“The government is my shepherd; I
shall not want.”
Interesting concept, isn’t it? We, with all our
supposed rights, still turn to the government to grant them. It seems to me
that in doing so we surrender our own powers. Surrender is NOT a sign that we live in a healthy democracy. Instead, it is the
unhealthy sign of the popular (people’s) acceptance of an oligarchy and possible
imminent tyranny.
I put it to you that ‘rights’ that can be granted or not granted
aren’t truly rights. They are better described as privileges.
Now a definition:
OLIGARCHY (noun) (1) a form of government in which all power is
vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the
few; (2) a state or organization so ruled; (3) the persons or class so ruling. (www.dictionary.com)
It is
interesting to observe that opposition to an oligarchy isn’t a sign that we
live in a healthy democracy either. The power is with the holders of power, not
those who oppose (or opposition). Those
who give the oligarchs their power are those who already have the power in
the first place – by that I mean the citizens (in a republic) and subjects (in
a monarchy) – most of whom fail to recognise what they have. Let’s admit it; you can’t give what you don’t
have, unless you are a banker, but that's another story.
Because
this truth isn't generally acknowledged, we have been brought up to think it is normal to give away our power,
thoughtlessly in most cases. And we teach our children to do the same. That’s a bit sobering, don’t you think? Care-less-ity is a
dreadful condition, arguably worse than ignorance. Not knowing is one thing; knowing and not caring is quite a different matter.
I’d like to
change the attitudes, beliefs, and misconceptions of as many of those suffering from carlessity as
I can. If I can’t change them, so be it. Maybe I can provide them with food for
thought. That would be a worthwhile achievement in my autumn years.
* * * *
Now, as the
man used to say, pull up a chair and sit. I wanna tell you a story. Imagine, if
you will, a country, long, long ago, that was ruled by a king. He wasn’t an
especially benevolent king and he didn’t always treat his subjects fairly or
equally, but he was still the king.
Over time
his subjects became a bit ticked off and, eventually, they plucked up courage
and joined together to tell the king that ‘up with it they will no longer put’.
That was brave of them, given his position as absolute ruler. Very brave.
The more
outspoken and forceful of those subjects agreed to make the king an offer he
couldn’t refuse. They told him: ‘There are more of us than there is of you; so
if you (and your heirs) want to carry on being king you had better start by
being nicer and fairer, and listen to us. We’re on your side but you need to
lighten up’. This gave the king a great deal to think about. Clearly, he didn't have enough men-at-arms in his inner circle to resist the equally well armed subjects who wanted to him come to terms with the situation.
A few of
them met him in a field one day. It was a good idea to meet in a field because
there in a field nobody could creep up on them. The archbishop of Canterbury
was the referee of the day. For weeks and probably months, he had shuttled backwards and forwards, between the king and the spokesmen for his subjects, to find the basis for an eventual agreement. After all, there was much at risk.
When the negotiations were over, all of them met in that field and the list was laid on a table so the agreement could be signed and witnessed. It was the greatest 'jaw-jaw rather than war-war' moment - EVER. It was a treaty like no other treaty.
So, as solemn evidence of his acceptance and agreement
with their proposals the king applied his Royal Seal at the bottom of the document. In return, the spokesmen on behalf of the
king’s subjects agreed that the king (and his heirs) should continue on the
throne and there would be no civil war. Understandably, the archbishop wanted
some of the protections to extend to the church, too.
'It’s a deal',
said the king. (As I’ve written already, it wasn’t just ‘a deal’. It was a
treaty sealed (and later signed and, later still, amended) between the king and
his subjects. The treaty was intended to last, as the document made clear, ‘in
perpetuity’ – meaning, forever.
This is major stuff. An absolute ruler made a treaty
agreement with his subjects to limit his powers and those of his successors, and to respect and protect all his subjects equally and
fairly – forever! In return, his subjects – forever – agreed that they wouldn’t
begin civil war to overthrow him and his heirs. Think about that.
Let me repeat myself. This deal
wasn’t struck overnight. There must have been months of negotiations before it
could be written and presented. Take heart, then, about the present
negotiations to disentangle UK from the Treaty of Lisbon. (The Treaty of Lisbon is an international agreement
which amends the two treaties which form the constitutional basis of the
European Union. You can’t just walk away from these things).
There was no internet in those days so they made
copies of the treaty and took them to English county courts around the kingdom to enable everyone to know and understand what had happened on their behalf. It became known in Latin as Magna Carta
Libertatum; in English - Great Charter of Liberties.
Again, to
avoid misunderstanding here is another definition: Treaty (noun) – 1. a formal agreement between two or more
states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international
relations. 2. the formal document
embodying such an international agreement.
3. any agreement or compact. ( www.dictionary.com
)
A
treaty may also be known as an agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact,
or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of
these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered
treaties and the rules are the same.
Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts:
both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a
party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable
under international law. (Wikipedia)
It takes all parties to agree that
the treaty has failed before it can honestly be regarded as failed. In other
words, it takes two to tango.
Another name for a document such as
this is: ‘constitution.’
A constitution is a set of
fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state
or other organization is governed. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute,
what the entity is.
* * * *
That wasn’t a funny story after all,
was it? It was too serious to be funny. BUT
IT IS A TRUE STORY NEVERTHELESS. It
is a true story about England and the English, and copies of the original
treaty can be found in the British Library (two copies) in London, and
Salisbury Cathedral, and Lincoln Cathedral.
Magna Carta (Great Charter) is
widely viewed as one of the most important legal documents in history,
enshrining the concepts of government accountability and protection
of individual rights. It forms the basis of the constitutions of the United
States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, amongst other nations.
I ask you, who, in their right mind, would want to give it up or discredit it
unless they also have hidden, ulterior motives? Who would be so arrogant? You
tell me.
One of the issues that prompted the
treaty to be drawn up was that of excessive taxation – no surprises there.
Another recognised the wrongfulness of jailing a man and taking him away from
his work and his means of sustenance for himself and his family without those who would have to pick up the pieces providing a major contribution to the decision making process. A decision like that by someone appointed by the ruler or the ruler's friends, with little empathy and, possibly, little understanding, impacted not only on the guilty offender
but also on his family and those who lived nearby. The family could be destitute. They insisted to give their own agreement to any judgement rather than have it imposed. That was the way the people of northern Europe had applied justice for centuries.
Similarly, another importantly decreed that no
crime should be punished without first a trial before the man’s peers. And
those 12 peers had to agree unanimously,
every time, firstly that the accused was guilty. Then they could determine the
sentence to be meted out by the legislature, meaning those who the people had chosen
to act on their behalf in such cases. If the peer group/jury couldn’t agree
UNANIMOUSLY, their decision as to the fate of the accused could be only NOT
GUILTY. Better to err on the side of caution rather than wrongfully jail or
harm the accused.
Ever since Magna Carta was signed and
published politicians, lawyers and churchmen all over the world have tried to
sidestep these terms without actually taking the people back to the king/queen
to have the treaty annulled – because it still takes two to tango.
And now it is up to us and our
children to understand what we have been given AND TO DEFEND IT against all those who would destroy it if they
could.
(Signed - The new Uncle Bulgaria)
* * * *
And the Story of ‘O’? What was that all about? That was an attention grabber. The ‘O’ stands
for ‘ovine’, which means ‘sheeplike’. As another man said: ‘All we like sheep
have gone astray.’
If you would like to discuss anything
related to this story, please email me at
No comments:
Post a Comment