We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Laws named after victims

If a proposed law is worth passing, pass it.

If a proposed law is not worth passing, don’t pass it. Most proposed laws are not worth passing.

When they have to name a proposed law after a murdered person or other tragic victim to make you feel that it would be disrespectful to reject it, that is a sign the proposed law cannot stand on its own merits.

PM urged to enact ‘David’s law’ against social media abuse after Amess’s death.

20 comments to Laws named after victims

  • William H. Stoddard

    I’m completely with that. There’s an old saying that hard cases make bad law; I believe it was originally applied to judicial decisions, but it needs to be remembered in legislation as well.

  • James Strong

    Politicians are wilfully misinterpreting and misrepresenting the problem and are putting forward a ‘solution’ that will not work. All the time the real threat is growing.

    Sir David was not killed because people write abusive posts on social media, or because Angela Rayner called her opponents scum and some might be tempted to copy her language.

    It appears, (MSM often use that phrase e.g. the picture appears to show …), that Sir David was killed by a muslim who has chosen to reject Western values. Someone who has no respect for, even contempt for the values and traditions of a democratic country. It is very likely that the alleged killer is proud of his actions.

    Going back only a couple of years the news was full of young girls being grromed and raped by ‘Asian’ men. It was not because they were Asian that the men behaved in that way.They were not Hindus or Sikhs from the Indian sub-continent. They were not Buddhists from Thailand. And so on. They were muslims, and many muslims despise and loathe non-muslims.

    That is the truth, and it is a truth that no public figure will speak.

    The outlawing of anonymity on the internet will do nothing to solve the problems posed by the barbaric followers of Islam.

    But outlawing anonymity on the internet will make it a little bit easier for the authorities to visit me to ‘check my thinking’ and possible ‘cancel’ me.

  • James Strong.

    And Southend is to be awarded city status.

    This is a gesture, even a nice and generous gesture motivated by affection and respect for Sir David. But it is an empty and pointless gesture.
    Will it do anything to improve the lives of the residents of Southend? No, it won’t. Although it might make the Mayor and the Leader of the Council feel more important.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    One is reminded of the unpatriotic “Patriot Act”.

  • Sir David was (very 🙂 ) well known for wishing Southend to be declared a city. That change is one of which it can assuredly be said, “he would be pleased”.

    As regards restrictions on free speech, by contrast, he seems to have been a mostly old-style Tory, a catholic who opposed abortion, etc. Are those who want a speech-restricting law named for him able to quote him on that as copiously as those who endorsed Southend becoming a city? Was it, perhaps, his old-fashioned chivalry speaking when he (reportedly) condemned

    the vile misogynistic abuse which female MPs had to endure online

    and if he

    wanted something done about it

    then I’d like to know what.

    One thing seems likely: he would not have wished ‘David’s law’ or any other to restrain the traditionally-expressed views of a socially-conservative anti-abortion catholic Tory even to the extent that they already are. Any proposed law might be deservedly subject to that test – and, in a society with a tradition of free speech, the somewhat traditional Sir David might have wanted it subject to other tests as well.

    Meanwhile, I note the Grauniad article spends two paragraphs on Jo Cox (following the lead of Starmer, who gets as many mentions in it as Jo and her widower combined, and more than anyone else except the murdered man). That’s a lot more than the very non-committal half-sentence it devotes to the current suspect and a certain motivation he may have had (to be fair, they also show an alleged picture of him). This could be subjected to the test of how often Grauniad articles about Jo Cox made mention of Ian Gow or Airey Neave, or were as brief about Jo’s killer and his possible motives – or the warning that such tests will become the province of the law’s enforcers.

  • Mr Ed

    I am slightly puzzled by this proposed law, and the pretext for it: if there is one thing that is abundantly clear about this murder, and may any potential juror only decide any criminal case arising on the basis of the evidence and legal submissions made in court, it is that Sir David’s killing has nothing to do with the internet and everything to do with meeting in person, something he voted to enable the government to criminalise in most situations only last year. I am not aware of any browser that has the functionality that permits a user to stab another person over the internet, so what harm can possibly be done by obnoxious or anonymous use of the internet, that is not already illegal?

  • Paul Marks

    One of the most disturbing things is the false idea of “making law” – whether it is “judge made law” or “law made by a legislature”.

    Contrary to Bismarck – law is not a sausage, it is not made in a factory or a legislature (or made by judges). Law is found (FOUND) by applying the principle of justice to cases – and the principle of justice is to not aggress the body or goods of others. If the damage to the body or goods of others is unintentional than it is Civil matter (requiring compensation), if it is deliberate aggression (a choice – guilty mind, exercise of Free Will) then it is a criminal matter (requiring punishment in proportion to the crime). Choice can also involve making a free choice that leads to harm – which a “reasonable” (i.e. rational) person would have foreseen – such as getting blind drunk and then taking a horse (or a car) for a ride in a crowded place.

    For further information see “The Law” by Frederic Bastiat – who explained the matter in far more eloquent language than I can.

    There is a science of Jurisprudence – a science in the sense of a body-of-knowledge.

  • Paul Marks

    Mr Ed – as you know they are using the death of this good man as an excuse to do what they want to do anyway.

    Expressing anger and contempt for politicians with whom one disagrees (indeed with all of them) is an old British tradition – and often the abuse is expressed in violent language.

    I “block” people on Twitter (oh yes they let me back on) every day. But I do not stop them expressing their violent hatred of me – I just do not read it, because I have blocked them. They can say whatever they like (including the greedy-Tory-should-be-gassed) in their own tweets. They can write “Paul Marks must die – I am going to kill him!” to their hearts content – I am not going to see it.

    Also someone can set their tweets so that no one can reply to them – or so only people they want to reply can reply to them.

    It is much the same on the other Social Media sites.

    As for making expressing hatred of politicians a “crime” – if the High Court of the Queen in Parliament does that, then it is not worth the name of the High Court of the Queen in Parliament.

    But then has it been worth that name since Sir Robert Walpole convinced them to ban all plays that did not have a government license?

    One 1960s reform I was in favour of was getting rid of the control of the Lord Chamberlain over the theatre – even though it was largely just notional by then.

  • staghounds

    “Francois told the Commons he was “minded to drag Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey to the bar of the house … if necessary kicking and screaming so they can look us all in the eye and account for their actions or rather their inactions that make them even richer than they already are”.

    Don’t get me wrong, I loathe and despise a lot of what Dorsey and Zuckerberg do. But Mark Francois is a would be tyrant and enemy of mankind.

  • Paul Marks

    staghounds – I am baffled by this.

    Surely the Member of Parliament must know that Mr Dorsey and Mr Zuckerberg run organisations that are obsessed with CENSORSHIP – specifically anti conservative censorship. Indeed Mr Zuckerberg personally spent half a BILLION Dollars “fortifying” (i.e. rigging) the 2020 Presidential Election, controlling the voting process.

    I am baffled at how little Members of Parliament, not this specific Member of Parliament – Members generally, know.

    I am reminded of when Steve Baker sided with “The Squad” against the nasty “racist” President Trump – I communicated with Mr Baker (via the wonders of the internet) and it was clear he had no idea who “the Squad” were (their vicious ideology) and was simply going by mainstream media reports.

    This is true of Covid 19 and everything else – it is if Members of Parliament, in general, believed what is on the BBC and so on. Understanding that is biased – but not grasping that what is reported by the “mainstream media” is often total fiction.

    But, to deal with the present point directly, no it is not the “inactions” of Mr Dorsey and Mr Zuckerberg that are the problem – unless what is meant is their failure to get rid of staff who practice censorship.

    For the Parliament of the United Kingdom to come to the conclusion that what is needed is even MORE censorship – well then they might as well sign up for the American banking and finance ESG (Environment and Social Governance) totalitarianism.

    Although I suspect that very few members of Parliament even know what the ESG (or Social Credit) score system is. That they have no idea that the international establishment are seeking to control every aspect of life – via control of money and credit, insisting that every business enterprise follow certain “codes of conduct” to push certain “social goals”.

    If they did know – would they even be against this? Or would they think it was a good idea?

  • Nor laws named to have a cutesy acronym.

    Except maybe the For Universal Caring and Kindness Act.

  • Paul Marks

    As for the idea that yet-more-censorship would protect Conservatives from violent hatred being expressed towards them…..

    Censors, whether Corporate or government, would never censor that. What they would do is censor, for example Mark Francois. Every time he said something patriotic, they would declare it “racist” and censor him – he would soon be in prison. But leftists saying, for example, that his children should be turned “Trans” (sexually mutilated) or that Mr Francois himself should be hacked to death (as an act of “Social Justice”) – censors (Corporate or government) would not censor that (they would privately applaud such terrible sentiments). Remember the censors (Corporate or government) would be “educated” people – the sort of people who agreed with the things their teachers and college lecturers said.

    It is astonishing what some Conservatives want to give more power to either Corporate or government officials – not grasping that they would be the chief targets (victims) of such power.

    It is like an American Republican wanting to give more power to the FBI and the “Justice” Department – people who want Republicans abused in prison, after putting them there for FAKE offenses.

    Of course the ESG (Environment and Social Governance) system will make conservative opinions de facto illegal anyway – not directly, but by cutting of finance and banking services to business enterprises with low “scores”.

  • Well, Mr Ed, if that sniper-rifle-attached-to-dog-robot contraption ever gets into the hands on non-military personnel I bet it has a browser interface!

  • Penseivat

    There is a system in this country whereby people can communicate with others. It doesn’t involve computers, Farcebook, twatter, or emails. It involves someone writing, or typing, a message on a sheet of paper, which is then placed in an envelope, a postage stamp stuck to it, and it is shoved through a slot in a post box. If every computerised message will be subject to official scrutiny, does this mean that every letter will, Stasis like, be opened en route to be checked if it is offensive? If no anonymous communications are allowed, the Valentine’s Day card industry is going to go bust. If Mavis from Southend receives a letter, from an anonymous sender, telling her she is a slag and has a 6 feet wide vagina, will the head(s) of the Post Office/Royal Mail be dragged, kicking and screaming, to explain to MPs how this is being allowed to happen? Asking for a friend.

  • Paul Marks

    Penseivat – yes this is the “logic” of the Collectivist position.

    I am presently watching Prime Minister’s Question Time – all the parties are agreed in demanding even-more-censorship. Although the Koran and the Hadiths and the Life of Muhammed will not be censored – and they should NOT be (in case anyone misunderstands me – on purpose), as the issue is supposed to be “extremism” – a term that no member of the House of Commons has even bothered to define.

    On censorship, and on the ESG (Environment and Social Governance) system – which will end up, de facto, operating in the United Kingdom as well as the United States – well….

    I am glad Chris Tame and Brian Michlethwait are dead – they would not like to have lived to see such things as the “On Line Harms Bill” and the control, via the banks and financial services companies (Environmental and Social Governance), of all the aspects of human life from the Cradle to the Grave.

    Klaus Schwab style “Stakeholder Capitalism” is totalitarianism, it is tyranny.

    “You will own nothing and you will be happy” as Agenda 2030 “Sustainable Development” puts it. How will we “be happy”?

    Simple – we will be conditioned (programmed) to “be happy”. Remember that the international establishment are followers (in so far as they know philosophy at all) of such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes and David Hume – they do not believe that humans are person, they do not believe in the human soul, in Free Will.

    Essentially they are the sort of people who, if they watched such old science fiction shows as “Blake’s 7”, would say “yes – the Federation conditions people to be loyal and be happy, that is what should be done”.

    Victorian legal thinkers such as Maitland mocked older thinkers such as Sir John Holt (Chief Justice from 1689 to 1710) – there were no need for legal principles of natural justice (jurisprudence) according to thinkers such as Maitland because the HOUSE OF COMMONS would protect our liberties.

    I would argue that this was nonsense even in the Victorian Age – but it is certainly nonsense now.

  • Fraser Orr

    I’m pretty confused by this. Obviously it was a terrible thing that happened to this man, and the guy who did it should be locked up for the rest of his life (or preferably taken out back and shot, but you Brits are too nice to do that sort of thing.) But I don’t understand what it has to do with the Internet or online anonymity. It seems pretty much a run of the mill looney killing a high profile person.

    I read the wikipedia article to try to get more insight, but I still couldn’t see the connection. I did find this though:

    On the evening of 16 October, the Metropolitan Police Service confirmed the suspect had been detained under Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and that magistrates had extended the period the suspect could be held in custody for questioning until 22 October 2021. Just after midnight, police identified the stabbing as a terrorist incident potentially motivated by Islamic extremism. Police searched three addresses in London over the weekend following the stabbing.

    Surely this is the great fear of all civil libertarians. “Terrorist” which used to mean something quite different, is no applied to run of the mill (though terrible) crimes just to find a way to circumvent the usual legal processes. I feel no sympathy for the perp here, but I do feel sympathy for the future of British criminal justice when terrible things are used to rob them of rights won over a thousand years of history.

    Why do they need to “extend the period the suspect could be held”? They caught the guy covered in blood with the murder weapon right next to him and several witnesses. Surely even PC Plod can solve that particular criminal conundrum — it isn’t exactly Agatha Christie. But, from the police’s point of view, why not use unprecedented powers? Who is going to argue with you? In fact doing so virtue signals that you take this particularly seriously. After all a “terrorist” crime has practically become synonmous with a “serious” crime. I don’t doubt that during his reign of terror Peter Sutcliffe would have been designated a terrorist too.

    It isn’t easy to argue for civil rights when you have such evil perps in your sights, but civil rights, to protect us from the government enforcers, are very hard to win, and very easy to loose.

    And something else I have noticed is the fact that we seem to place crimes against politicians so much more serious than crimes against regular folks. Here in the USA last summer there were riots, burnings, utter destruction, businesses and livelihoods destroyed, hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage and even some deaths, and nobody seemed to care. But as soon as people rioted at a building occupied by politicians, there are senate hearings, hundreds of people in pre-trail jail for months, prosecutions where some of the more minor offences are prosecuted to ridiculous degrees, and no investigation at all into the police killing of an unarmed woman. It speaks for itself.

  • lucklucky

    The disgusting neo-Marxist journalist class is just trying to not let a crises going to waste. So they divert an Islam problem to a speech control problem.

    The Islamic problem is to not to be addressed at all. This is by design.

    On the whole, the ironic sad joke is that Brexisters wanted more freedom, might get even more control of their lives by staying out of UE because their journalists, academic and political class plus a big part of public want tyranny, while Remainers that wanted to control others might found they would get what they wanted easier by staying out of UE…

  • lucklucky

    I’m pretty confused by this. Obviously it was a terrible thing that happened to this man, and the guy who did it should be locked up for the rest of his life (or preferably taken out back and shot, but you Brits are too nice to do that sort of thing.) But I don’t understand what it has to do with the Internet or online anonymity. It seems pretty much a run of the mill looney killing a high profile person.

    Why are you still confused at this civilization juncture? : DO NOT LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE -> use everything that can be used as leverage to be easier to control people.

  • The Fyrdman

    It bothers me that I see no journalist asking the simple question “And if this law had been passed prior to his murder, would Sir. David still be alive?”

    The answer is clearly no – so why are you passing it? Obviously I, and we, have our beliefs as to why they would push such a law through but the fact I havn’t seen even the most basic of interrogations is deeply saddening.

  • Paul Marks

    Frasor Orr – I think I can help you with your question.

    The On Line Harms Bill (and the general campaign for EVEN MORE censorship), came BEFORE the murder – in short they are using the murder to do what they want to do anyway.

    This is happening in various fields. For example, the plans for lockdowns and so on were worked (in international conferences and so on) BEFORE Covid 19.

    “We want to do X – so we will look for something that gives us the excuse to do X, pretending that X is a response to the event” – that is the normal government (and Corporate) way these days, internationally.

    I am reminded of Roger Sherman’s answer to demands at the Constitutional Convention that the Congress should be allowed to print money (rather than have physical gold and silver as the only money) in “an emergency” – his reply was that it was precisely in an “emergency” that government was most dangerous and the most in need of limiting by Constitutional rules.

    Roger Sherman’s warnings, and the Constitution he helped write, were disregarded by the Supreme Court in the Second Greenback Case (although even the judgement in the first Greenback case is far from perfect), and in 1935 – when the Supreme Court ruled, five Justices to four, that both private and public contracts, specifically the gold clauses in those contracts, could be disregarded (ripped up)_by the government.

    The same “legal reasoning” that replaced no State shall make anything other than gold or silver coin legal tender (Article One. Section Ten of the Constitution of the United States) and Congress has the power to “coin money” (not print it – which would violate the Tenth Amendment, and make the Constitutional Convention meaningless – as it was called to PUT AN END to the madness of the “not worth a Continental” paper money of the Continental Congress), Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United States, will have no problem at all in getting rid of the First Amendment.

    “Freedom of Speech yes – but HATE SPEECH is not Free Speech” – with “Hate Speech” being defined as any opinion the left does not agree with.

    They will do the same thing to the 2nd Amendment and all other limits on government power. Indeed Joseph Biden has personally worked on such things for many years.

    It was the “moderate” Joseph Biden who campaigned to use Tort Law to destroy the private ownership of firearms (by the back door).

    Yes Mr Biden is senile – but anyone who really thinks he was a “moderate” when he was not senile, has never bothered to read the Senate voting records.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>