Last week the internet was taken by storm by the story of a U.K. man who posted a photo of himself holding a firearm while in the U.S., and was subsequently arrested and interrogated by British police when he returned home. Even Elon Musk commented on the story, noting, “And this is why we have the first and second amendments in America.”
While those charges were eventually dropped, the story highlights the near-absolute power of the British state against a disarmed citizenry. It’s already a foregone conclusion that freedom of speech – in any form – no longer exists, with reports showing 12,000 per year arrested for “speech crimes.” However, an even more significant development is brewing in the background that may severely impact whatever is left in terms of rights for British citizens, and should serve as a serious warning for Americans as we continue to see the calamitous fall of individual liberties in the West.
Rogue judges in the United States have fundamentally undercut civil liberties with rulings that clearly violate the Constitution, with Second Amendment cases serving as some of the starkest examples of judicial activism. Last week, the British Labour government effectively said, hold my disgusting, warm beer, and introduced a radical proposal to address a record backlog of 78,000 criminal cases waiting to be completed. The British justice system is so mired in bureaucratic morass that those charged with a serious crime today may not have a trial for four or even five years.
Their solution? Undermine the most objective and well-respected systems of justice ever devised by man.
As reported by the BBC, a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) memo confirms plans to create a new tier of jury-less courts for most crimes, while reserving trial by jury for only the most serious cases like rape, murder or manslaughter. And similar to the subjective standards of “public safety” used by anti-gun states when rendering gun control laws, the most serious cases that proceed to jury trial would be based upon a “public interest” test – whatever that means.
Should this measure pass, the majority of criminal cases would be heard and decided by a single judge. Impartiality is virtually impossible under these circumstances. Radicals in England are actively moving to alter the justice system. Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy stated that there is “no right” to jury trials, as reported by Sky News.
To say that this undermines the principles of the British justice system – which dates back 800-plus years to the Magna Carta – is an understatement. The Magna Carta was sealed by King John in 1215 AD, annulled by the Pope a few weeks later, reissued again by Henry III in 1225, and finally confirmed by Edward I in 1297 – the version that is today part of the U.K. statues.
One of the core principles on the subject of just and fair judgement in the Magna Carta comes from Clause 39 which states:
No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
Wrapped up in this clause are concepts of equality under the law, due process, right to a fair and speedy trial, and impartiality. So important to the founding of our country were these concepts that our Founders debated them fiercely.
Thomas Jefferson stated, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
Alexander Hamilton wrote one of the most passionate defenses of jury trials in Federalist No. 83, in 1788:
The friends and adversaries of the plan of the convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury: Or if there is any difference between them, it consists in this; the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty, the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government.
Our own Declaration of Independence cites “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury,” as one of many acts of “absolute tyranny” for which we separated ourselves into a new country.
The Cato Institute, whose stated purpose is to move public policy in the direction of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace, acknowledges that, “We can thank independent juries for helping to establish freedom of the press on American soil.”
Other countries that eschew jury trials with government-appointed judges for criminal cases? Authoritarian China; totalitarian North Korea; theocratic, iron-fisted Iran; and socialist Venezuela, to name few.
Now, history may come full circle.
Whether or not this measure passes next week, the erosion of individual liberty in the United Kingdom has gathered landslide-like momentum, and is likely to bury the citizens in a tyrannical system not unlike that from which the American revolution was born.
This is all only possible because the disarmed population has no means with which to secure its freedom from tyranny.
Let our cousins in the U.K. be a lesson to us to NEVER allow ourselves to be disarmed.
