"politics is itself - globally - appearing to shift in the direction of command and subordination, and contempt for the autonomy..." - yes, but is there not also an as-yet mostly subterranean but ultimately much stronger move against this, which is being born precisely as a response to that development? I may be deluded, but I am hoping that to be the case
The ex Public Prosecutors in power might like to act as if what they initiate as legal precepts is cut and dried, fait accompli, but as you point out there is a ground swell of opposition from a Fuller perspective, not yet realised nor coordinated. Unjust and unfair laws, history shows, are never accepted for the long term with a shrug of the shoulders. The deluded are those divorcing the law from morality.
I remember a sermon of 30 years ago where the preacher warned of the threat of legal positivism using a verse from Habbakuk describing the ruthless Chaldean army: "They are dreaded and feared; from themselves they derive justice and sovereignty." (Hab 1:7)
Since that time, I have been observing the development of that threat.
The consolation here, is that the secularists will eventually be exposed and the faithful will be vindicated.
The erudition of today is just differently shaped. Positivism is also having a remarkable influence on the institutional church through a process we might call "reverse syncretisation". This is where biblical concepts are re-purposed by the secularists and all references to Christ or to the Logos are removed. Examples of this include: (i) "love is love"; (ii) human rights in place of the image of God; peace (on whose terms?); (iv) "social justice" in place of righteousness. The institutional church, wishing to remain relevant, accepts and preaches the re-purposed concepts because it convinces itself that there is a trace of christianity remaining.
A similar form of positivism has influenced our scientists too. Their ethical framework is derived from themselves and is, as a consequence, highly problematic. I unpack some of this on my substack - but it is a long and fascinating story!
Although not a believer myself, I think that the widespread loss of faith is becoming more and more problematic, as is the increasing use of Statutory Instruments and the idea of living laws e.g. ECHR where judges can interpret them afresh as they wish (which you've written about before).
This reached a new high (or low) point with the recent decision not to implement the University Free Speech Bill. How can a Minister just decide to do this just on their own say so ? Repeal the law certainly, but only after the appropriate debate and motion passed in the HoC.
Well I'm sure she did. But BoJo had the technical right to prorogue Parliament until the spider lady decided differently. Let's hope the FSU JR succeeds.
Excellent and thought provoking essay. Re: the idea of law as "achieving a political objective." I am very interested to explore the instrumentality and utilitarianism applied to almost everything. It is happening to people as well. If you cannot show a purpose for something or someone, there is no 'use' or 'need' for it/him/her. I cannot help thinking about the brazen "attack" (if that is the right term) upon the elderly with the almost triumphant snatching away of the winter fuel allowance (plus threats to remove the council tax single person discount) in congruence with ramping up the legal availability of euthanasia. The elderly as useless eaters and consumers of resources, versus the contrivance of "working people" in place of "working class" people. It is all looking rather grim.
Yes, it’s all very ‘left brain’ for those interested in McGilchrist. The main Oakeshott resource on all of this is On Human Conduct. I personally think you can probably skip the first third of the book - the stuff on the law and the state comes in the second and third parts.
Tremendous stuff, as usual. I have for you an example of law being "wielded as a political tool for the manipulation and discipline of society, or even as a weapon against it." Two men in Alberta, Canada -- Chris Carbert & Tony Olienick -- were sentenced just yesterday to 6 & 6.5 years, respectively, for combined mischief and weapons charges related to their participation in the blockade of the Canada-U.S. border crossing at Coutts, Alberta, during the Freedom Convoy protests in February 2022. To date they have spent over two years in remand, though neither man had a criminal record or any history of violence. They had also been charged with conspiracy to murder RCMP officers, but a jury found them not guilty of that charge back in August. The entire Coutts affair was cited prominently by the Trudeau government in Feb 2022 as a major part of the impetus for their invocation of emergency powers, the freezing of protestors' bank accounts, etc. Now, I am no jurist and I concede the guilty verdicts on the mischief and weapons charges may well be appropriate. But 6.5 years? After 2.5 in custody with no bail? Even allowing for the fact that they may be released sometime in 2025 (credit X2 for time already served, plus 2/3rds sentencing guidelines), these sentences strike me as unusually severe in the context of Canada's justice system. You can read more here if you're interested: https://www.newsweek.com/political-trial-unfolds-canada-coutts-four-are-exonerated-opinion-1935791
By the way, I am still planning on taking out a paid subscription, but I'm waiting until the new year when I can sub out a 'stack that's no longer doing it for me.
Yes, this kind of stuff is everywhere. It’s the incongruity of the very severe sentences, obviously exemplary, for people like these guys, while ‘ordinary’ criminals are treated so leniently, which makes people worried. It is getting too obvious to ignore.
"This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom." [Churchill, 1939]
To my shame I don't remember enough of Gibbon, and have enough waiting on my bookshelf to go back into in detail now, but I wonder if towards the end of the Roman Empire folk could see it coming, had a feeling in their gut, or just assumed that their way of life was a given. This chimes with Sam's point above. Do we have a feeling in our gut, or are we approaching a full-on Yugoslavia?
Very illuminating, David, thanks for writing this. I have one small observation to make in this regard. In the United States, the blue team has taken to talking about "our democracy". This is a sign of their purposes, for by this they mean 'the social purposes by which we intend to use the democratic institutions to enforce' (i.e. telos). It evidently does not mean citizen democracy.
PS: It amuses me that in Doctor Who the ideologically-stunted Cybermen originally hail from the planet Telos.
"politics is itself - globally - appearing to shift in the direction of command and subordination, and contempt for the autonomy..." - yes, but is there not also an as-yet mostly subterranean but ultimately much stronger move against this, which is being born precisely as a response to that development? I may be deluded, but I am hoping that to be the case
There always is - but I think there will be a lot of pain first.
The ex Public Prosecutors in power might like to act as if what they initiate as legal precepts is cut and dried, fait accompli, but as you point out there is a ground swell of opposition from a Fuller perspective, not yet realised nor coordinated. Unjust and unfair laws, history shows, are never accepted for the long term with a shrug of the shoulders. The deluded are those divorcing the law from morality.
I remember a sermon of 30 years ago where the preacher warned of the threat of legal positivism using a verse from Habbakuk describing the ruthless Chaldean army: "They are dreaded and feared; from themselves they derive justice and sovereignty." (Hab 1:7)
Since that time, I have been observing the development of that threat.
The consolation here, is that the secularists will eventually be exposed and the faithful will be vindicated.
PS Isn’t it incredible how erudite the clergy (of whatever denomination) used to be in comparison to now?
The erudition of today is just differently shaped. Positivism is also having a remarkable influence on the institutional church through a process we might call "reverse syncretisation". This is where biblical concepts are re-purposed by the secularists and all references to Christ or to the Logos are removed. Examples of this include: (i) "love is love"; (ii) human rights in place of the image of God; peace (on whose terms?); (iv) "social justice" in place of righteousness. The institutional church, wishing to remain relevant, accepts and preaches the re-purposed concepts because it convinces itself that there is a trace of christianity remaining.
This is how the frog is boiled.
Excellent observations.
Such a fascinating comment - thanks for that.
A similar form of positivism has influenced our scientists too. Their ethical framework is derived from themselves and is, as a consequence, highly problematic. I unpack some of this on my substack - but it is a long and fascinating story!
Although not a believer myself, I think that the widespread loss of faith is becoming more and more problematic, as is the increasing use of Statutory Instruments and the idea of living laws e.g. ECHR where judges can interpret them afresh as they wish (which you've written about before).
This reached a new high (or low) point with the recent decision not to implement the University Free Speech Bill. How can a Minister just decide to do this just on their own say so ? Repeal the law certainly, but only after the appropriate debate and motion passed in the HoC.
Technically she kinda-sorta had that power, but the FSU have an interesting judicial review in the offing about the vires of her decision.
Well I'm sure she did. But BoJo had the technical right to prorogue Parliament until the spider lady decided differently. Let's hope the FSU JR succeeds.
'Is it in the public interest to prosecute?' I must say, I hadn't, before, seen anything potentially sinister in the question but I believe I do now.
Yes, quite.
Not coincidence. Who better to run or at least be the figure head of a fascist State. Grey people to run grey societies.
I know what you mean. But we have to be careful about definitions. This isn’t fascism. It’s something else.
Benthamite utilitarianism, with its "for the Greater Good" totalitarianism?
Excellent and thought provoking essay. Re: the idea of law as "achieving a political objective." I am very interested to explore the instrumentality and utilitarianism applied to almost everything. It is happening to people as well. If you cannot show a purpose for something or someone, there is no 'use' or 'need' for it/him/her. I cannot help thinking about the brazen "attack" (if that is the right term) upon the elderly with the almost triumphant snatching away of the winter fuel allowance (plus threats to remove the council tax single person discount) in congruence with ramping up the legal availability of euthanasia. The elderly as useless eaters and consumers of resources, versus the contrivance of "working people" in place of "working class" people. It is all looking rather grim.
Yes, it’s all very ‘left brain’ for those interested in McGilchrist. The main Oakeshott resource on all of this is On Human Conduct. I personally think you can probably skip the first third of the book - the stuff on the law and the state comes in the second and third parts.
P.S. Do you have a suitable reference for the Oakshott remarks?
Tremendous stuff, as usual. I have for you an example of law being "wielded as a political tool for the manipulation and discipline of society, or even as a weapon against it." Two men in Alberta, Canada -- Chris Carbert & Tony Olienick -- were sentenced just yesterday to 6 & 6.5 years, respectively, for combined mischief and weapons charges related to their participation in the blockade of the Canada-U.S. border crossing at Coutts, Alberta, during the Freedom Convoy protests in February 2022. To date they have spent over two years in remand, though neither man had a criminal record or any history of violence. They had also been charged with conspiracy to murder RCMP officers, but a jury found them not guilty of that charge back in August. The entire Coutts affair was cited prominently by the Trudeau government in Feb 2022 as a major part of the impetus for their invocation of emergency powers, the freezing of protestors' bank accounts, etc. Now, I am no jurist and I concede the guilty verdicts on the mischief and weapons charges may well be appropriate. But 6.5 years? After 2.5 in custody with no bail? Even allowing for the fact that they may be released sometime in 2025 (credit X2 for time already served, plus 2/3rds sentencing guidelines), these sentences strike me as unusually severe in the context of Canada's justice system. You can read more here if you're interested: https://www.newsweek.com/political-trial-unfolds-canada-coutts-four-are-exonerated-opinion-1935791
By the way, I am still planning on taking out a paid subscription, but I'm waiting until the new year when I can sub out a 'stack that's no longer doing it for me.
Yes, this kind of stuff is everywhere. It’s the incongruity of the very severe sentences, obviously exemplary, for people like these guys, while ‘ordinary’ criminals are treated so leniently, which makes people worried. It is getting too obvious to ignore.
"This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom." [Churchill, 1939]
Fascinating and insightful post.
Excellent piece David. Very interesting and thought-provoking.
To my shame I don't remember enough of Gibbon, and have enough waiting on my bookshelf to go back into in detail now, but I wonder if towards the end of the Roman Empire folk could see it coming, had a feeling in their gut, or just assumed that their way of life was a given. This chimes with Sam's point above. Do we have a feeling in our gut, or are we approaching a full-on Yugoslavia?
I think people had that feeling, yes - but I am going off the basis of some very dimly remembered undergrad history courses!
Very illuminating, David, thanks for writing this. I have one small observation to make in this regard. In the United States, the blue team has taken to talking about "our democracy". This is a sign of their purposes, for by this they mean 'the social purposes by which we intend to use the democratic institutions to enforce' (i.e. telos). It evidently does not mean citizen democracy.
PS: It amuses me that in Doctor Who the ideologically-stunted Cybermen originally hail from the planet Telos.