Several of us here have spent years, decades, living in places and cultures that are not Britain. At which point Boris turning up to vote without ID produces a chortle in everyone. Marina Hyde gives us more such mirthtful examples.

Did we really expect Tory MPs who fought for voter ID rules to follow them? Don’t be ridiculous

But in that is one of the glories of Britain. One that we’d all miss, terribly, when it’s gone.

Yes, of course, it’s possible to think that voter ID is the best thing since that sandwich bread came out. It’s possible to think that it’s voter suppression and all that. And clearly there’s more than just the single chortle to be had from the architects of the idea not being able to vote as a result of not, erm, having their ID.

But the glory? Absolutely no one has said but, but, that’s Boris! Being ex-PM (and who knows, future once again?) doesn’t make any difference. Being, as is pointed out, a current MP (Tom Hunt) makes no difference either. The law says no ID no vote. This applies equally to all, from the very grandest in the country to you, me and the bloke sleeping under the bridge.

That experience of in foreign tells us that this is rare in a society. Sure, argue about what the rules should be but rules are going to be obeyed.

As we’ve noted before the English, then British, deal was always that there weren’t going to be many rules but those there were were going to be important. This brought the societal buy-in which led to near all the population, near all the time, obeying what rules there were. As opposed to many places we’ve been where rules are the thing you swap advice on how to avoid, ignore or undermine. Those places where there are rules about everything, in detail, thus the very concept of rules being important is undermined.

Yes, of course this is slightly handwavey and even romanticising. Yet there’s still that nub of truth to it. As we said yesterday about waste disposal - make the rules too detailed, too expensive, and the black market will arrive. As is obviously going to be true of the foolishness over smoking and vapes.

Britain, largely, obeys the law because there isn’t much law to obey. What law there is is important. Or, rather, that was the old deal. As we become ever more like the Roman Law continent (or, Lord Forbid, like the Soviet system) then the attitude to the law will become like it is there.

We’ll miss the rule of law when it’s gone.

I received an email asking me to contribute to Yale for my class reunion.
My response:
"Last year I faced suspension and a trespassing charge if I returned to campus without proof of a 5th COVID shot.
Perhaps you can ask one of the fine Yalies bravely harassing their Jewish…

— AJ Edelman, OLY, MBA (@realajedelman) April 29, 2024

AJ Edelman, OLY, MBA
@realajedelman
I received an email asking me to contribute to Yale for my class reunion.
My response:
“Last year I faced suspension and a trespassing charge if I returned to campus without proof of a 5th COVID shot.
Perhaps you can ask one of the fine Yalies bravely harassing their Jewish peers instead. They’re easy to find; they’re hosting a Jew hatred festival in the middle of campus and calling for violent intifada.”
12:30 AM · Apr 30, 2024

Now that’s what I call an effective non-violent protest.

“Enough is enough. It’s time to stop this nonsense. Students should be expelled and acts of violence should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Foreign students who harass Jewish students or commit acts of violence and vandalism should have their student visas revoked and be deported immediately. Colleges and universities that cannot or will not protect their Jewish students should suffer consequences as well, having their federal funding suspended. Alumni should suspend donations to their alma maters. And under no circumstances should universities cancel graduations or force students into virtual classrooms. There should be thorough investigations, and university presidents should be forced to resign, or be fired.”

– Vikram Mansharamani

Take a look around you (you don’t have to live in the UK to play this trick, of course): does it strike you that you live in a country in which ‘freedom of speech, assembly, religion, privacy and much more’ are guaranteed? And does it strike you that those freedoms – ‘and much more’ – have been given greater protection since 1998, or less? It strikes me rather that they are becoming ever more contingent, and ever more subject to suspicion. And this is absolutely no accident; it is in part because when the HRA came into effect in the UK, it ushered in the notion that most rights are ‘qualified’ rather than absolute, meaning that that they can be constrained where ‘proportionate’ to the achievement of some legitimate aim of government. The result of this is that rights such as those to freedom of speech or assembly, which were once more or less absolute in the UK except where subject to clear constraint in the form of statutory or common law rules, are now in large part dependent on the whims of judges’ determinations about whether or not interference with the right in question would be legitimate and proportionate. (This is often framed, with respect to freedom of speech, around the rubric of what would be ‘acceptable in a democratic society’ to say – in the eyes, of course, of the judge.)

In summary, then, the idea that human rights law is a body of rules which are necessary to constrain the State, and that the ECHR and its incorporation into UK law by the HRA represented a new era of increased ‘dignity and respect’, is simply not true. What is rather true is that law will tend to follow politics, and indeed will be bent to serve political interests – and human rights law is no different.

– David McGrogan

The post How #MeToo helped Harvey Weinstein dodge justice appeared first on spiked.