That pesky old Bill of Rights of 1689
A British MP, Mr John Hemming, Member for Yardley in Birmingham, rose to his feet and, invoking Article 9 of the Act of Rights 1689:
the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.
proceeded to name folk held secretly in the UK. The full transcript is here. Via this blog post, which discusses the matter further.
Our institutions, particularly in the Anglosphere, represent centuries of learning and experience. The modernist delusion -- that new is always better -- does much harm when it leads to a blind discounting of that experience.
That experience embodied in the Rights Act of 1689 incorporated Civil War and decades of having an alienated religious minority with connections to hostile foreign Powers. Member of said religious minority having engaged in attempted assassinations and terrorist acts, backed by authoritative religious injunction denying that they had rightful allegiance to the English Crown. The notion that experience of radical Islam is somehow a completely new and transformative thing is itself a case of great ignorance.
When the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords had to rule on a case pertaining to torture a few years ago, it basically said "this issue was settled in the C17th, why is it even up before us?" The same point applies.
The notion that we have things to be proud of, to support, to preserve, to pass on, in our history, institutions and traditions is one that has been systematically sneered at by so many educators, academics, writers etc. More fool them. Be careful what you wish for: you may just get it.
The reality is we live in very successful societies with many desirable institutions. If you define virtue against success, then you will get a lot of failure. Including the failure to learn, to understand, and to protect basic liberties.
ADDENDA Not the same issue but related; the UK Ministry of Defense has bought and pulped a book, likely because it embarrassed someone in the MoD.
the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.
proceeded to name folk held secretly in the UK. The full transcript is here. Via this blog post, which discusses the matter further.
Our institutions, particularly in the Anglosphere, represent centuries of learning and experience. The modernist delusion -- that new is always better -- does much harm when it leads to a blind discounting of that experience.
That experience embodied in the Rights Act of 1689 incorporated Civil War and decades of having an alienated religious minority with connections to hostile foreign Powers. Member of said religious minority having engaged in attempted assassinations and terrorist acts, backed by authoritative religious injunction denying that they had rightful allegiance to the English Crown. The notion that experience of radical Islam is somehow a completely new and transformative thing is itself a case of great ignorance.
When the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords had to rule on a case pertaining to torture a few years ago, it basically said "this issue was settled in the C17th, why is it even up before us?" The same point applies.
The notion that we have things to be proud of, to support, to preserve, to pass on, in our history, institutions and traditions is one that has been systematically sneered at by so many educators, academics, writers etc. More fool them. Be careful what you wish for: you may just get it.
The reality is we live in very successful societies with many desirable institutions. If you define virtue against success, then you will get a lot of failure. Including the failure to learn, to understand, and to protect basic liberties.
ADDENDA Not the same issue but related; the UK Ministry of Defense has bought and pulped a book, likely because it embarrassed someone in the MoD.