstone
The law making process hasn't required the assent of the house of lords since the parliament act 1949. the house of lords hasn't truly existed since the constitutional reforms act 2005 (now the supreme court). The only assent needed is the assent of the monarch which in itself is a mere formality. But parliament is sovereign. Judges are required to follow any legislation created by parliament, and if they are wrong it is up to parliament to sort out. common law is more of a mechanism that fills in the blanks, the statute is the guidelines. Judges have some discretion and precedence, but common law has no power over parliamentary legislation.
nathaniel sutcliffe Clearly usurped by the Zionist Rothschilds which is why a growing number of people are claiming we have a Rothschild on the throne of England who repudiated her coronation oath of 1953 by failing to maintain the lively oracles of God which she swore to do. As for Parliament being sovereign it has historically always been the junior partner in the tripartite because it represents the Common Man. Not surprisingly much of the legislation created by these fallible men and women gets repealed in other words their laws which are rules are not immutable and neither are they sacrosanct. They could pas a law tomorrow instructing everyone to murder blond haired blue eyed babies, do you seriously think God fearing people are going to obey just a nefarious law.
“Parliament may pass a law which is repugnant against common right and reason or impossible to perform. In which case the Common Law will intercede and strike it down”
Sir Edward Coke
No I don't believe that the common man would ever agree to a law like that, however if the process was carried out, the courts wouldnt be able to do anything about it, it would be enforceable in all courts. It would be up to the pressure groups and the media to make notice of the law, whilst it is being made, so that the common people may act. The only restraint parliament has that stops it from being as supreme as A V Dicey said, is the EU. But everything else that the EU does not have dominion over, can be overruled by parliament, and there decision will always be supreme in these instances. I'm guessing the tripartite system you are referring to is the separation of powers. If this is the case then the legislature (parliament) can only use checks and balances to ensure the executive (cabinet members, pm and monarch) don't go overboard with there power. The great french political philosopher, montesqui , even said himself that the role of the judiciary is to apply the law (the third party in this system). This system was created to benefit the people as it made the system more democratic. The people we voted for have the most power, which seems fair to me. The house of lords and the judges are unelected by the common people, so there power limited to that of the application of law, but all appeals that come from the court are generally just appeals on possible wrongful decisions.
nathaniel sutcliffe Of course they would if the courts were under Common Law jurisdiction, That is our heritage and we have sat back and let the Zionist usurpers destroy it. No more thousands and soon to be millions of people will say enough is enough and we are going to take back our power. No one can sideline the Magna Carta it had the caveat built into it that it can never be repealed. Remember the difference between Lawful and Legal can be elucidated by Nazi Germany. Everything Hitler did after he seized power was said to be legal but the international Law courts declared it to be UnLawful and 18 of his henchmen were hung at Nuremberg. Parliament is not Sovereign indeed they are trying to murder this Nation through Treason and the EU whom they are trying to give us away to can go to hell.
Parliament is made out of the House of Commons, the Queen and the House of Lords. So basically, you cannot say that the requirement for a Bill to go through the HoL is a limitation on Parliamentary Supremacy, because HoL is the Parliament.! Furthermore, because the Commons are elected they have 'greater' power and can pass legislation without HoL's assent as since 20th century the role of HoL is largely advisory.
This is a load of shit! DO NO HARM, is the rule of law. What he is talking about is POSITIVE LAW, which is man made law and is the further thing from the RULE OF LAW.
Yeah "do no harm" seems to be important to the rule of law. Good point. mmm positive law as in law that has been posited by man = man-made law. As opposed to the principles of natural justice e.g. cruelly murdering someone without justification is always wrong, even in a country without laws. Yes this is also I good point you are making. IMO human rights existed even before laws were first made. The laws were *then* made to protect human rights and thereby stop conflicts between families.
Daniel B "Human rights" existed before laws were first made" - where did one go to enforce those rights?
Human rights are legal recognition of rights that we believe should apply to all people. But a right is not a right unless you can enforce it.
totally agree its legal positivism his appealing to and its nothing to do with our Common Law. This is all down to Dicey who took lawful maxims and inverted them. Bingham was another establishment figure living in his ivory tower. Case in point when he say's "We don't hire heavies to resolve disputes." That is exactly what millions of us are up against on a daily basis with debt collectors pretending to be bailiffs knocking on doors demanding monies. The Law is now breaking down because the Lawful Maxim All men are equal in the eyes of the Law seems to no longer hold water! Plus Major, Blar and Cameron have all committed Treason.
DHTCF You're wrong to say a right is not a right unless you can enforce it e.g. the Jews could not protect themselves from the nazis, but by your logic they had no right to be protected from the nazis because, despite the fact many of them were loving families non-the-less they could not enforce their rights.
If human rights are a legal recognition of human rights that we believe should apply to all people then it follows that human rights cannot exist. This is because in order for them to be recognised they had to exist, but in order for them to exist they had to be legally recognised.
Where did one go to enforce those rights before they were enshrined in law? They were either not enforced i.e. there was injustice, or they were enforced by vigilantism and punishment by the community. At which point, consistent rules about what is prohibited (i.e. laws) started to be made.
+Louaner If "DO NO HARM" is the rule of law, then the rule of law is "DO NOTHING". Ridiculous. All law is positive, and only positive; except when we talk about the laws of nature, which the state needn't bother enforcing, because they enforce themselves.
Lord of the Bullshit. What do you expect from a guy who is pushing manufacture and commerce?
How did he push manufacture and commerce? What evidence do you have?
Daniel B In your face dummy, or more likely troll.
Are you mad?
DHTCF Are you?
+Louaner, what do you mean by this?
I cringe every time she says "Tom"