It’s 21.21 (ah, such numerical synchronicity!) Good Friday evening, there’s pants on the television but that’s OK because earlier we went to the cinema and watched Vantage Point (Dennis Quaid totally stealing the show!) so we’re kind of full up on audio visual entertainment for the evening.
Soph and I have just had a good natured but slightly stormy philosophical discussion about the role of censorship in modern day (British) society. My point is that to compare and contrast situations in the US and the UK is not helpful.
The Americans have a Bill of Rights that sets out what they can do; the British have no Bill of Rights. Instead we have over 1,000 years of legislative, case and common law which tell us what we can’t do.
The distinction is important.
I made the point that despite statements that say (for example) ‘the Terrorism Act 2000 takes away our right to freedom of speech’ is complete nonsense because we actually have no right to freedom of speech in the UK.
Yes, they might be right in that it restricts certain actions which we’ve enjoyed up until now. But these actions we’ve enjoyed are not guaranteed – we have no Bill of Rights.
We have no constitution. We have no rights at all. We have no guarantees folks, none whatsoever.
This is why I feel that exploring the differences between the US and the UK is only marginally helpful – in a ‘it happens like this over there because…’ kind of way.
It’s the ‘because’ that’s the key.
This is a point of difference between us; I look beyond national boundaries – enviously at the US where their permissions are documented and protected. She prefers a world of greater boundary definition.
I’m not saying Soph’s wrong – in fact I agree that boundary definitions are key components to society functioning within a set of defined rules.
But I don’t believe that society has a collective responsibility for my moral point of view; for ensuring that my vocal outpourings don’t offend the Little Green Man Collective of East Colindale; or for making sure that – generally speaking – I don’t say the wrong thing.
However that isn’t the society that I live within. What I can’t do is listed all over the place – often in legislation that was framed decades ago (sometimes centuries ago!), whilst what I can do is listed… nowhere.
Anyway, I’m now sitting here reading Soph’s most recent draft of her essay.
And it’s brilliant.
I mean it’s absolutely fantastic writing; her argument is not particularly controversial, but is brilliantly written, succinctly put and maintains a logical thought process throughout.
I want to read it again – will read it again before bed – but frankly I’m even more impressed with this woman this evening than I was when I woke up this morning.
And that’s saying something.
B.
And there I was thinking you would say it is rubbish! But then, you are my husband, so perhaps you don’t want to risk an ‘unconstitutional’ and, ahem, accidental kick in the bollocks in bed tonight?
I’m so not going to bring American stuff into my essay – I just don’t get it.
Mwah x
How could anyone say it’s other than brilliant (husband-like duties notwithstanding)?
You mean the American Constitution has another purpose than feeding the debate about firearms?
Weird.
As an outside observer, I would never have guessed.
Though I take your point about the debate that centres on The Right to Bear Arms (and not the right to arm bears), specifically I had in mind the First Amendment.
That makes one of you. The Americans don’t nearly like it as much.
Even though they tend to refer to it when they’re out of any other arguments. It’s a bit like a Goldwin point.