On Question Time Ms Thornberry made the statement that the principal function of government is to protect our security, and no-one on the panel or in the audience took her to task on this. Now, at first sight this may seem to be correct, but it is fundamentally garbage, and is of profound importance to the nature of government and the government's relationship to the rest of society. The principal function of any government is to uphold the law, and it is law that protects our security, not the police or the armed forces or politicians, because, in order that our security is comprehensively and properly protected, all those personnel must, in a system genuinely operating by the rule of law, be subject to the law on an equal basis to everyone else. However, if we accept the Thornberry position, which is of course the position of all the criminals within Westminster, then the security measures under discussion, that is, the right of government to intercept all our communications and invade all of our privacy under the imperatives of their so-called war on terror, requires us to negate our fundamental rights and freedoms and hand unlimited and unrestricted power to people who are manifestly unfit to be trusted with it. If Ms Thornberry genuinely believes what she said, then it demonstrates that she herself is manifestly unfit for public office. Indeed, the reason that we have a problem with our security in modern Britain is because our government, with the support of the Westminster Parliament, broke the law and engaged in illegal activities for which we are paying a terrible price.
It is the same in our domestic lives, we are insecure in our own homes because we now know that, not only our own government, but foreign governments, are invading our homes through our phones and computers and engaging in illegal activities against us. No politician anywhere or for any reason is justified in behaving in such a manner, and the tragedy for us, is that our politicians are protecting people who are not elected, have no authority and are simply mindless civil servants.
The great Athenian statesman Pericles tells us how
Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.
It is clear that in this country, the law is subject to some other authority, the authority of the security services and their demands that they operate unrestricted by legal considerations. On the economic front, the law is subject to the imperatives of the 'market' whatever that is? The law in Britain takes no action against a banker who steals millions of pounds, but gives 6 months in jail to someone who steals a bottle of water. As a result, our governments are perfectly happy to subvert the rule of law in pursuit of their own interests and the interests of America. Aristotle tells us in his 'Politics' that
It is more proper that law should govern
than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to
place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to
be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.
Thus, our real security lies, not with the security services, not with the government, but in respect for, and obedience to, the rule of law. However, for modern British governments, security doesn't mean law, it means force and illegality if they consider it necessary. For the rest of society security means having confidence that we are secure from arbitrary interference from the forces of the state, from poverty, from hunger and from a fear of the future.
The principal source of insecurity in modern Britain is the direct result of our governmental system's obsession with security. However, we can never be secure if we are governed by criminals. If you or I break the law we are branded criminals and the same applies to our politicians, and they stand exposed as criminals, as kidnappers, as torturers. The American Declaration of Independence tells us that
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among
men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Thus, government is instituted to secure our fundamental rights, but how do they secure them? By security measures, or by law? Humans are social beings and are therefore regulatory beings and they secure our rights by regulation, the most common form being formal law. Other forms of securing our rights are norms and values, but, and this is the crucial point, the security forces must always operate within the established laws, norms and values. These regulations precede, and are the locus of, the authority of the security services. I could write much about this, and it has been difficult presenting it in this truncated manner, however, I trust it has been sufficient to explain the problem. Should anyone wish further explanation please ask and I will be happy to reply. Remember, one of the oldest warnings from history is 'quis custodiet ipsos custodies?' - 'who watches the watchers?'Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
No comments:
Post a Comment