Rule of Law

I edited my profile with Thomas Myspace Editor V4.4 (www.strikefile.com/myspace)
Canadiana
I believe in Canada. I believe in peace and democracy and change by peaceful means. It is not un-Canadian to advocate for change nationally and internationally. To disagree with government when warranted does not make you a traitor. It makes you an informed citizen and better equipped to vote in the next election. Democracy is not dead but it is severely crippled by those who sit back and let others decide who will win elections. We do not let our neighbors choose the shoes we wear, so why would we let other decide who will govern you past the next election.
The Rule of LawThe Rule of Law means that everyone is subject to the law. No one, no matter how important or powerful, is above the law. The law applies to everyone including, the state, the head of state, the courts, the police, the bureaucrats, the armed forces and the citizens. Lawful authority can only exist if it is the result of a law enacted by the State in accordance to the constitutional rights of its citizens.When the Rule of Law is not respected, none of us or our liberties are safe.The true measure of a just society is not how it treats those it deems deserving of respect. Rather, the true measure of a just society is how it treats those it deems to be less deserving of respect. For this reason, a just society holds true to the belief that every person, no mater what is alleged against him or her, has the right to life, liberty and security of the person. This includes the right of that person not to be deprived of her or his rights except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.The Rule of Law is always in danger particularly when confronted by crisis. To loose the Rule of Law means that we become a society governed by the rule of men. As soon as we use the word WAR to justify something, we are at risk. The rhetoric can often take the following forms: the war on crime, the war on drugs and the war on terrorism. This is a loosely defined declaration of war against someone or something that is constantly in a state of flux in both time and enemy. Thus, by definition it is a war in perpetuity at the discretion of the state. By the use of mere words, war becomes possible against anyone for anything. The enemy can be a nation, a group, an organization or an individual. The battlefield transcends geography and has no borders. Hence, it is even possible to wage war against a state's own citizens by systematically attacking basic constitutional rights. This subjugates our most fundamental rights in favor of state sponsored objectives. There is no better place to start then by getting rid of something called habeas corpus via the Military Commission's Act of 2006.I believe in the rule of law. I do not believe however that any system of law is truly any better than any other. This is a question of institutional design. Given the gift of reason, human beings are able to shape their institutions as they best see fit.A legal system seeks to stem the tied of anarchy and chaos. Canada and the US have a common law system of law from England born and evolved from day to day life dating back to 1066 when the Norman's conquered England. It started out with the monarchy trying to keep the peace and good behavior in the kingdom and putting things/law/courts into place as the need arose over the centuries. France has a civil law system born in universities and scholarly analysis. Islamic countries have an Islamic legal system based on religion and communists have a communistic type legal system based on Marxist-Leninist theory etc etc. There are many types of legal systems. They reflect the basic values of their owners/designers. They generally aim at encouraging social order. No one system is really better than the other and negative judgement of her people's legal system is really based on prejudice and ignorance.Those against whom our governments wage war have legal systems. We may find them harsh, and indeed perhaps they are, but that is because we judge them according to what we hold out to be a benchmark for the world--western standards. People that live in different parts of the world live by different standards. They may not necessarily want to chew on burgers while sipping on a Coke. Still, we seem fixated on modern day crusades that serve the interests of the elite of western society. Yet, we live by a double standard when it comes to our way of acting just. It is ironic that it is by western standards that Saddam Hussein ultimately went to his death. Yet his death was at the hands of scornful masked hangmen who taunted him with sectarian jibes even as the noose was tightened around his neck. Hussein was no choirboy but his captors had an obligation to treat him according to the rule of law. Thus, we must not kid ourselves by believing we stand on higher moral grounds in dispensing justice. Lest we forget, it is also by way of western standards that prisoners have died and been tortured in a lawless wonderland.Injustice itself is not limited to any particular type of legal system. It occurs in all systems of justice. In the US, innocent people continue to receive the death penalty regardless of the fact that it is well known that innocent people have hanged and will hang again. In Islamic countries women continue to be stoned to death for unjustifiable reasons. People starve and are subject to genocide under dictatorships and fascist states. No matter how wrong these injustices are, and they are indeed wrong, this really has nothing to do with law or a legal system. It is to do with the stupidity of human beings in general. It has to do with human frailty, weaknesses and abuses. Whenever there is an advantage to be gained, a human being will be there to try to benefit from that advantage. When all else fails and a country wants to bomb the shit out of another country, cause the genocide of someone else or ravage the national wealth or resources of another nation, they will use the force of their own legal system to achieve this goal. It may be illegal, it may even be a war crime or a crime against humanity but how history will come to judge this will depend on the outcome of the war. It will depend on the result of the conquest. It is after all the conqueror/victor that writes history. Everything can be written away but again this has nothing to do with the legal system in place because the system in place is not the question. It has to do with people abusing the legal systems whatever institutional design may share the legal system.