I've aways thought, given that the law (theoretically) applies to everyone equally, that all should have equal access to the law.

This means that a lawyer is equivalent to a man who sets up a ticket barrier at a free festival and starts charging admission.

 

exactly!

 

Most of our politicians are former lawyers who, after spending many years writing laws and suckling at the public teat, go back in to private practice where they can interpret the gobbledygook they wrote after a rather long three martini lunch. How's that for a long and incomprehensible sentence?

 

Yet another excellent, provocative post, Michael. I agree that the use of language is a powerful tool and I also agree with edjog that the widespread use of this tool is no accident. However, where I differ with edjog is this: If it is the fault of crooks, that doesn't preclude us fighting for clearer language. The way I see it, no matter who is in charge, we'll be in danger of getting rooked.

Is that clear?

 

forced to agree withmickey on this one.

i see your point edjog but even if everyone was able to read and interpret this stuff there still is no particular reason to write that way.

its all just wasted paper

 

Hey Michael.

I totally agree, the law - both in written form and in the terms and procedures used in the actual courts - is often extremely complicated and can be utterly brain-busting for the uninitiated. This is a control mechanism, eh?

I remember reading this article by poet Benjamin Zephaniah:

http://tinyurl.com/cxesh

And this bit in particular:
As a poet, he became fascinated by the sounds and the words of the law. "The thing that struck me was the language of the courts. Sometimes I struggled to understand what the judge and barristers were saying, and when I asked afterwards what it was all about it was something really simple which had been put in a complicated way. But I do think the language is kept that way to exclude us, to intimidate us."

Paul M.

 

A grand post! totally agree. Imagine the fucking uproar if our knowledge of our legal obligations was as scant as our knowledge of our legal rights?! I don't reckon you'd get away with nicking a car on the ground that you didn't know it was unlawful.

Nope, the state makes damn sure we know what we CAN'T do but does its utmost to conceal our rights and liberties by contorting words and sentences in ridiculous and wholly unnecessary ways. Christ, lawyers barely know what the fucking statutes mean.

We were all taught at school "don't do drugs", "don't steal stuff" etc and are aware that merely expressing an opinion may constitute incitement to terrorism, but no one ever bothered to simplify and teach people their basic civil liberties.


If it is possible to simplify laws that the state want us to abide by then it is entirely possible to raise awareness of the rights and protections that the law affords to individuals. It is more important than ever before that people know what their rights and civil liberties are before thay renounce them unknowingly to the state in order to be "protected" from iminent threat of terrorists, paedophiles, drink drivers, petty criminals, heroine fuelled pensioners etc....

The law should be used as a tool for representing and enforcing the rights of individuals against the state, not as a means by which the state can covertly oppress us.

 

Oh I forgot to ask, does anyone know what a "free-wheeling palmtree" is in the context of judicial review??! Ah, judicial logic at its finest.

 

hi kirsteen

i didn't even know they put trees on wheels!

and i agree with you