WHERE'S THE BRIEF ?

I begin to think that Carl Jung’s proposition of the collective unconscious may have more to it than just idealism and a recognition of similarities across a large number of societies and cultures. I started the day with a recuring phrase that has been troubling my mind for some time: “the fault lies with those lefty lawyers”. I have been incensed by this theme of blame emanating from so many of our current government representatives. I was mulling over putting my thoughts on line and as I sat down to breakfast I find a program on Radio 4 entitled “The Battle for Liberal Democracy” The episodes are fronted by Tom Fletcher. The notes read:

In this major new series, Tom Fletcher will examine what future historians may well regard as the most fundamental issue of the 2020s: the complex, multi-faceted and far-reaching international contest between liberal democracy and its enemies. Tom, a former diplomat and adviser to three British prime ministers, will draw on his own experiences in countries as diverse as Lebanon, Kenya and France to reveal how this battle has developed since the end of the Cold War. And in conversation with people he encountered along the way – people who rose to the very top – he will examine the state of liberal democracy, ask where it succeeds and where it fails, and make the case for its urgent renewal. With sometimes surprising stories from around the world, he’ll look at how the world’s democracies can confront autocratic regimes, how they make liberal democracy more ‘magnetic’ to democratic backsliders, and how they can put their own houses in order.

In this first episode, Tom will begin by looking at security, the first responsibility of any government. Which type of government delivers security best – both internally and externally – for its people? What compromises are citizens prepared to make to get the security they crave? And, in the fallout from the war in Ukraine, are democracies better or worse-placed now than they were a year ago to push back against autocracy?

The series is well worth a listen. That this examination of democracy should pop up just as I was contemplating tackling the latest pejorative concept of ‘lefty lawyers’ is clearly related to that collective consciousness. It follows on the heels of the row sparked by Mr Lineker’s tweet claiming that the rhetoric used by government ministers, in proposed legislation on immigration matters, echoed that used in 1930’s Germany. Many people have supported his view on the cruelty of the legislation, but feel that his equating the matter with Nazi propaganda was going too far and that he should retract those words. He has not done so, and I, for one, would agree with his view. It coincides with the whole idea of denigration of lawyers as professionals and officers of the courts. If the rule of law is to be maintained then it must be secure.

It is every individual’s human right to have recourse to the law. It is the rule of law that protects the individual’s rights. If a person has a grievance or experiences an injustice then s/he is entitled by law to address that grievance. In order to do so s/he must have access to the courts and to professional, clear and considered advice on how to best present their case. It is also the right of every citizen accused of causing grievance to be able to defend themselves from such accusation, if it be false, or to proffer an appropriate explanation and compensation for having caused the grievance. Lawyers, no matter what their political persuasion, have a code of conduct that requires them to provide their clients with the best possible advice and representation regarding the prosecution or defence of their client’s case.  They have a duty of care to provide their client with full knowledge and understanding of the laws relating to their situation. It is a matter of law. So when an immigrant arrives in the United Kingdom and finds her/himself in a situation requiring representation, then whatever lawyer they employ has a duty of care to put their case to the full extent of the rule of law through every lawful means and legal avenue allowed. That is how the system works. If the government is found to be at fault so be it, but that is not the fault of the lawyer. It is the judgement of the court, which makes its findings according to the rule of law. It is a matter of law.

What is disgraceful is a government that does not like to be judged, trying to subvert the rule of law, by enacting legislation that goes against any concept of justice. Changing the laws to suit the needs of dictatorship is the greatest danger, and to do so under the cloak of democracy is a sinister and outrageous abuse of power. That is what happened in 1930’s Germany and that is what appears to be going on in many countries throughout the world and sadly in the United Kingdom.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves”. Willian Pitt

Democracy is fragile and liberal democracy even more so. To allow freedom of speech is to sometimes allow things being said that some may not like or agree with. The right to speak without fear is pretty fundamental:

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” Voltaire

What is even more important is that a country that professes to live by the rule of law, that owes its very existence to the rule of law, should uphold that concept in the face of adversity throughout the world. If you want to stop people trying to flee from war, dictatorships and persecution, then stop wars, dictatorships and persecution. That is what needs to be addressed, not taking it out on the refugees. If you want to send them back home, then help create a home that they can go back to. Do not retreat from the world and put up barriers, rather help bring down the dictators and persecutors. Strengthen liberal democracy by exporting it and joining in with other such democracies to exert the full power of collaborative effort to stymie the likes of Lukashenko, Putin, Orban, Braverman, Trump and similar authoritarians (unfortunately there are many throughout the world, it’s too difficult to name them all).

In short, the only way to stop the flow of refugees is to stop the reasons people have for flight.

The tragedy of the Braverman’s, Patel’s, Sunak’s and a large portion of the conservative party, is that they believe what they are doing and saying is reasonable and supported by the electorate. They believe, because they have a ridiculous majority in parliament, that they have the support of the entire electorate. They do not. Mr Sunak may have been elected as MP for Richmond (Yorks) but only by 47.2% of the vote in that constituency. That is not a majority. He has no mandate of any kind and has more than demonstrated his duplicity by what he said to the people of Northern Ireland “You have the best of both worlds”. If being under the umbrella of the European Union is part of the best of the world, why on earth did he vote to leave?

The drip drip drip of the offensive repressive legislation of this government, together with the abusive rhetoric against ‘lefty lawyers’, trade unionists and anyone condemning their agenda, is exactly what occurred in the 1930s in Germany. A slow subliminal program of repression and subversive control. The instances of bullying behaviour by Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Suella Braverman and others of the party, the arrogance of Rees-Mogg and Steve Barclay are more than somewhat troubling and dangerously close to emulating what happened 90 years ago on the continent of Europe. The racist and perverted Nuremberg Laws that were passed by the German Reichstag on the 15^th September 1935 are the instance in point.

The result of that turbulence was the whole reason for the establishment of the Council of Europe signed into existence on the 5^th May 1949 by the Treaty of London, out of which came the establishment of the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950. This was an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Indeed, it followed on from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in December of 1948. At the time no country voted against it.

I sat in front of my television set on the 6^th January 2021 and watched the result of the rhetoric of Donald Trump. MAGA clad bullies and thugs assaulting police officers, breaking window frames, shouting for people to be hanged in an attempt to trample all over the very constitution that allowed them the freedom to assemble. Does that mean freedom of assembly should be abolished? No, but those who committed criminal acts in the process should be brought to account. There is assembly and there is riot. They are very different creatures, but both come under the security and protection of the rule of law. Preserving the right and prosecuting the perversion, and I have no doubt that those lefty lawyers will be acting on both sides.