The End of 797 Years of Legal Precedent
There’s a common assumption that just because something is old, it must be past its use-by date…that we need something new to replace it.
You see that with graceful and wonderfully designed-and-constructed old buildings.
You see that with books and ideas.
And you see it with laws — ‘Why, that law is so old, it’s not relevant to the modern world, here’s a new law…’
I have to say, it’s good to see that a network of ‘eyes-and-ears’ is spontaneously developing among Pursuit of Happiness readers. By that I mean the number of emails I get tipping me off to the threats and infringements by the government on your liberty.
If you have any tip-offs or news stories you’ve spotted, please send a link or the document to email@example.com. I’ll keep all correspondence confidential.
A great example of a tip-off is a press release I received yesterday from a Pursuit of Happiness reader…
Why Do You Need All Those Laws?
It’s a classic example of jumped up politicians chopping and changing a perfectly good law just so they can satisfy their own agenda.
I’ve said for years that there’s no need for so many laws. You just need a basic, simplified written constitution that spells out the limits on government and the protection of personal and property rights…and that’s it. That’s all you need.
You don’t need a bunch of goons living semi-permanently in some godforsaken hell-hole between Sydney and Melbourne…thinking up new laws and changes to existing laws 24/7. What’s wrong with these people?
Well, the latest change is another example of the creeping destruction of one of the basic principles of the law: that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.
In other words, you are innocent of a crime until or unless the State is able to prove your guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Of course, governments have chipped away at this basic right for years. Random breath testing is one example…if a police officer stops you, you have to prove you aren’t over the legal alcohol limit by blowing into a machine.
If you refuse to cooperate they convict you anyway.
I’ve long said that it’s a disgrace that constitutional lawyers and the judiciary refuse to stand up to this trampling of rights.
But maybe they know politicians don’t care. They know politicians are intent on overturning 797 years of legal precedent. I’m talking about the right to due process laid down in Magna Carta.
That’s right, Magna Carta…that dusty old document. What would 13th century scholars know about the world today? Probably what they knew at the time: that the State habitually attempts to exert its power at the expense of the people.
That’s how it was in 13th century England…and that’s how it is in 21st century Australia, England, the US, and anywhere else with a centralised form of government.
Here’s what Magna Carta of 1215 says:
‘No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the laws of the land.’
Of course, when there’s no limit on the theoretical powers of the State, there’s no limit to the laws the State can create.
That’s why the Federal Attorney-General’s Department (AG) is winding back due process and the principle of burden of proof even further. As this press release from the AG notes:
‘Unexplained wealth laws reverse the onus of proof so criminals have to prove their wealth was obtained legally. It makes it easier to confiscate their assets and is one of the most effective ways to bring down organised criminals.’
I’m telling you, this is just one step in many towards the endgame…that’s where the government taxes your salary 100% at the source and then pays you a ‘working pension’ after the government deducts it pound of flesh (taxes).
Look Out for Australia’s Elliot Ness
And get this, it’s a quote from ‘The Hon. Jason Clare MP’, minister for home affairs, minister for justice, and minister for defence materiel (Three jobs…impressive!):
‘“These laws will help us catch criminals. Just like Al Capone – you can catch criminals by following the money,” Mr Clare said.’
Who do these politicians think they are? Do they think they’re Elliot Ness? Does the minister for justice wear a rain coat and trilby hat?
What a hero…catch those Aussie ‘Al Capones’ for us.
It’s the typical tactic of the State. Create an enemy who is no more likely to harm you or me than a mouse, and use the enemy as a reason to infringe liberty and freedom.
Go ahead. Say the government should combat organised crime. But if you think this is about organised crime, you’re living in a dream world. This is about nothing more than the State’s attempts to gain more power, more control and to strike more fear into you.
As I said, the framers of Magna Carta knew government tyranny first hand. That’s why they enshrined the due process of the right to a fair trial and denied the right for the State to strip a free man of his ‘rights or possessions’.
I don’t expect you to cry for criminals. But like all laws that protect freedom, it won’t be long before the State reverses ‘the onus of proof’ further.
To have the The Pursuit of Happiness delivered straight to your inbox simply enter your email address below and click subscribe.