Murdering Democracy by Inciting & Inspiring Terrorism: My Views on the Events of January 6th, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

Yesterday, in the United States of America, we saw the destruction of democracy. Whereever you were in the world, you could see the images, live, of the terror that reigned down on the US Capitol Building, stopping Congress in its tracks. This destruction of democracy was incited and inspired by the leader of the United States, President Trump. Those people who were protesting, who were roiting, who attempting a coup d’état of the United States Congress and the Presidential leadership going forward, are not patriots of America, and they are not defenders of the Constitution of the United States, or defenders of Democracy. They are allowing an authoritarian dictator, somebody who does not like to relinquish power when they need to, and cannot accept “no” for an answer, to rule supremely over a nation. They are destroying their country. They are destroying our country.

Yesterday, there were scenes of terror visible on our screens worldwide. There were scenes of destruction. These people stopped votes from taking place. They stopped argument. If that is what they want to beleive is democratic, then they do not understand what democracy is. In fact, they are fighting against what democracy is in its most simplistic form. They have been lead by a President that is no better than a facist dictator at this point, to beleive exactly what he says.

The words of a President, and the words of a leader, are some of the most important words we as a society hear. They are words which we follow. Some of us take those words spiritually, others look for meaning between the lines. Some people take those words literally. Those words are important. Everything that we say is important. As a leader of a country, people are going to listen; people will take what you say literally, regardless of whether you intend for those words intepreted by the people in a literal context. They will listen to what you say regardless of whether it is true or untrue. Therefore, when you potentially incite violence by those words, or even use words which could be interpreted by some as inciting violence, and in this case, inspiring violence, it is not okay; it is beyond the realms of acceptable language to be used by a leader of a country, especially the President of the United States, who is, after all, is the leader of the free world supposed to be the Leader of the Free World. These allegations that the Republicans, that Trump Supporters, have lost an election because of “voter fraud,” and that it was stolen by the Democrats, are wrong, and need to stop. Any politician, and any senior or authoritative figure who is repeating these claims, do not support democracy or the freedom of the American People. Instead, they beleive in the Freedom of Hatred, and that only.

These political figures who are these self-proclaimed political & democratic “fighters”, and that includes people such as Republican Senator for Texas, Ted Cruz, don’t support your freedom. They support “freedom” for a select few, usually themselves. That is why they beleive in this freedom of hatred. These people “beleive” and support the Second Amendment’s Right to Bear Arms not for your protection or the protection of American ideals, but for the protection of their rights, and their ideals. They beleive in these freedoms and these rights on the grounds that they can kill and they can intimidate people by enforcing what they beleive are their rights. I will reiterate; they do not care about your rights, they only care about their rights. They did not care that 81 million Americans voted for President-Elect Biden; they only care about the fact that 74 million Americans voted for President Trump. They only “care” about the First Amendment’s right to the Freedom of Speech when it supports their speech and their ideas; they do not support your opposition to that speech, or speech which disagrees with their viewpoint. In fact, they hate that kind of speech. This speech is usually only protected by them so that they beleive they have the right to hate upon others, and to defame them. They beleive in taking people’s rights away. These are people’s rights to choose, people’s rights to privacy. They only beleive this to enforce their ideals, and so that they can incite and inspire further hatred. They only care about making people suffer. They beleive in the right to supress other people’s rights; that is so that they can enforce their ideals, and their ideology, upon the people of the United States. That is not freedom, and that is not democracy. They are not fighting for the Constitution, they are fighting against it.

There is no right in the Constitution of the United States of America to intimidate another person.

There is no right in the Constitution of the United States of America to tell another person that their voice is not equal, their vote is not equal (or invalid), and that they, as citizens of the United States, are not equal.

These people are not upholding the Constitution. These people do not know what the Constitution stands for.

In response to yesterday’s tragedy, I have seen calls to invoke the 25th Amendment. At this stage, I am unsure as to whether this is the right thing to do, both legally, and logically. Prima Facie, it seems the most logical step, as it reduces the power of “President” Trump to only be a ceremonial role, and gives Vice President Pence the power to make Presidential decisions, at least until the time that President-Elect Biden will be inaugorated. However, in the light of yesterday’s events, and analysing the political uncertainty and instability of the United States at present, I would be scared that invoking the 25th Amendment, and / or proceeding with impeachment proceedings against “President” Trump and the Senators and Representatives who challenged the certification of the election, as well as called for these protests, riots, and violence, will incite and inspire further acts of violence, and compromise our democracy further, as well as the lives of many citizens of the United States, regardless of who they are or what position they are in right now. We need peace. We need security. We need to uphold our democracy. In a perfect world, I would be calling for impeachment, and the 25th Amendment to be followed; in a perfect world, these events would not have happened, nor would I be scared of further violence erupting as a result. There is less than 2 weeks left until President-Elect Biden becomes President Biden. It will be a long and painful 2 weeks, but we need to pull through this and be strong. Yes, impeachment is ideal, and quite frankly, “President” Trump needs to be stripped of his title as well as imprisoned for his actions of yesterday alone (let alone the other offences which he may be responsible for), but right now we are not in an ideal situation, but an uncertain and fragile one. Our priority is safety, regardless of its cost.

COVID-19 or not: Democracy is being Threatened, and We Cannot Ignore It

We are in the midst of a total lockdown in the United Kingdom due to the COVID-19, or the Coronavirus Crisis. It is understandable that we need to stop the spread of the disease, and I support the fact that we should all be acting collectively to contain the crisis as much as possible and relieve our healthcare system. However, I think it is important to highlight this should not be an excuse for democracy to be threatened, and I think people like myself have a reason to worry about these issues.

I feel democracy and autonomy are both being threatened. These are my reasons why:

  • Local Council Elections have been Suspended for May 2020
  • We may face a complete lockdown in Britain

 

Local Council Election Suspension

This may seem a justified reason, but I will attempt to persuade you this is not. The first reason why follows the fact that elections were cancelled before schools were suspended, meaning we were happy to allow children to spread the virus in a large gathering, but would not allow for the counting of votes. Why are we worried about spreading the virus in polling stations when shops, cafes and restaurants were open during this time?

My second reason is that we have the ability to have postal votes in the United Kingdom, so polling station closures surely do not matter. We can just give everyone a postal vote, right? I usually vote myself through a postal vote, because it allows me more flexibility when it comes to election day to not be home. Surely this means elections can take place, and people could be tested who are required to be in polling stations. As postal votes are counted over a longer period anyway, we could adjust to that, and it would likely reduce the number of people needed in the voting process anyway, containing and reducing the virus anyway. Many other people are still going to have to work in this crisis, and democratic society should be pushing for this; elections, after all, are imperative to a democratic society, regardless of what other crisis is going on.

If you think my reasoning is unjustified, consider what was in the Conservative Party Manifesto in December 2019. The Conservative Party want to repeal the Fixed Terms Parliament Act 2011, which will mean we are NOT guaranteed to have elections every 5 years. In our legal system, we are not guaranteed to elections anyway due to Parliamentary Sovereignty (hence, we need a Constitution in this country, and fast), which threatens the democratic process anyway regardless of government. But a party which expressly wants to remove the right to elections every 5 years, and not state how they will change the system to guarantee democratic accountability via a vote is a worry that more people should be concerned about. Will Brexit give our government a mandate to not hold elections in 5 years time? What about if there is a terrorist attack or a strike? Will that mean that elections are suspended that year too? What about if people catch the flu, or we have an economic crisis? Will that also be a legitimate time to not have a general election or a local election?

 

Lockdown:

A lockdown is a threat of personal autonomy. At the end of the day, the Government ‘Advice’ is purely that: advice. Yes, people will ignore it. Those people are a threat to themselves, and they are a threat to other people too. But many people are following the advice too, which is an attack on personal autonomy.

I am personally respecting the fact that I should not be going outside and keeping my distance, and have only visited places I have needed to either to continue with my studies (I had to collect books from the Library at University to continue with an essay we must still complete, and this could not be done earlier due to the questions for the essays not being released until Friday afternoon (20th March 2020), or when I have had to go and get food supplies such as milk to continue to live. I have stopped myself from associating with friends publically or privately, although I needed to collect a book from a friend before I returned home, so they left it on the porch to their house; therefore we had no social contact.

I also do not trust our government to stop the lockdown process when the crisis has ended; in fact, I can see them telling us the crisis is continuing when it is not. I might be over-reacting, but this is more than a gut-feeling. They may say the whole world is facing this situation, but North Korea says that all the time. The fact that there is no other news apart from Coronavirus makes me worry there is something to hide in all this, and makes me feel that our government is losing its legitimacy, particularly as Brexit is also supposed to be taking place (although we have left the European Union, we are still in the transition period).

If people choose to act in a particular way, that is their right. We have the freedom to decide how to live our lives.

 

What will the future hold?

I can see that by the time I open this blog post to the world, the legislation could say we cannot criticise the government in this process. If we lose our Freedom of Expression due to there being a ‘National Emergency’ or a lockdown, and I can also see that happening with the ’emergency’ legislation, then we no longer live in a democracy, but a dictatorship. Only time will answer this one; I just hope for the best, but I fear for the worst.

Well Britain used to be a Democracy, but not anymore…

PM Boris Johnson deciding to suspend Parliament to pass a no-deal Brexit is not only wrong, but it undermines our whole idea of democracy.

If Brexit (The term used for the United Kingdom leaving the European Union) is truly about maintaining democracy and sovereignty within the United Kingdom, no Brexiteer (a person who voted to leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum) should support the move by Boris Johnson, because it directly conflicts with the idea of democracy dangerously. Yes, the referendum should be respected, and if the United Kingdom decides to leave the European Union without a deal, that is okay (legally, not politically, or economically, or socially … ) But our system of government, our law-making ways, are supposed to be the reason for leaving the European Union; therefore, if we are to leave the EU, then it must be done via the proper channels, and by respecting our law-making ways and system of government.

But many Brexiteers, and sadly the British public, see any challenge to the fundamentals of democracy which complicates Brexit as “undemocratic” and “not what we voted for.” They do not realise that in many of the circumstances, the whole idea of leaving the European Union is not being questioned, but instead making sure it is done correctly and safely so at least the country does not suffer as catestrophically as one might expect. Such example was how the British Media portrayed both Gina Miller and the High Court Justices preciding in the case of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] as being “Enemies of the People” as well as “Traitors” to both the United Kingdom and Democracy. The case, which eventually was heard by the Supreme Court, ruled that Parliament (as the Legislature) had to trigger Article 50 TEU, and it could not the Prime Minister or her Cabinet (as the Executive), therefore preserving how democracy operates in the United Kingdom. Therefore, these were not enemies of the people at all, but instead were individuals which wanted to protect the interests of the UK population, and make sure Brexit was completed properly.

With the current constitutional crisis which PM Johnson has added to, it seems that the Miller case is particularly important at enforcing the fact that it is Parliament that resides over Brexit decisions, and not our Prime Minister. Further, we have seen further judicial attempts to stop Boris Johnson in his tracks; not necessarily to stop Brexit, but to make sure that we leave the European Union in a way which coincides with our democratic processes. Recent news suggests however that PM Boris Johnson would in fact ignore either Parliament or the Courts if he is blocked in his attempts to unilaterally start a no-deal Brexit.

When I have had discussions with people over prorogating Parliament, they point out that John Major did the same during 1997. The democratic difference however is in its circumstances and uses between the two PM’s. PM Major prorogued Parliament following the annoucement of a General Election in the time of a political scandal. PM Johnson is attempting to prorogue Parliament to stop it from attempting to block a no-deal Brexit and unilaterally legislate for our country. This is a scary situation for lawyers, both practicing and academic, as they do not know what will happen next in the country. The reason we find this scary in the UK is because we believe in a way of thinking that Parliament is always Sovereign. This goes back to the days of John Locke and his ideology that the legislature is supreme (known as the theory of Parliamentary Supremacy). If Parliament is Supreme, it can legislate that it could have complete control of the situation, and could potentially halt all future general elections, and potentially give all legislative powers to a Prime Minister, therefore legislating to remove democracy. As the situation stands, any new government / parliament can legislate over a previous government,

Parliamentary Supremecy and Sovereignty are fundamental to leaving the European Union anyway. If Parliament was not sovereign while a member of the European Union, we would have been unable to trigger Article 50 or legislate to leave the European Union with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Therefore the UK could not have lost its sovereignty to the European Union. But then again, there is a strong, false belief in a further Lisbon Treaty among Brexiteers which would force the UK to join Schengen and the Euro by 2020…

Brexiteers who voted to leave the EU purely based on wanting the UK to remain sovereign do not understand that the UK’s sovereignty cannot be taken away. This cannot be done in International Law or European Union Law, but cannot be done under our own constitutional beliefs. Because the UK does not have a written or codified constitution does not mean we do not have a constitutional system.

Bibliography / Sources:

James Slack, ‘Enemies of the people: Fury over ‘out of touch’ judges who have ‘declared war on democracy’ by defying 17.4m Brexit voters and who could trigger constitutional crisis’ (Daily Mail, 3rd November 2016) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3903436/Enemies-people-Fury-touch-judges-defied-17-4m-Brexit-voters-trigger-constitutional-crisis.html Accessed 3rd September 2019

Peter Walker & Jessica Elgot, ‘Boris Johnson’s ultimatum: back me or face 14 October election’ (The Guardian, 2nd September 2019) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/02/boris-johnson-threatens-to-ignore-mps-on-no-deal-brexit Accessed 3rd September 2019

Work Experience: Is Europe the Future?

As mentioned in last weeks blog post, I come from a relatively stable background, but by no means are we wealthy. We also are not from a socially acceptable background for the law career. This may sound weird, and this blog is going to sound like a slight rant, but what I am basically concluding is this: Nobody is interested in me here in the U.K., law wise, because I am not of the right background or class.

Social and economic status, also referred to as class, is an important aspect of British society. One which makes me love the United States so much; it seems to have disappeared there! I may sound as if I am complaining, and in a way I am, but I have a good point to write about.

I have tried for the last three years to get some sort of work experience, either as a solicitor or a barrister, within the UK. Usually, I have applied for work experience programs, as well as local firms, myself. Because of the lack of success I achieved, I decided that I would also try through my university this year, which also failed miserably. Apparently, there were better suiters to the work experience program than myself. Although one firm did offer to take me on for work experience, which I gladly accepted, it was not actually what I was looking for. The firm actually focused in selling insurance, but wrote Wills on the side for many of its clients. Not a law firm, but at least some legal experience. As much as I can sound bitter to that opinion and may seem entitled, I think I personally have a right to complain here.

We are constantly reminded to build our C.V. up in order to attract future employment to us. Not only do I have significantly high grades for university, I undertake a lot of extra-curricular activities of my own. I am a Scout Leader. I am part of a separate organisation which volunteers to run events as well as specialises within a hobby I like. I enjoy travelling. I studied in the United States. I have worked on my Duke of Edinburgh award, and represented the Scout Association Internationally in 2015. I have participated in numerous business and community challenges throughout my education. I have held two jobs, with one of them working with challenging children and young adults, including those with disabilities such as complete loss of hearing. I have even been recognised by the Queen of England (and many other nations) for my voluntary work! Yet, I am apparently not good enough to qualify for the university work experience program?

Thankfully, through my own means, I managed to get work experience support from the continent. Two firms snatched me up in one city alone, one being a major US firm with a UK office! Why are they happy to take an English speaker abroad, who cannot speak the local language (apart from the GCSE grade C I got during my high school education), instead of taking me in my own country? It just does not seem right. I’ve been asked by people why did you not try and get work experience in the UK as well as why Europe? Is the UK not good enough? The reality of the situation was that the UK was not good enough, and I had to travel further afield to find unpaid (or so I thought) work. Turns out the European firms did actually want to pay me for my time, and I was not just treated as a person doing the simple, boring tasks, but I had proper work experience.

I think my answer is Europe could be my future. It makes sense, particularly following the mess that Brexit has resulted in. And the experience being in Europe has been extremely good.

Capital Punishment: Advocating against Death

If you really want to kill someone, give them life without parole. It’s worse than dying.

Gordon “Randy” Steidl, Illinois Death Row Inmate 12th August 1987 – 18th February 1999.

I am writing this only a few days after the mass shootings in El Paso, TX and Dayton, OH. I am British. I study at a university in the UK, but Texas is extremely close to my heart, having spent a wonderful year of my life there in its biggest city. But I have two problems with Texas, both of which are extremely controversial at this time:

I think there is a need for gun control, and having control is not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.

Capital Punishment is wrong.

Today, I am focusing on the latter problem.

There are numerous reasons I do not beleive that Capital Punishment is the correct punishment, even for the most serious and brutal murders. Many of those who disagree with my views beleive those who advocate against Death Row, like myself, want to spare the lives of guilty people, and want to protect them. For myself at least, that is not true. I could not care less if the State of Texas, the State of Indiana, the United States of America or even if the United Kingdom wanted to give our most evil convicts the ultimate punishment of taking their life away for the crimes that they have commited. In many ways, I actually would support this. However, my views, and I imagine the views of many oppositionists, challenge the view that a state can take away the life of an innocent individual, who are currently facing the possibility of their life being taken away from them for a crime they did not commit.

The first arguement always presented to this view is that there cannot be many innocent people on death row or everyone on death row is guilty! There are no innocent people. This is often followed with a load of abuse of why I am a traitor to the United States or the United Kingdom, and that I must always believe the criminal rather than the victim. The reality is much more scary. I understand that statistics are often thrown about, and are usually used in a way as to bias one’s agenda, but I think they still serve a purpose. 4.1% of those currently on Death Row in the United States are beleived to be innocent and would be released, if they could have their appeals heard.¹ 4% looks like nothing, but is 1 in 25 people, less people than were in all of my classes at high school. Capital murder has more inmates released for wrongful conviction than any other crime in the United States, at a rate of nearly 12 times than of any other crime.

Thankfully, while an inmate is alive, their proved innocence can spare them from the state’s wrongful death. One person who knows this too well is Gordan “Randy” Steidl, who I quoted above. Although he was removed from the Illinois Death Row in 1996, he remained a life prisoner until 2003. Steidl was eventually released from prison

Well, the innocent inmates on Death Row will be released following their appeal. That is frequently the next line I hear from a person who supports Capital Punishment.

End Notes:

¹ Antony Galvin, Old Sparky: The Electric Chair and the History of the Death Penalty (Skyhorse Publishing, 2015) 227

Bibliography:

‘Death Penalty Cost’ (Amnesty USA) http://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/ Accessed 6th August 2019

Ed Barnes, ‘Just or Not, Cost of Death Penalty Is a Killer for State Budgets’ (Fox News, 27th March 2010) http://www.foxnews.com/us/just-or-not-cost-of-death-penalty-is-a-killer-for-state-budgets Accessed 6th August 2019

Hugo Adam Bedau (ed), The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies (Oxford University Press, 1997)

Kelly Phillips Erb, ‘Considering The Death Penalty: Your Tax Dollars At Work’ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/#5cd6abb4664b Accessed 6th August 2019

Antony Galvin, Old Sparky: The Electric Chair and the History of the Death Penalty (Skyhorse Publishing, 2015)

Michelle Lyons, Death Row: The Final Minutes (Blink Publishing, 2018)

‘Gordon Steidl’ (The National Registry of Exonerations) http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3661 Accessed 6th August 2019