• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

L

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
Unfettered said:
I don't know much about the law in Great Britain, but in the US, our foundation law establishes that government's purpose, and therefore the end of the law, is to protect human rights. It follows, then, than if a person acts in harmony with a policy (or law) against another person and is found liable for damages to that person, the law did not protect the former, which means he had no right to do what he did, even though the policy asserted otherwise. We've seen such transgressions of human rights from the very beginning of our nation, when slavery was lawful. It was always immoral, but it was lawful. It seems, then, that we should always be on our guard, so that we do not allow immorality to get above us as it did then.
Click to expand...
Conversely, I am fairly ignorant of the US judicial system and it's state and federal legislative processes. Of course I do understand that US and English & Welsh Law (The official legal system of most of the UK, except Scotland, which uses Roman law) do share the same underlying principles of the common law and trial by jury among other things. I agree that the legality of a thing does not necessarily determine the morality or ethics of it. Many horrors are and were and will be, legal. Somewhere. Hence why international law and universally applicable human rights are arguably a good for the world.
 
Ebionite

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Unfettered said:
I don't know much about the law in Great Britain, but in the US, our foundation law establishes that government's purpose, and therefore the end of the law, is to protect human rights.
Click to expand...
That's incorrect. At common law natural rights are theistic, human rights are not.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
9th Amendment

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Declaration of Independence
 
L

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
Ebionite said:
That's a non sequitur. Human rights have no basis in ethics.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about ethics. I was discussing the merits of human rights and international law, in that they can deter authoritarians and provide relief to victims of persecution and other abuses. I am not interested in your opinion on human rights or ethics, to be frank. As I wasn't having a discussion with your self.
 
Ebionite

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Little Dragon said:
I am not talking about ethics. I was discussing the merits of human rights and international law, in that they can deter authoritarians and provide relief to victims of persecution and other abuses.
Click to expand...
Human rights are built on the authoritarianism of the United Nations.

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
UDHR 29.3
 
Ebionite

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Little Dragon said:
They're abstract concepts I will give you that. All laws and rules and codes of conduct and social contracts and taboos etc are too, so who cares?
Click to expand...
No, common law is substantive law. It goes back to the dooms of King Alfred the Great, which begin with a Saxon version of the ten commandments of Exodus 20.
 
L

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
Ebionite said:
No, common law is substantive law. It goes back to the dooms of King Alfred the Great, which begin with a Saxon version of the ten commandments of Exodus 20.
Click to expand...
The common law, is defined as both legislative law (act of parliament) and court determined law, in my legal system. Which is English and Welsh law, the 10 commandments have little to do with it. It's entirely legal to covet your neighbours Ox in the UK. Worshipping false idols is actively encouraged here too.
 
L

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
Ebionite said:
No, common law is substantive law. It goes back to the dooms of King Alfred the Great, which begin with a Saxon version of the ten commandments of Exodus 20.
Click to expand...
King Alfred has no bearing on modern Britain, insofar as saxon legal code is considered. The saxons were defeated in 1066. Their legal system. Replaced.
 
Ebionite

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Little Dragon said:
Common law, is defined as both legislative law (act of parliament) and court determined law, in my legal system. Which is English and Welsh law,
Click to expand...
No, legislative law is statute law. The relationship between statute law and common law is limited to declarative and remedial cases, not to the general legislative case. Court determined law aka case law is a form of common law, but it's not the only form.

And indeed our antiquaries and early historians do all positively assure us, that our body of laws is of this compounded nature. For they tell us, that in the time of Alfred, the local customs of the several provinces of the kingdom were grown so various, that he found it expedient to compile his dome-book, or liber judicialis, for the general use of the whole kingdom. This book is said to have been extant so late as the reign of king Edward the fourth, but is now unfortunately lost. It contained, we may probably suppose, the principal maxims of the common law, the penalties for misdemeanors, and the forms of judicial proceedings. Thus much may at least be collected from that injunction to observe it, which we find in the laws of king Edward the elder, the son of Alfred.5 "Omnibus qui reipublicae praesunt etiam atque etiam mando, ut omnibus aequos se praebeant judices, perinde ac in judiciali libro (Saxonice, dom-bec) scriptum habeter: nec quicquam formident quin jus commune (Saxonice, folcnihte) audacter libereque dicant." ["To all who preside over the republic my positive and repeated injunction is, that they conduct themselves towards all as just judges, as it is written in the dome-book, and without fear boldly and freely to declare the common law."]
William Blackstone

alfred10commandments.png
 
Ebionite

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Little Dragon said:
King Alfred has no bearing on modern Britain, insofar as saxon legal code is considered. The saxons were defeated in 1066. Their legal system. Replaced.
Click to expand...
Utter bollocks.

That ancient collection of unwritten maxims and customs, which is called the common law, however compounded or from whatever fountains derived, had subsisted immemorially in this kingdom; and, though somewhat altered and impaired by the violence of the times, had in great measure weathered the rude shock of the Norman conquest.
William Blackstone.
 
L

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
Ebionite said:
Utter bollocks.

That ancient collection of unwritten maxims and customs, which is called the common law, however compounded or from whatever fountains derived, had subsisted immemorially in this kingdom; and, though somewhat altered and impaired by the violence of the times, had in great measure weathered the rude shock of the Norman conquest.
William Blackstone.
Click to expand...
Uhuh. Well I am not at all sure what you're trying to say. The point is all law is conceptual. Whether it is rooted in religious doctrine or not, and is of secular origin. Religious beliefs are also abstract concepts, including the 10 commandments. Not actually real.
 
L

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
Ebionite said:
No, legislative law is statute law. The relationship between statute law and common law is limited to declarative and remedial cases, not to the general legislative case. Court determined law aka case law is a form of common law, but it's not the only form.
Click to expand...
Nope. The common law includes both judicial precedent and legislative law. There is no other type. Except treaties and international law.
 
Ebionite

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Little Dragon said:
Uhuh. Well I am not at all sure what you're trying to say.
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is that the theistic aspect of the common law is still effective in England, which makes common law substantive rather than conceptual. The 10 commandments are not religious belief, they have a historical basis.

Little Dragon said:
Nope. The common law includes both judicial precedent and legislative law. There is no other type. Except treaties and international law.
Click to expand...
You don't know what you're talking about.

LEX TERRIE. The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law ;the general law of the land. Bract. fol. 17b. Equivalent to "due process of law." In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. Bracton uses the phrase to denote a freeman's privilege of being sworn in court as a juror or witness, which jurors convicted of perjury forfeited, (legem terse amittant.) Bract. fol. 292b. The phrase means "the procedure of the old popular law." Thayer, Evid. 201, quoting Brunner, Schw. 254, and Fortesq. de Laud. c. 26 (Selden's notes). (Blacks 4th edition)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top