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 groupssuch
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 capitalismwhereby the state socialises corporate
costsit 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 citizensthey 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 rightsbut 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 lawwhich
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 complybut 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 goodand therefore according to just lawand
not arbitrarilyor 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
pregnancywhich 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
|