The Constitution of the UK - The State and the Individual

Isabelle Garratt – Slater CER

Unit 2, Module 1: The Constitution of the UK

The State and the Individual

Assignment # 1

By the use of the term “liberal democracy” when describing our society, it is clear that government power is limited firstly, fore mostly and in theory by the fact that we, as humans strive for freedom. Freedom of Speech, freedom to believe, freedom to live without fear or persecution, it is our nature to reject totalitarian rule – not because it is unjust or immoral but because we DO NOT like to be told what to do, or to give another ultimate power over us!

So in this way, the power of the government, of any ruling body or controlling system is limited by public favour, as without followers their powers are greatly lessened. Take for example the French revolution, the American Civil War, contrary to belief people do and will strike out against systems which do not uphold their best interests, even in the small sense of complaining to local MP’s, protesting or creating petitions. Because the Government should serve the people and when they don’t, they face public hatred, in and exterior scrutiny, but to the point: Loss of control.

And, through this accountability to the public, the Governments performance is analysed. If a government is incompetent or ineffective then it will have to answer to public opinion, thus losing its authority through lack of respect or public belief in its suitability for the job.

If it is as stated, that our personal freedoms are the main factor which restricts the States power, then the key to their limitations are the ‘Four Freedoms’ recognised and protected by Law.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

Freedom of Property, where anyone can own land or a house, however the state can make ‘compulsory purchases’ which allow them to make a financial exchange with an onwer to ensure for example that a motorway which would reduce congestion therefore in ‘the best interests of the public’ can be built.

Assembly, or meeting. In this way groups or organisations are permitted to congregate, however contreversial their views, opinions and motivations are; even though their gathering is likely to errupt into violence, or cause unrest.

We as British people are given freedom from arbitary arrest, which encompasses freedom ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

We as British people are given freedom from arbitary arrest, which encompasses freedom to have a fair trial, that a suspect is innocent untill proven guilty through that trial and that no one can be detained without trial – this applies where, a criminal must be charged with a specific offence to be kept in custody and must appear before a magistraits court within 24hours, where their case will be either decided or passed on for higher adjudication. ( Although suspected terrorism carries different time clauses.)

Although if unlawfully arrested or without plausable suspicion one can seek redress, it is still against the law to resist arrest : violently, or otherwise.

Probably most commonly spoken of, Freedom of Speech. Guarded by laws on Blaspemy and obscenity and the further limitations of the race relations act, printed word (publications) can be lawfully censored to protect the public from viewing anything which they may find offensive. Also, slander is a prosecutionable offence

These are known as our ‘Civil Rights’, however as Britain has no written constitution, these rights only exist within the realms of the law and Parliament have the authority to retract them.

The constitutions of democracies, although giving the authority to take away our freedoms to governments, also prevents them from becoming all-powerful, as any action taken by a government, which does not adhere to the rules of the constitution written or unwritten (uncodified), is therefore breaking the law and must then answer to the other systems of authority and those who protect the public from them.

Minesterial responsibility is an example of the application of the ‘rule of law’, it ensures that the ministers and their departments are accountable to their constituents, thus defining the relationship between the civil services and the public.

All of a departments actions and mistakes are performed in the minsters name, making that individual responsible and answerable to the public and Law.

No one is above the law that is ‘the Rule of Law’. Especially the Government, if they are seen to breach it, or act illegally the enquiries and trials can go on for years (Like the current Hutton Enquiry), as it is of the upmost importance for the public, that the lawmakers themselves adhere to the rules established to protect the people. Thus, as they are liable for prosecution, the government are deterred from corruption, and can face punishment in the event of breaking the law.

As a result in the governments growth in, there are so many laws, regulations and civil servants to be monitired, kept in check, that if dealt with solely- the law courts would be overwhelmed.

When a person has exhausted all other methods of complaint or redress an ombudsman proves an alternative route for compensation. They deal with all kinds of cases, from malpractice to injustice mainly concerning morality and incompetence than points of law and have the time to dealve into cases, research throughly etc.

The public limit the government through their local MP. The choice of who they elect, shows their opinions, views on the way they wish their area to be run, which reflect on parliament. But also governments can be forced to change their principles in order to gain public favour; in order to gain constituency seats to sustain their political position. Members of the public can write to, talk with, or lobby their local MP in Westminster, in order to discuss any issue which they believe their MP may be able to qualify an answer, provide redress or question an offical, or member of parliament- as we see in parliamentry debates where mps question the likes of the primeminister or opposition leader in order to understand what is to be, or being done about a sector of their responsibility. (MPs are obliged to answer all letters questioning them, or to qualify them with a reply out of courtsy.)

2a) Oppression is a restriction of freedom and I have decided to discuss the freedoms which those Muslims who supported the bombing of the twin-towers, were deprived of, by the banning of the 9/11 poster depicting the bombers as martyrs.

In Islam, us white christian West (the centre of which being America) are viewed as the infadel.As a great source of evil corrupting and violating the earth. It’s no surprise really, that these views have become tradition when comparing our cultures, attitudes to women and sex for example – how disturbing must it be to see miniskirted women plastered in makeup in the middle of the day, to a world where women have self respect, are reverred as mothers and daughters? Protectfully garbed in all encasing robes?

Just in the way we have and continue to fight against the torture, suppression and totalitarian rule that dwells within such Islamic cultures as Iraq and Afghanistan, Muslim society battles to spread their beliefs, to share with us their knowledge of the unanswerable question of, “what is right?”. The 9/11 poster, was not just a gloating attack on America, but a symbol of Islamic religious belief, of pride- therefore it could be seen as a breach of the Muslim peoples right to freedom of speech, to express their views, to celebrate the heroes of their culture. A breach of their freedom to believe and belong to whatever religion they wish.

However, such offensive material could cause mental harm, outrage in the berieved and devastated left alive, after the attack and it is their right not to have such racial prejudice, published.

Here, the power of the state brings into action the rules which govern Freedom of speech, that of cencership in order to protect the public from the harmful messages those posters promoted, limiting also the freedom of religious belief by in turn slandering and associating Islam with racial hatred and widening the schism between our sides of the globe.

In this incident both parties might seek redress. There are many ways to seek redress through lobbying the Mps of constituencies where the poster was presented or removed, petitioning parliament, proving through example that their right to freedom of speech had been breached.