The Law is the fundamental driver of all social issues and the basis on which our society survives (badly or otherwise). Due to the nature of mankind these Laws need to exist. It is the incorrect or overzealous application of these Laws plus (and more importantly) the creation of inappropriate Laws that makes The Law a major contributor to the overall chaos that society is slipping into.
Here is a quote from a book The Law by Frederic Bastiat in 1850 :
(But, ) unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
This is very much in keeping with RRR and thus we need to address :
— Plain English Law – or practically speaking a single paragraph as an introduction (header?) for every Law that states the PURPOSE OF THE LAW.
— Bring Justice back into Law so that a Judge is able to revert to the
PURPOSE OF ANY LAW and rule on that Law based on the PURPOSE of the law and TheCode
— No Law can be re-interpreted in such a way as to make judgement based on the PURPOSE OF THE LAW technically different. In other words there should no longer be such a thing as technical ambiguity which can be debated by lawyers.
— A very careful re-assessment of ALL laws to ensure that they are in keeping with TheCode, that they are able to be enforced, that they are able to be summed up in a single paragraph PURPOSE (or else they are too complex and probably too compromised to be valid and practical) and that they are REALLY necessary and not enforceable in terms of some other Law which has become unenforceable because of precedent and/or technical interpretations
— It is very important that Capital Punishment is brought back into practice and that the Death Sentence is made available to rid our society of Low-Life that cost the country a very large sum of money each year to feed and clothe and maintain in a holiday-state (read almost luxury) environments.
It is a very sad situation that Justice no longer really exists. Judges are
hamstrung by technicalities and where most court cases are decided by the ability (and cost) of technicalities and precedents as identified by the lawyers. Please do not get me wrong. I do not have anything against lawyers but when the result of a court case is dependent on who has the most money to spend on the power of lawyers (or barristers ) then to my mind the legal system is a farce.
The biggest problem with sorting out this situation is that it can be interpreted as an “attack” on Lawyers (or the integrity of Lawyers) and as such will meet with a HUGE amount of resistance from a HUGELY profitable section of the community who benefit from this “industry”!
Once again the fox is in charge of the henhouse.
This is probably the easiest PROBLEM to address. And, although it is a huge mountain to climb it is still probably the easiest PROBLEM of the lot to address. It is very important they The Laws of Australia ( and probably every other country in the world) revised.
All Laws need to be reviewed on the basis of promoting TheCode and those that cannot be brought into line with TheCode should be modified or removed. Every Law has to be brought into existence based on a need or requirement for the betterment of country or people. If the Law contradicts TheCode then it should be revised or discarded.
I would like to suggest that these are the areas that need to be addressed:
- Every law should have a Plain English PURPOSE included as an introduction to the Law. Plain English Law: Plain English and the Law-republished_forweb.pdf was promulgated in 7th May, 1985 and Last updated: 15/Feb/2020. In this document, they stated : The purpose of a document determines not only its contents but also its format and the language in which it is written. This chapter explains how the purpose of an Act should be taken into account in drafting.AND:
The audience of the Legislation:The audience of legislation consists of four main categories of readers: Members of Parliament, the people affected by the Act, the officials administering the Act, and judges and lawyers. And then they set-about (cannot establish whether this got any further?) translating every Law into Plain English. This process does not resolve our problem in the slightest. It is still written in such a way as to cover every contingency (theoretically anyway) which is then left up to the lawyers to debate, interpret (as they see most necessary to their clients) and convince the judge (or a jury) that their’s is the only valid and truthful viewpoint and may the best man win. In these cases, the most experienced (and hence expensive) man WILL win. By introducing a PURPOSE for each Law the judges can then be left to do their jobs and earn their keep by being given the authority to return all attention back to the court, the accused and the Law instead of the lawyers. “It is my opinion at this time that the learned counsel has strayed sufficiently from the purpose of the Law, in question in this case, to justify that the matter has become technical and relies on semantics. To this end, I will revert to the PURPOSE OF THE LAW and based on my understanding of this case will declare the accused ……. and sentencing will be passed on ……”. Cannot see this one getting very far but it should happen so that Justice can be done. Not a battle of expensive legal contestants. Justice MUST be for everyone.
- Stress the PURPOSE OF THE LAW should be pre-pended to every law. A single sentence in Plain English with a maximum number of words allowed (possibly 50-80 max). This would be no small task but it would be an appropriate time to involve non-Dept of Justice (ie. government) staff. There should be a Table of Laws set up with the most critical (and time-consuming ones, as far as the court is concernewd, at the top of the List). These lists are then made available to all Universities throughout the country and final year law students are given the opportunity to choose a Law off the List and prepare a Paper on the structure and content of THE PURPOSE, submitted to the Law Professor for approval and then on to Dept. of Justice for promulgation. This paper can be made compulsory as part of their qualification.
- This should also be done for every new Law that is to be promulgated. For NEW Laws there should also be a process where The Department of Justice can only promulgate a New Law if they identify, nominate and process a redundant, inappropriate or now-meaningless Law for removal from The Law. IMHO this process could eventually establish a situation where Laws will reach a state of balance and practical and “state-of-the-art” applicability. (CULLING Laws)
- While 2. above is being prepared the student should also ensure that any similar or closely related laws are reviewed with the objective that Laws of this nature should be combined where possible to provide one succinct Law to replace many. (SIMPLIFYING LAWS).
- Laws should never be based on any Sexual Orientation, Religion or Creed. This is why TheCode has to be above but acceptable to every Sexual Orientation, Religion or Creed. Put it to the test. Please let me know VERY URGENTLY if it fails on any score. Or is there is some nuance of its application which may be contradictory or misinformative or illogical.
Example of TheCode in a simple litigation case :
Consider America’s favorite pastime in the Courts. Litigation. Mrs. Bloggs goes to Court with a suitably qualified and experienced lawyer. Probably even so experienced that he/she is on a No-Win No-Pay basis.
Mrs. Bloggs: Here I am walking down the sidewalk at ….. and …. and the next minute I am hospital for 5 weeks because there was a step on the pavement. Please will you award me $100,000 damages, payable by the Council, for not keeping the pavement in a safe condition.
Lawyer: Earns their keep by bending the judge’s ear on 14 precedents which have been paid out in the past.
Judge: (Applying TheCode to the appropriate Law in question.) Did you see this step in the pavement Mrs. Bloggs?
Whichever way Mrs. Bloggs answers.
Judge: Well Mrs. Bloggs do you not agree that it is your own responsibility to properly observe where you are walking? It is your own responsibility to ensure that you properly step over an obstacle in your path. There is a possibility that the step was as a result of temperature changes overnight and was thus totally beyond the control of the council. Case dismissed. The court will collect court costs from the plaintiff for wasting the court’s time on such a trivial issue.
Council did not even have to have their lawyer present.
Lawyer figures out that Responsibility comes before RIGHTS.
KISS above all else, See ya soon,
I believe that all religions have a fundamental purpose in common. That they all have the same objective. I believe that if each and every Religion was to have a single sentence purpose as a precursor to the religion, as I have proposed for the Laws of each and every country, then all Religions would suddenly find that they all have the same objective in mind. Ooops! What on earth have all the Religious wars been about anyway? Put very simply, because people are a.) not prepared to Respect the opinions of others and b.) GREED.
All the religious books-of-guidance, for want of a better term, therefore all have the same PURPOSE in mind and are all subject to the same errors of interpretation. Let me try to explain my viewpoint by using the Ten Commandments as an example. The reference used here takes great care to interpret THE WORDS THAT WERE HANDED DOWN TO BE TREATED AS LAW. Many subtle differences are detailed and the Jewish and Hebrew Ten Commandments, as listed, keep the laws as simple and unambiguous as possible. Let us consider the 6th commandment. The Christian set defines the 6th as: You shall not kill. The Jewish and Hebrew defines the 6th as: You shall not murder. Not a big difference but the first definition is used as the main reason why a person should be a vegetarian or even more extreme, a vegan. If we accept the second definition as being “correct” then the consideration that we are “murdering” cows is not really a consideration. It does, however, apply to people!
To my understanding, the most blatant and inhumane misinterpretation of the religious books-of-guidance is the justification that the terrorists use to “kill the infidels” as allegedly “dictated” in the Koran. There is no religion on this planet that justifies murder and definitely not genocide. And to top off this blight on the planet the Do-Gooders maintain that these people should not be put to death!!
The next issue which creates misinterpretation of the religious books-of-guidance is the fact that we do not take into account THE AUDIENCE that these books were written for or the environmental conditions that applied at the time or the level of education and understanding that prevailed at the time and consequently how these laws would be PERCEIVED at the time. What were these laws intended to achieve AT THAT TIME?
All the Religious Tomes are very similar in concept to our Law Books and have the same fundamental error. The thing that is missing is the KISS principle. This document is based on the KISS principle. All that is important is TheCode. Acceptance, understanding and application of TheCode is all we are trying to achieve.
It is in this area of the purpose behind religions that I seek help from people who belong to other religions to see if we can align ALL RELIGIONS to agree that they have a common PURPOSE and therefore can co-existent AND co-operate. This can be achieved by means of TheCode. We need to establish TheCode as a means of achieving peace. I believe that if we can agree to use TheCode as a basis for resolving errors of interpretation then we will be able to reach an amicable compromise for most (if not all?) of our differences.
PLEASE let me have your understanding and interpretations,