The UK government is crowing that it is raising more revenue than ever via the increased use and sophistication of speed cameras. Unlike their earlier models, these rapacious digital beauties can happily snap cars all day long, every day, to infinity and beyond! They are heartless, ugly contraptions, and many people hate them and the people who install and operate them.
The complaints we’re hearing in the UK about this new and improved state surveillance are apt and predictable: the cameras are cash cows, not public safety devices; they are inaccurate; they don’t cut down on traffic accidents. But these complaints don’t address the bigger picture, which is that speeding, per se, is a victimless “crime”; it makes no difference to anyone in the world how fast I drive, so long as I don’t do them or their property any harm. So, why am I giving money to the “government” for permission to do it?
It is this premise — that an unlawful act is uniquely the harming of one identifiable natural (as opposed to corporate) person or their property by another identifiable natural person — that underpins Common Law, which is followed, to one degree or another, across the globe. And, when that complaint of harm is made, it is necessary for the complainant to produce witnesses — natural persons, not machines or the data they produce — and sworn affidavits to support their account of things.
Some people don’t like that way of doing things. This is because Common Law is not manufactured, as is statutory law, for the benefit of corporations, one lobbyist-bought line at a time. It is nurtured along, one personal dispute, one human lesson at a time over centuries. This irks globalizers, such as those behind the EU, who can’t fathom a system of law that they did not author and can not change at will. The proclaimed rationale for their system of “law” is their alleged belief that laws are political tools used to benefit the common good, rather than to preserve individual rights, and that they alone are qualified to determine what the common good is.
Thus far, they’ve had their way with us, even though it’s obvious that, after 60 years of its law-making, the EU has shown itself to be particularly allergic to individual rights, contemptuous of democracy and indifferent to the will of the people. This anti-democratic hard line goes down well in nations such as France, which have “form” with this brand of Communitarianism, and even, to some degree, in Eastern Bloc nations that have a recent history of occupation. But in the UK, a nation that hasn’t been occupied in centuries, we have maintained our foundation of individual liberty, and, ultimately, we will resist being crushed under any foreign bureaucrat’s thumb. Indeed, for a chunk of history, we produced the foreign bureaucratic thumbs that crushed others. The UK has always set individual rights above communitarian ideology. We like our laws free-ranging, unwritten and tacitly accepted, not secretly penned in Evian-soaked back rooms by global CEOs and imposed on us against our will, as is EU “law” .
There is a place for constructed “law”. Indeed the English Bill of Rights, and even the US Constitution, are both written bases for some degree of constructed law. But both of those concern themselves not with quotidian and prescriptive definitions and lists of acceptable individual actions, as does the EU’s suffocating canon of law. They list a few foundational, individual rights — e.g. to speak freely, to own property, to protect oneself and one’s property, to travel the land unimpeded, and to generally remain unmolested by an overreaching government. UK folk desire simply to be free to live life as we please, unmolested by preening busybodies, so long as we do no unwarranted harm to others.
A snap from a roadside machine of someone engaging in an act that causes no harm to anyone or to any property needlessly challenges that desire, and, besides, is not evidence of a violation of the law of the land. Our reaction to these pictures is, however, symptomatic of our disturbing and embarrassing increased obeisance to electronic and remote policing of non-crimes and manufactured crimes, to a global system of “law” that is designed to impose dictatorial control on the planet’s population. (e.g. UN Agenda 21.)
EU-type totalitarian control of 7 billion or more people necessarily requires the liberal use of technological oversight, and this is the first generation susceptible to a viable system of such global Technocratic monitoring and control. The new speed cameras are a good example of that system: When a machine snaps us traveling in our car, it sends the snap to another machine that electronically retrieves our contact information, and then sends that information to another machine that generates and posts us a violation and a demand for money from a “court” that has no lawful jurisdiction because it includes no judge nor, even, any staff trained in law. If we pay the fine, the payment will be processed by yet another machine, which will monitor our obedience or otherwise, and tell our masters if we’re on the “nice” or the “naughty” list.
All of this data can then be freely cross-referenced and appended to whatever other electronic data exists about us, from our bank accounts, to our medical records, to the title of the books we withdrew from the library. The aggregate of this data can then, electronically, determine what job we get, if we can get a loan, what medicines we’re allowed to have, if we’re living “sustainably” etc.
The only time an actual person gets involved in this process is if we resist the state — perhaps we refuse to pay a speeding fine. And what’s that person’s job? To tell us to obey the machines, or else!
Despite this threat, it’s still (barely) UK law that a system of wealth extraction from living, breathing individuals that is entirely prescriptive and entirely automated is not lawful. In fact, it violates the English Bill of Rights, which specifically prohibits the levying of fines or fees from anyone without presentation of a court order issued by a Common Law judge acting under his or her oath, and absent conviction in a court.
Grants of Forfeitures.
That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void.
Our increasingly negligent oversight of the inherent rights that, as UK nationals, our predecessors gave to us and that belong to our children is evident in the way we bow so meekly to this remote and politically deformed body of EU-type “law” and to the evil people who have devised it and to the stupid people who defend it without understanding it.
I still have hope, though, that, at some point, enough people are going to feel enough genuine shame at the fact that they don’t insist on trial and “conviction” before unlawfully giving up their personal sovereignty and wealth to whatever brand of “government” that is demanding it from them?
I still hope that, at some point, enough of us are going to realize how a sleazy gang of globalizers and “bankers”, such as those in the EU power structure, the UN, the World Bank etc, are incrementally stealing from us the most just system of law and the truest means of protection from tyranny ever devised: Common Law.
I still hope that, at some point, we will stop paying these unlawful levies and obeying unlawful directives made by corporate interlopers that seek to socially control us, and that we will reclaim our heritage as free, natural human beings.
At that point, we will be a fully functioning nation, and we will be honouring our covenant with those who went before and to those who will follow us, to preserve them from tyranny.
But, first, we must resist, while we still have that option.