Dib, dib, dib

There is so much talk these days about ‘rights’, isn't there?

'I know my rights' is the cry that goes up when we feel abused or, in modern parlance, disrespected. We bristle at the very idea of our rights not being recognised.  Human Rights has become a complete, stand-alone, legal industry which makes fortunes for some people and has others simply wondering what the world is coming to.

But there is another factor that stands hand-in-hand with the idea of rights. That is the idea of 'responsibilities'. Not too many folks out there bristling about their responsibilities being abused, are there?

Rights and responsibilities together are termed 'civics', which is an Americanism. (There's that divisive -ism again) and it's another word we don't hear very often. According to www.Dictionary.com 'civics' is: A noun, (used with a singular verb)

1. The study or science of the privileges and obligations of citizens.

A hundred years ago, before I was a boy, we hadn't heard of 'civics' but we understood the concept of privilege (today referred to as rights) and responsibility (today not mentioned at all unless it is someone else's). In my case it began at home with my parents teaching us to treat others as we would like to be treated. Later, at Sunday school, similar ideas were taught and quickly thereafter, at cubs or brownies or boy scouts or girl guides, the ideas and the training/tuition continued.

Today, it is likely to be termed 'indoctrination' or 'mind control', which, in the light of today's popular turmoil, is an unfortunate description.

Look at it this way. If civics isn't taught at home or at school, is it any wonder that our children grow without a proper mutual understanding of rights and responsibilities?  Is it any wonder that children from a totally different ethnic background don't always understand what the natives here also don't understand anymore, because they haven't been taught those essentials of civics that I was taught, without even knowing the term?  To my mind, it puts a sock in the cry ‘I want my country back.’

Ruminating and reviewing my time as a cub scout, I recall the cub's promise: We stood upright in a circle and saluted Akela, the pack leader, and the flag. "AH-KAY-LAH! Dib, dib, dib; Dob, dob, dob" we shouted, and then recited the Scout's pledge.

(I promise) On my honour I will "Fear God; Honour the King; Love the Brotherhood. On my honour I will without fear or reward protect the weak defend the helpless and assist my neighbour. On my honour I will keep the Scout Law." (Or words to that effect).

And the Scout Law? What of that? I can't remember precisely and I know some of the words have changed, but the principles haven't.

“A Scout is honourable truthful and reliable; a scout is honourable to King/Queen, country, parents, officers and fellow scouts; and so on. Not a million miles from my daily e-mail signature: 

Cause no harm

Be honest

Be peaceful 

It seems that the wise man who once wrote: ‘Train a child in the way he should walk, and when he is old he will not depart from it’ was on to something. But that was before the 1950s. And ‘honour’ is such an old fashioned concept, isn’t it?

* * * *

Don’t misunderstand me, please. I’m very aware that thousands of our young people join scouts, girl guides and various other civic minded organisations. Many more volunteer to be helpful, active members of associations, societies and clubs that that the rest of us never think about. But they usually aren’t the ones who carelessly throw litter in the street, or carry concealed weapons, or beat up the weak and seemingly defenceless at a whim. Not usually.

So, what are you saying, Michael? I think I’m saying that the idea of personal liberty has strayed into the realm of personal anarchy. Instant gratification and no personal responsibility are the watchwords of the day and they don’t lead to “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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”.

Sounds good to me. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is a ‘right’ according to this document, which is pretty much the philosophy of the British people (but particularly the English) for more than 1,000 years. Which leads me to Common Law and Trial by Jury, and those certain unalienable rights that government and the legal profession withhold from us . . when we allow them to do so. I’ve written elsewhere about the power of our/my/your consent and the power that exists when we give it or withheld it.

So, here is the $64,000 question: WHAT more has to happen to persuade you of the need to reclaim your true (not imagined) rights? For example, your right to assert that taxation is nothing more than demands for money with menaces; your right to be responsible for your own actions rather than reliant on the actions and statutes of ‘authorities’, elected or just the hired help; your right to be equal amongst all men, regardless of colour or creed, and not merely a serf (one who lives in servitude).

Perhaps parents ought to go back to teaching civics to their children. (Just now I had an image of Joyce Grenfell saying years ago in one of her monologues, ‘George, we do not bite our friends’ and those who are old enough to remember will know what I mean). Perhaps school teachers should begin to teach civics and we (the parents, not the Department of Education) should ensure that the curriculum is written to make time for it.

But, ‘Be Prepared’ – was the scout’s motto. And being prepared includes knowing that nothing of true value to you comes easily and without opposition from those with vested interests.

* * * *

For further reading please visit: www.bloodlessrevolution.co.uk

OR

email: MKColumn@gmail.com