weight of the state

A couple of things that struck me about the Learco Chindamo flap. The first is that the government, in its fundamental attitude, is lawless. It incorporates European Convention on Human Rights into British law and signs up to the directive preventing the deportation of people between EU members, but blithely assumes that somehow this shouldn’t have any bearing on its actions. Jack Straw blames this on how the law is interpreted, but the implication of that is that the law should not be interpreted in any way that makes the government unpopular.

There’s also the notion that the idea of rights “disproportionately” benefits criminals. The point about rights is that they are inalienable and apply to everyone. Otherwise, they’re not rights. This would be just as true of any British Bill of Rights as it is of international conventions. The beneficial effect is generally negative for law abiding people, in that rights keep the state from interfering in our lives too aggressively. The positive effect of rights legislation comes into play when people are in contact or conflict with the state, and it follows that many of these people will be criminals. This is when actual decisions have to be made. Aside from the generally hysterical media coverage of cases like this it’s precisely the fact that rights successfully keep the full weight of the state off most people’s shoulders that encourages them in the belief that they mainly benefit the undeserving.

And don't tell me that people "also have responsibilities." That's like saying that people have rights, but they also have rhubarb.

Comments

[A. Non]

I work in an office where we take queries on human rights issues every day, and I can tell you that it would be very, very helpful if the government would stand behind its own legislation.

What would be even more helpful would be if the press would actually explain to the public what rights actually are. I've had calls from people saying that -

- bars that don't provide free water breach their rights,

- not being able to break a contract you've signed is a breach of their rights,

- Neighbours that argue a lot breach their rights etc.

What they all mean is I've been treated unfairly, which is a far different thing.

I've actually had people quote the American Bill of Rights at me, for Christ's sake.

[Feeder of Felines]

``What they all mean is I've been treated unfairly, which is a far different thing.''

Not necessarily, cf. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice. The fairness bit in the cases in question is no doubt to be seen the matter elided in the above descriptions. I suspect that the callers are confusing some notion of ``moral rights'' with ``legal rights''. The concept ``human rights'' strongly encourages that confusion, since the latter are not usually taken to be a matter of some particular code of law, but held to be prior to all laws (except by Bentham, Hobbes, etc. -:)

[A.Non]

Not necessarily...

Well, in fairness, I was talking about rights that can be enforced in the courts, rather than the philosophical concept.