The enduring relevance of natural law
The lawyers below are undoubtedly correct in saying that concepts of natural law have been very valuable in restraining tyranny. They do not however attempt to answer the basic philosophical conundrum involved: How do we know what the natural law is? If there are two claims about what the natural law is, how do we decide which one is right? The answer has to be abitrary. So concepts of natural law may be useful but they are not authoritative
It is impossible to understate the malaise that has engulfed Australia in 2023. Indeed, it has been a tumultuous year because, economically, Australians have suffered from spiralling inflation, deteriorating living standards, and elevated levels of unsustained immigration with its concomitant housing problems. In addition, governments (federal, state, and local) have sought – unsuccessfully – to divide the population along racial lines by entrenching The Voice in the Constitution, and by adopting social engineering legislation that is inimical with human nature and plain common sense. Such legislation includes, but is not limited to, the prohibition of gender-affirming conversion practices; the adoption of gender identification laws that facilitate transitioning to a gender, different from a person’s biological gender; inability or unwillingness of politicians to define a ‘woman’; unrelenting pressure to ban religion from the public forum; the adoption of free speech unfriendly legislation such as the proposed law to compel internet providers to police speech on their platforms; and, of course, the unrelenting zero emissions pursuit and the silencing of those who are climate sceptics. Really, the list of legislative abominations is unending.
Although these developments appear to be disparate projects, they do have one thing in common: they are all based on the assumption that humans possess the power to change ‘human nature’ developed over millennia. However, this assumption fails to recognise that the arrogation by social engineers and left-wing ideologues of God-like powers is futile. For example, how feasible is it for humans to transition to another gender? How could humanity hope to control the temperature on Planet Earth? And yet, Australia’s illiberal elites push their social engineering reform agenda without ever considering the natural limitations dictated by human nature.
The transgressions of Australia’s illiberal elite, to the extent they are incompatible with human nature, have resulted in a discernible deterioration of the nation’s fabric. This deterioration is visible in the fracturing of society into those who still believe in the proper role of humans, and those who usurp God-like powers. Although proponents of these transgressions may have been well-intentioned, the sustained and ongoing attacks on the integrity and cohesiveness of Australian society have blighted the nation and transformed Australia into ‘the unlucky country’ – which is also the title of our forthcoming book about Australia’s transformation from a ‘lucky country’ into an ‘unlucky country’.
The cumulative effect of the promotion and imposition of illiberal societal developments that disregards ‘human nature’ has been the growing disrespect for, and even repudiation of, the continuing importance of ‘natural law’ for a mature legal system. It is simply impossible to deny or underestimate the enduring relevance of natural law in the development of our legal system. This idea of natural law, which can be traced to the classical philosophy of the ancient Hebrew, Greeks, and Romans, through several Christian medieval writers, is enshrined, inter alia, in the English Magna Carta (1215), the UK Bill of Rights (1689), and the American Declaration of Independence (1776). People’s natural human rights, which derive from human nature, have thus a historical foundation, which has never been refuted, although it has been obscured in the passage of time.
Unfortunately, the principles underlying natural law, have been seriously undermined by the arbitrary actions of governments. During the last four years – but culminating in a turbulent 2023 – Australian governments have exerted powers over its citizens on a scale never previously attempted. Sometimes, especially during the Covid pandemic, governments oppressively controlled every single aspect of people’s lives: where they could go, whom they could meet, what they could do, even within their own homes. These intrusive measures created angst and discomfort among a compliant population, and it has done irreparable damage to Australia’s fabric.
Hence, the question is: what could be done to fight, or even to reverse, this inexorable slide into a Marxism-inspired leftist abyss that disregards ‘human nature’ and ‘common sense’?
The fundamental error of Marxist-inspired ideas is anthropological in nature. Personal freedom which detaches itself from objective standards, and consequently the moral duty to respect the basic rights of others, becomes narcissistic behaviour that is now carried to its illogical extreme; an autonomous form of ‘license’ that leads to unbridled self-affirmation and refuses to be limited by any requirement of the natural moral law.
There is no point looking to the legislative branch of government to seek relief from the oppressive and inexorable trend towards the defenestration of ‘human nature’. Instead, we need to rely on ‘common sense’ to protect humankind against the barbaric assault on our Western Civilisation. Some scholars argue that this fight-back requires a return to ‘natural law’ theory. However, it is challenging to rely on ‘natural law’ because our legal landscape is dominated by positivism as the prevailing legal philosophy. Although the rejuvenation of ‘natural law’ still offers the best prospect to successfully fight the present legislative abominations, it would certainly raise intractable questions regarding the origin of its basic legal principles (God-given or historically developed?). But, at least, it would make people reflect on ‘human nature’ and acknowledge its obvious limitations.
While the idea of natural law implies that the validity of law depends on its moral status, positivists claim that the main factor in determining the validity of law is whether the proper authority enacts such law. Positivists do not regard the immorality of a law as essentially relevant to its validity. According to the ‘Father of English Positivism’, John Austin, ‘The existence of law is one thing, its merit or demerit another.’
The revival of ‘natural law’ has been inspired by the views of Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke, who in Dr. Bonham’s case, decided in 1608, said that, if legislation is ‘against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such act to be void’.
Coke’s statement implies that it is problematic to consider legislation, regardless of whether it offends ‘common right and reason’, as the final arbiter of what people are allowed to do. This is because legislation that violates Australia’s natural law tradition often offends against rights that are deemed to be ‘inalienable.’ This view seems to have been accepted by some members of the High Court. For example, in Re Bolton; Ex Parte Beane, Justice Brennan admitted, ‘Many of our fundamental freedoms are guaranteed by ancient principles of the common law or by ancient statutes which are so much of the accepted constitutional framework that their terms, if not their very existence may be overlooked until a case arises which evokes their contemporary and undiminished force.’ Justice Deane agreed with Brennan’s sentiment when he stated that these principles ‘are the fabric of the freedom under the law, which is the prima facie right of every citizen in this land. They represent a bulwark against tyranny’.
Often, social engineering legislation excessively interferes with the life, liberty, and property of the citizen. For example, emergency powers – eagerly adopted by Australian politicians during the Covid pandemic – imposed extra-constitutional measures that undermined the principles of equality before the law and the right of citizens to object to any form of medical treatment, including vaccine mandates. This imposition constituted a gross violation of the natural law, the ultimate goal of which is to protect citizens against the power of the State.
As noted by Joseph F. Johnston, Jr. in an article entitled Natural Law and the Rule of Law, ‘Many if not all of the basic principles that we usually include under the rubric ‘rule of law’ can be derived directly or indirectly from natural law sources.’ He bemoans the fact that ‘the connection between natural law and the rule of law, which formerly was so close as to amount to virtual identity, is largely neglected by the law schools and the legal profession’. First coined by Plato and later refined by Aristotle, the concept of the ‘rule of law’ was further elaborated by St Thomas Aquinas, who stated: ‘Once the government is established, the government of the kingdom must be so arranged that opportunity to tyrannize be removed. At the same time, his power should be so tempered that he cannot easily fall into tyranny.’ According to the late American legal philosopher Charles Rice, who taught at the University of Notre Dame, ‘Aquinas’ analysis is a prescription for limited government, providing a rational basis on which to affirm that there are limits to what the state can rightly do.’ His insistence that the power of the human law be limited implies a right of the person not to be subjected to an unjust law.
It is difficult therefore to estimate the extent to which our legal and political systems developed as a result of the use of such concepts as ‘natural law’, ‘natural rights’, and ‘the rule of law’. These concepts are inextricably connected to a particular way of thinking about law that, according to Justice Clarence Thomas of the US Supreme Court, is ‘far from being a license for unlimited government and a roving judiciary. Rather, natural rights and higher law arguments are the best defense of liberty and of limited government’. To ignore this fact results in a diminished understanding of the rule of law and principles that underpin it. Australians continue to do so entirely at their peril.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/12/the-enduring-relevance-of-natural-law/
**************************************************Liberal Parenting Contributes to Mental Illness in Kids
A widely ignored study from Gallup and the Institute for Family Studies shows that children who are raised in politically liberal households are more likely to suffer mental health problems than kids from conservative homes.
In the study synopsis Parenting is the Key to Adolescent Mental Health, author Jonathan Rothwell focuses on different parenting styles and how they affect child development. The study then correlates these styles with political ideology and mental illness among children.
“Conservative and very conservative parents are the most likely to adopt the parenting practices associated with adolescent mental health. They are the most likely to effectively discipline their children, while also displaying affection and responding to their needs,” writes Rothwell. “Liberal parents score the lowest, even worse than very liberal parents, largely because they are the least likely to successfully discipline their children.”
The parenting style spread between liberal and conservative parents is not small. “Just 40% of liberal parents scored above average on the index, whereas 71% of very conservative parents and 56% of conservative parents did,” notes the report. Researchers also found that, “Very conservative parents are also somewhat more likely to report giving their child hugs and kisses every day. Generally speaking, political conservatism is associated with more responsive and discipline-oriented parenting.”
The study does a good job of exploring the ‘what’ of different parenting styles and their impact on the mental health of kids. But it doesn’t look as closely at the ‘why’ that underlies different approaches to parenting. The exception is a passing hat-tip to, “the prevalence of routine experiences including... participating in religious experiences (like church).”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, political conservatives are more likely than liberals to identify as religious. Gallup released a study on politics and religion on September 1, 2023, and found that 81% of Republicans are Protestant or Roman Catholic, while 61% of Democrats similarly identified. The study also revealed that 26% of Democrats reported no religious affiliation at all compared with just 11% of Republicans.
What is it about faith and political ideology that correlates so strongly with the mental health of children? One factor that deserves attention is the presence or absence of biblical principles that define the respective worldviews of parents.
The Bible contains a great deal of wisdom on child rearing and it stands to reason that scripture, to a greater or lesser degree, informs the parenting style of Christians. Some of the most venerable tips on child rearing are thousands of years old, including those in the Old Testament book of Proverbs which recommends, “Discipline your son, and he will give you rest; he will give delight to your heart.”
Modern research affirms this ancient guidance. The Gallup/IFS study reports, “The percentage that an adolescent is in good mental health is 8 percentage points lower when the parents agree that they ‘find it difficult to discipline their child.’” The words of King Solomon and his successors are as true today as they were in the 10th century BC.
Fast forward to the 1st century AD and we read in Paul’s letter to the church in Ephesus, “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” This too is reflected by current research. “Both harsh and overly permissive parenting predicts higher risk of mental health problems and problematic behaviors,” observes Gallup/IFS.
The issue of marriage and the attitude of parents toward it also contribute to a child’s mental health. According to the Gallup/IFS report, “Parents holding more pro-marriage attitudes are more likely to engage in best practice parenting.” The authors of the New Testament epistle to the Hebrews summed-up the value and importance of this institution simply and completely in writing, “Let marriage be held in honor among all.”
The rules of science and empirical research don’t allow for the supernatural in drawing conclusions, and that’s fine. But both increasingly support biblical truths, including this current study on parenting and the mental wellness of our kids. There’s a correlation between good parenting, good adolescent mental health and the Bible, and it ought not be dismissed or ignored.
It’s the latest example of how Nobel Prize-winning physicist Werner Heisenberg was right when he observed, “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.
**************************************************
GOP-Led States Demand Major Firms Stop Backing Efforts to ‘Debank’ Conservatives
Nearly two dozen state attorneys general signed onto a letter Wednesday demanding major firms that provide voting advice to corporate shareholders stop backing efforts to “debank” conservatives.
Republican Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird led 22 other state attorneys general in sending a letter to the two companies that control 97% of the proxy advisory services market, Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis, whose advice they say shapes “the choices and activity of businesses and ultimately the United States’ and global economy.”
The letter warns them against opposing shareholder resolutions to hold financial institutions accountable for restricting services based on clients’ religious and political beliefs, noting that viewpoint discrimination comes with “legal liabilities.”
“They have advised big banks to keep quiet about why they’ve closed people’s bank accounts,” Bird told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We’ve seen banks targeting accounts for Second Amendment groups, like the NRA, or religious groups, including Christian nonprofits.”
“They say they want transparency, but when it comes to the fact that some of the big banks are debanking conservatives or conservative causes, they don’t want that transparency,” Bird said.
Banks often use “reputational risk” or “hate speech” policies to target customers based on politics, the letter states. Bank of America canceled the accounts of Indigenous Advance, a Tennessee-based Christian nonprofit, earlier this year because it “no longer aligns with the bank’s risk tolerance,” according to Alliance Defending Freedom.
The attorneys general are concerned Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis are opposing resolutions that seek to hold banks accountable for such instances of “politicized debanking.”
“These firms support a vast majority of left-of-center, pro-[environmental, social, and governance] shareholder proposals and effectively block proposals from conservative shareholders seeking to hold companies accountable for the anti-free speech and anti-religious behavior that ESG demands,” ADF Senior Vice President of Corporate Engagement Jeremy Tedesco told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Last year, shareholder resolutions on viewpoint diversity at JPMorgan Chase and PayPal received 2% or less of the vote, which the attorneys general wrote “would not have happened had [the advising firms] recommended voting for it.” They push for “more transparency,” asking ISS and Glass Lewis to provide explanations of their decision-making processes.
“Investment managers should be focused on getting Americans a return on their investment, having sound pensions, not playing politics with investments,” Bird told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
*******************************************************
A Troubled 75th Anniversary for Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Sunday marks the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but many of those most loudly celebrating are doing the most harm to its legacy.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights remains the foundation on which the United Nations’ human rights framework is built. The contribution of the declaration to human rights was and remains immense.
After deliberations focused on distilling universal human rights and values common to all humanity, the drafters, led by Eleanor Roosevelt, proposed 30 articles expressing universal rights, including the freedoms of expression, religion, movement, and assembly.
It also affirmed the right to life, the right to own property, the prohibition of slavery, and the concepts of dignity, equality, and due process.
But around the globe, those rights are increasingly under assault.
No doubt governments around the world will issue statements recognizing the anniversary and affirming their commitment to human rights.
But governments flout rights with little consequence. Democracy has been overthrown with alarming frequency in the Sahel region of Africa and has been in slow retreat globally for years, according to Freedom House.
Religious persecution and violence is increasingly common. Authoritarian governments, led by Beijing, seek to control speech and police their populations via increasingly omnipresent surveillance. In China, perhaps 1 million Uyghur Muslims are imprisoned and subject to forced labor. In fact, the U.S. has determined that Beijing is committing genocide in Xinxiang.
The U.N. conducts human rights kabuki theater, but no one seriously expects it to act in defense of human rights. The premier human rights body at the U.N., the Human Rights Council, focuses much of its time on condemning Israel, but has no time to condemn China, Cuba, or the many other human rights violators.
Likewise, governments dishonestly spin tales of their fidelity to human rights in the Human Rights Council during the universal periodic reviews. Other governments disingenuously nod along with those falsehoods and assert that the process is helpful.
Meanwhile, human rights advocates too often ignore violations of basic human rights and freedoms and instead seek to expand the number of rights and distort their interpretation in ways never envisioned by those who drafted the Universal Declaration.
As noted by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the original 30 rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have proliferated into more than 1,300 rights provisions in 64 agreements.
Those new rights encompass a variety of matters, including rights to a healthy environment, peace, development, and sexual orientation and gender identity, among many other issues.
What’s so wrong with expanding the scope of human rights? Unfortunately, more rights do not translate into more justice, more freedom, or more protection for individuals.
But the proliferation of rights and the desire to advance all of them without preference dilutes the attention and resources that can be applied to strengthening any one of them.
The sad reality is that the multilateral system has too frequently fallen short of fulfilling the promise in the U.N. Charter to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, equality, and the dignity and worth of the human person.
The evolution of the human rights discourse over the past few decades has made this challenge harder, not easier.
Pursuing new, increasingly esoteric rights claims, while ignoring the fact that much of the world’s population has yet to enjoy the rights laid out in the Universal Declaration, does a huge disservice to the billions of people who face jail or worse for speaking their opinions, protesting their government, or practicing their religion.
That was a key takeaway from the First Principles on Human Rights Series that The Heritage Foundation published in 2020. In that series, experts assessed in detail threats to basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, and made recommendations for policymakers. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
For instance, professor Tom Finegan, a lecturer in theology and religious studies at Mary Immaculate College in Ireland, urged states to reject faulty interpretations of treaties, warning that if states are passive toward, or acquiescent to, faulty pronouncements by treaty-monitoring bodies, those pronouncements could attain the status of customary human rights law.
In another essay, Notre Dame law professor Paolo Carozza, who served on the State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights, urges policymakers to be cautious in the use of the concept of dignity in the law in ways that generate new rights or aggressive new understandings of rights. He emphasizes that need for broad consensus when assessing rights claims.
Lawyers Michael Farris and Paul Coleman caution that efforts to limit free speech in the name of combating “hate speech” (and the recent proposals to combat misinformation or disinformation) pose an existential threat to freedom of expression.
On the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the best tribute would be to return the focus to human rights that have universal consensus. Unless those fundamental rights and freedoms are secure, other human aspirations will be forever vulnerable.
**********************************************
The Left's Criminal Neglect of Law and Order
Crime in Washington, D.C. is surging beyond last year's record: Homicides are up 32 percent with 253 so far this year and robberies have increased 70 percent to 3,280 year-to-date. Motor vehicle thefts have risen 91 percent to more than 6,400, and crime across the board in the nation's capital has increased 27 percent in 2023 with a few weeks before the new year.
Across the river from D.C. in the Commonwealth of Virginia, there's a relatively new sheriff in town, and Attorney General Jason Miyares — elected in November 2021 — isn't taking the threat of rising crime in the District or elsewhere lightly — especially when it's affecting Virginians.
"I think you have a huge problem in DC — it's clear," Miyares told me this week. "You could see from what's happening, just where the carjackings are taking place, is literally right over the border," he said of the relatively narrow Potomac River dividing line between his state and the nation's capital. "They're not coming into Virginia, but it's affecting Virginia," he explained. "It's Virginians that are being carjacked — you just had your third FBI agent this year that got carjacked."
D.C. is anything but an island, and it's filled with non-residents every day of the week for work, sightseeing, sports, or other entertainment, including a large number of Virginians. "It is absolutely impacting people that live in the Commonwealth," Miyares said. "You have the beautiful young woman that was a recent graduate of James Madison University that had come into the District to see a concert, and within hours of her being in the district she was brutally murdered in her hotel room by someone that should never have been on the street," he recalled of the suspect who'd been arrested many times before and had multiple warrants out for his arrest after he was released over objections he posed a danger to others.
Beyond tragic attacks that endanger the lives of Virginians in D.C., Miyares warned that the "organized crime element" also poses a threat to law and order in the Commonwealth and "doesn't just stop at the border."
For example, "what you're seeing with the Sinaloa [Cartel] that is making inroads in Virginia," Miyares explained. "We know they have basically popped up in Richmond," he said. "My expectation: they're probably already in the DC, Northern Virginia area — you have MS-13 already here," added Miyares. "Generally what happens is, whenever you have it, is always a fight with the drug distribution network, and it gets really, really bloody," the attorney general warned. "That's one of my big concerns is, what happens in DC, if there's suddenly an ongoing feud or fight over distribution of narcotics."
Beyond Virginia's border with D.C. is the U.S. border with Mexico, another major factor in rising crime that's worrying Miyares. "What's happening on our border is, it is almost borderline criminal neglect," he explained. "With the amount of fentanyl that crosses the southern border, it can kill every man, woman, and child three times over."
Almost "everything" about the drug war has "fundamentally changed — just almost overnight," Miyares said of changes in the last half-decade. "It used to be that you needed acres of land, you needed good weather, and you needed a distribution network," explained the AG. "Now you don't need any of that. All you need is a chemistry lab."
The old ways are gone, added Miyares, because of "the absolutely massive quantity of fentanyl available to manufacture" and the fact that producers "already have a distribution network" in place to spread their deadly product to American streets. "It's getting much more deadly," Miyares said of the drugs hitting streets around the country. "And then the conflicts that are happening behind the scenes are a grave concern of mine where we are," he added of the violent fights over distribution.
Even before he was Virginia's top law enforcement officer, then-state House of Delegates member Miyares was focused on upholding law and order and enhancing penalties for those peddling deadly fentanyl. He and Virginia Republicans have been consistent in this goal, but Virginia's Democrats have lurched to the left to the detriment of the Commonwealth's safety.
Governor Glenn Youngkin, Miyares explained, "has been begging for legislation that says if you're a fentanyl dealer and somebody overdoses, you can be charged with felony homicide." That bill, coincidentally, was carried by Miyares when he served in the House of Delegates under then-Democrat Governor Ralph Northam. Then, despite passing with the support of "close to 20 Democrats" as Miyares retold, Northam vetoed the bill.
Fast forward a few years and, when Republicans in the legislature brought the bill back to the floor with the aim of having Governor Youngkin get the bill at his desk to finally sign into law, the legislation "died in a party-line vote" as Democrats who "had voted for the exact same bill four years ago voted against it," recalled Miyares. That reality "tells you how much they've shifted to the left — the overdose crisis has gotten worse, the fentanyl crisis has gotten worse — yet they couldn't vote for the same bill they'd voted for just a couple years ago."
Democrats' leftward lurch, Miyares added, is caused by their mindset that "anything that has enhanced penalties is something that puts a real target on the back in the Democrat primaries — they won't do it."
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment