Law

Geoffrey Bindman (London, BIHR): The interesting OurKingdom debate on Labour After Brown risks becoming too remote from actual policy needs as it discusses general strategy. Of course, government needs to be fairer and extend justice in a way that supports individuals while building shared values. If this is what David Miliband and Sunder Katwala mean by combining social democracy with liberalism, who could disagree? Except that it runs the danger of phrase-making. What I am looking for is a much more principled approach to endorsing the need for public values that explicitly face down the marketisation of government that has been the tragic hallmark of New Labour. After a lifetime of support, I have witnessed this process at first hand, as the legacy of 1945 is systematically undone. What is happening is wrong. We need the new generation to identify that it is wrong and pledge to reverse it.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): The Ministry of Justice has announced a " major clean-up of meaningless and defunct laws from the Statute Book" All or part of 328 Acts of Parliament that are  masquerading as live laws are to be removed under the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill. Jack Straw says:

Ali Eteraz (writer): It would be prudent to understand the various arguments made in favor of recognizing Sharia in the UK. Doing so will be helpful to those wishing to oppose it.

First, a majority of British Muslims are just fine with the legal system. They consider it an Islamic duty to obey the laws of the land. They have learned to balance the requirements of their personal faith with their public obligations and limitations. For example, when they get married they go to city hall and afterwards go to the mosque for a second ceremony. When they get divorced they go to court and then they do an Islamic divorce. If these Muslims find certain policies problematic, they participate in the political process to try and change them. This is, in my opinion, the easiest and most sensible position for Muslims to adopt. It also leads to better citizenship. The development of this position augurs well for the development of a "minority fiqh" - a jurisprudence for Muslims living in majority non-Muslim areas.

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya & Unlock Democracy): Do our political leaders understand what the rule of law is? Some of the comments made in the course of knee jerk reaction to the mild remarks made about Sharia law by Rowan Williams suggest that they do not. Perhaps they do not want to.

Moderator: This is a response to a comment left on John Jackson's previous post, which disagreed with his contention that English common law cannot be made superior to Strasbourg.

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya & Unlock Democracy): Initially it was not clear to me what Richard is "completely" disagreeing with. But his follow up comment suggests that he is defending the deep rooted concept of parliamentary sovereignty - the notion that our parliament can do anything it wants, pass any legislation it likes.

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya & Unlock Democracy): Fraser Nelson's suggestion (commented on in OK below) that Gordon Brown might, by order, seek to require the English courts to give English common law precedence over Strasbourg law is fanciful in the extreme.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): It seems you couldn't make it up. The elegant and even traditional way of putting the question is 'Who rules Britain?' Today, its Anglo-Saxon translation is 'What the f*** is going on?" The Anglo-Saxon communicates the urgency - and the breakdown - behind the apparently calmer, classical phrases in which power and the constitution are discussed. Now we need a living language to be out there in the public domain.

Jon Bright (London, OK): John Jackson has written an article for OurKingdom tracking the development Lord Bingham's thinking on the relationship between parliament and the rule of law - a line of thought which has significant implications for our constitution. Read it in full here.

Roger Smith (London, JUSTICE): The Queen's Speech promises us more from the Government on constitutional reform. Next year, we are to have legislation on citizenship, a draft bill on ‘constitutional renewal' and a further consultation paper on a bill of rights. Meanwhile, David Cameron is limbering up with proposals for referenda on Europe (or not); rearranged voting on English bills (or not) and a Bill of Rights (or not). This might be just the moment to reflect on what you could do to improve our constitution without any legislation.

Jon Bright (London, OK): The Ministry of Truth has been generating a bit of energy recently, as Anthony wrote below. Will be interesting to keep an eye on their misrepresentation of the people act - a good example, if nothing else, of how handy the web can be for aggregating everything about a campaign. At the time of writing their list of MPs opinions on the bill had only recorded Adam Price's take - in favour - but the potential is there. Could a small web campaign push through a bill that would have very radical impacts? We'll certainly be tracking it's progress...

John Jackson (London, Mischcon de Reya): The reference to "natural justice" in the Daily Telegraph's leading editorial on 22nd August being debated in OurKingdom takes me back to 1948. Whilst waiting to take up my place as a law student at Queens' College Cambridge I had written to my future tutor asking for a list of recommended reading. In my letter I had emphasised my interest in the concept of natural justice. The reply listed a number of books and concluded with the words "with regard to your interest in natural justice, I should remind you that you will be coming to this college to study law not optimism." I soon discovered why he had said this. Law and justice have different roots and, although frequently and desirably intertwined,they can also strangle each other. I made another discovery. A least one Cambridge academic, learned in constitutional law, believed then that our unwritten constitution - with its supposed advantages of flexibility and dynamic evolution - was not designed (and did not need) to be understood by "ordinary people". The answer to the question "How are ordinary people to press for change to what they do not understand?" was "Our constitutional arrangements are a part of our great historical heritage and are not to be meddled with by those - including you, Jackson - who are unlikely to know what they are doing." I am still trying to change that!