In case the name of TMP misleads, I'd like to stress that The Majority Party sets out to defend the rights of the individual - but it also insists on enforcing responsibilities: and it is where those responsibilities impinge on the Majority that we tend to part company with fashionable political thinking.
From this principle should arise law based on enforcing responsibilities which are generally clear, obvious and the product of common sense - rather than the current fad for creating and defending rights, which are generally wooly, ambiguous and a lawyer’s delight of misinterpretation and unforseen consequence.
This difference of approach largely explains the ridiculous consequences of Labour's mindless adoption of the ECHR, and its unthinking enforcement by the process sheep of Whitehall. Law concerning individual rights should be so obvious to sane people that any lawyer trying to make a living from practising it should be living in a cardboard box, not 10 Downing Street.
A fine example being those notorious payments to folks recumbent at HM's pleasure for obliging them to give up their narcotic habits too abruptly. As Catherine Tate's infamous Nan might say "What a flipppin' libertry..."
“Obvious” means starting with simple ideas like not receiving unwanted cold-calls on the phone, and ends up with more complex issues such as not getting blown up on public transport because a minority government listened to apparently flawed advice from unaccountable experts …and arm twisting from a US administration elected by a minority of that country's voters.
Avoiding being blown up is not an "individual right" to be defended; it is the responsibility of a responsible government to ensure that it does not happen in the first place. There is a BIG difference. In this case the process of consequences that lead to 7/7 - the defence of the rights of those involved to pursue a form of irrational religious fanaticism that overtly proposes violent insurrection - was ultimately irresponsible to the majority.
TMP believes that primary responsibility is not to interfere with the rights and lives of those who do not wish to be hassled, except where the exercise of their responsibilities to others is at issue. By all means feel free to be a practising vegan transsexual Jedi Kinght with Goth tendencies. In fact, the more you wish to exert your individuality, the simpler it is for the rest of the community to appreciate, embrace and understand your diversity and understand you for “what you are”; but please don’t complain about rights when your choice means it is difficult to get a job where “normality” is a requirement.
So if McDonalds turn you down, apply to your local LibDem or Labour Party selection committee; you’ll be amongst friends.
One aspect I'm very concerned with is the right to privacy. These RFID chips have me worried. Especially after I read this article called Human Implantation of RFID Chips.
Post a Comment