[...] This erosion of the rule of law is not the avoidable consequence of poorly drafted legislation. It is impossible to state clearly what constitutes a hateful remark, a hostile environment or neglectful parenting. If the Government wishes to rule out such things, it can only pass vague laws and delegate the power to interpret them to its agents.
It must replace the rule of law with “the rule of men”. Knowing whether your actions make you liable for punishment is not a matter of reading the legislation but of predicting the sensibilities of the authorities.
And not just towards your actions but towards you. Despite their risky assertions, polemical atheists and evangelical preachers have little to fear from the religious hatred law because the authorities who wield it at their discretion have different targets in mind, such as BNP politicians and Islamic radicals. Justice may be blind but the Home Secretary is not.
The second erosion of the rule of law comes from the Government's open contempt for the idea that the law defines the scope of the Government's interest in you, that you can be on the wrong side of the Government only by being on the wrong side of the law. For example, it is not illegal to have fat children. Yet we know that the Government disapproves of parents who do, since it sends them letters pointing out their children's obesity. “We've got our eye on you,” they insinuate. To which a free man should respond: “If I have committed a crime, arrest me; otherwise, leave me alone.”
But this generation of Labour politicians cannot leave us alone. For they are convinced that they have attained a new level of moral insight and feel duty-bound to improve us. There is no topic on which the Government does not have some recommendation for how we should behave: from what we say about homosexuals, to what we eat, to how we raise our children. They admonish and cajole and “educate” and hint at impending penalties for those who do not fall into line. Read more
No comments:
Post a Comment