Legislative Scrutiny: Children, Schools and Families Bill; other Bills - Human Rights Joint Committee Contents


Memorandum submitted by Patrick Mockridge

  My submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights Committee in response to Press Notice No. 6, which called for input from civil society, is below. The issues are listed in the order that they are listed in the press release. I would have liked to have commented on all legislation but would have run over the word limit had I done so.

ILLEGAL FILE-SHARING

  It appears, although forgive me if I am wrong, that copyright holders will have the power to disconnect suspects from the internet without meeting the usual legal burden of proof. If the ISP or the individual resist then the state will instigate force against the suspect. This socialises the costs of enforcing what are, essentially, private contractual arrangements between media producers and consumers. Are the media paying more tax for this legal privilege to be awarded by the state? Does the state have the right to punish suspects? Will the enforcement of this law be driven by due legal process or the media industry?

  As well as giving the media industry more power, the state will be giving itself more power. Disconnection from the internet merely for being suspected of sharing files in contravention of a private purchase agreement is mere arbitrary violence by the state on behalf of the media industry.

  What separates just laws from violence is due process. If due legal process is not followed then state action descends into arbitrary acts on behalf of special interest groups—such as the media industry, which also has a vested interest not only in socialises the costs of enforcing private purchase agreements but in stifling the fierce competition that comes from a free and open internet.

  These proposed new powers are not only an example of crony capitalism—whereby the state socialises corporate costs—it is an unjust law that puts undue power in the hands of corporations and the state, leaving the future of the internet and free speech at their mercy.

  Our rights are not given to us by either but are, rather, innate and inalienable. Under these proposed new laws we may soon be asking the media and the state for permission to interact with others. Does a free society operate in such a way where one underprivileged group must ask permission to speak from the privileged group to whom they must also pay tribute? Is this what the committee call "human rights"?

DNA AND FINGERPRINTS

  While the proposed legislation looks to give more power to the media industry to enforce their copyright, the legislation also looks to strip the individual of its power to enforce its copyright over its own DNA. Is our DNA fundamentally owned by us or by the state?

  If the committee believe in copyright for a corporation's finished products then why not copyright for an individual's own body. If we have no fundamental rights of ownership over our own DNA then does the state have the right use other parts of the individual's body as they see fit too?

  Does the state have the right to, like Pol Pot, put our limbs to work on an agrarian commune? Or, like the Japanese did to Chinese women in World War Two, turn our genitals prostitution? Forgive the deduction ad absurdum but these are examples of what happens when the state believes that it has rights of the bodies of its citizens—they become slaves.

  Again, are rights given to us by Parliament of by directives from the unelected European Commission or are they innate and inalienable? Do individuals own their bodies or does the state? Do we wish to model Britain after every totalitarian state in history or does it wish to be a free nation?

  In looking to put released offenders on the DNA register those proposing this law obviously see it as an infringement of rights which is more acceptable when enacted on a minority who probably don't vote anyway. These offenders have already served their and should not be seen as legal guinea pigs for the rest of their lives. Does the state feel it has the right to enact retroactive punishment on any man who has previously committed a crime?

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

  The legislation seeks to punish suspects and potentially infringe upon their property rights—but this time in the name of preventing domestic violence. I understand that this may be proposed with the best intentions and that domestic violence is a serious problem affecting many people, of all ages and genders, across the country, but I do not understand how bypassing due legal process will help anyone in the long term.

  Those less scrupulous would have greater incentive to "cry wolf" against the property owner and tie up the relevant authorities in nuisance cases. Those nuisance cases would interfere with the authorities' ability to deal with more serious cases of domestic abuse, it will deter couples from moving in together and will therefore lead to less, not more, social cohesiveness.

  It will also erode confidence in the law—which is supposed to apply to all persons equally. This legislation will essentially punish the suspect with a restraining order. What will the suspect do if he or she is not allowing to sleep in their won property? Will the law give provision for the suspect to stay somewhere and maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed at the taxpayers' expense? Or will the suspect also be punished financially by having to arrange separate accommodation?

  The committee should not only be assessing this legislation from the viewpoint of mutually coherent human rights but also practicality.

STOP AND SEARCH

  The case of police stop and search powers is not so much one about the rights of individuals not to be searched but the rights of the state to search anyone it wants with minimal due process. As was mentioned early in this correspondence what separates violence and infringement from law is due process. The individual would not accept a random search from any individual in the street but they, by and large, do so from a police officer. Why? The first reason is that the police officer will use violence and detention if the citizen does not comply—but no civilized nation relies merely upon the use of force for its citizens to comply with the law. The second reason is, therefore, that the citizen must believe that the policeman is acting according to the public good—and therefore according to just law—and not arbitrarily—or unjust law. What prevents arbitrary police action? Due process does. The erosion of due process, therefore, erodes the citizen's faith in the law.

  Does the committee wish the country to be run by laws or by force? This is the choice that this legislation presents. Are the police to be held to account under due process or do they have the right to act as they see fit? What would Charles de Menezes say?

  And this is why search warrants were invented. I suggest that the committee may wish to revisit British history before passing judgement.

MANDATORY SEX AND RELATIONSHIPS EDUCATION

  As I am limited to 1500 I will finish with the proposed legislation on mandatory sex education. Firstly there is no evidence that more state sex education leads to lower teenage pregnancy—which seems to be the fashionable thing to look to reduce these days. Regardless of whether anyone can objectively say whether it's better to have less teenage pregnancy, it's unclear whether state education has any effect anyway.

  Can the state, then, ensure that its sex education will remain impartial and sensitive to the different expectations of different cultures? The simple answer is no. Sex education is a morally and culturally loaded subject. I remember my sex education being particularly lax in its moral judgement of promiscuity and abortion and, while I largely agree, there are many people who do not and their rights to their personal preferences must also be respected.

  So the state will essentially be infringing upon the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit, infringing upon individual moral judgements and infringing upon the cultural sensibilities for no discernable objective benefit. How can this be acceptable?

  In conclusion I would like to thank you and the committee in advance for their due consideration of the views of the public and for supporting free speech while it still exists.

 18 January 2010





 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 19 February 2010