The lines below are not to suggest people go out and purposely break the law just for its sake. Neither are they statements of fact but, moreover, to ask questions collectively as to the ludicrous nature of some of these laws and what are their long-term implications?
The question “should we always obey the law without question?” is a pertinent enquiry and one which really needs asking particularly under present and recent conditions.
The question “should we always obey the law without question?” is a pertinent enquiry and one which really needs asking particularly under present and recent conditions.
Under any system, capitalist or socialist laws are always needed. The question is what laws and for whose benefit, the employers who the Police/Gardai/Gendarmes protect along with private property or the working-class, the people with little or no property? Either way we are constantly told within this so-called liberal democratic system that we must obey the law.
Under capitalism laws are enacted in the interests of the ruling class, the owners of huge swathes of private property and most importantly the means of production, distribution and exchange. Let us be clear on one thing, under capitalism we are Not all equal before the law. The more money and property you own, the higher up the legal immunity scale you are likely to go!
Under socialism we would still have laws but different ones, laws which would put the interests of the working-class over and above all other considerations, laws which would safe-guard public property as the present ones do privately owned buildings and lands. We would all be equal before the law, our law. Amassing huge swathes of property and accumulating massive wealth through the principle of exploitation would be a criminal offence and dealt with accordingly, just as now preventing such exploitation through strikes and picketing are dealt with by the agencies of the employing class! We may well need a new force, keeping some of the basic uniformed Gardai who walk the streets but the officers, themselves in many cases having a class interest in maintaining the status quo would be replaced. The communities would decide what and who with, as it would be the communities the force would serve and be answerable to. Public ownership would replace private greed and all idle buildings presently owned by absent landlords and proprietors would come under common ownership, thus eradicating homelessness. This does not mean somebody who has bought a house or owns a corner shop would be nationalised. They would be free to either come into the state programme (not the state in its present form, but moreover a number of communities and councils) or stay outside. The state as a governing body would become redundant as true democracy right down to the lowest unit would thrive. Would our ever-present boys in blue who constantly tell us to “obey the law” still use this narrative? Would they still say such utterances as “we do not make the law we only uphold it”? Or would they become a counterrevolutionary force? However, I am deviating from the main issue here.
Under the present system, we are constantly told is the finest available to human kind (which is bollocks). The laws we are expected to obey are, in many instances idiotic. This has been most notable during this pandemic, for example people can go for a few pints in the pub or a meal at a restaurant but if they use the toilet or move anywhere from their table, they must wear a mask. Why? There is no logic to this nonsensical rubbish, perhaps there was never supposed to be, such a law is more a test of the how much control can be exercised over people, a means of control by the powers that be. It offers no protection against Covid-19 at all. To be honest nothing really does, apart from the vaccine, any more than flu or other viral infections. Could it be a barometer to see just how much crap people will swallow before they say No?
Under the present system, we are constantly told is the finest available to human kind (which is bollocks). The laws we are expected to obey are, in many instances idiotic. This has been most notable during this pandemic, for example people can go for a few pints in the pub or a meal at a restaurant but if they use the toilet or move anywhere from their table, they must wear a mask. Why? There is no logic to this nonsensical rubbish, perhaps there was never supposed to be, such a law is more a test of the how much control can be exercised over people, a means of control by the powers that be. It offers no protection against Covid-19 at all. To be honest nothing really does, apart from the vaccine, any more than flu or other viral infections. Could it be a barometer to see just how much crap people will swallow before they say No?
Wearing masks on public transport and in shops, particularly where foodstuffs are prepared is logical, but wearing a mask to go for a hit and miss in a pub only to remove it again to drink your pint bears no logic whatsoever. Are we sleepwalking in the 26 counties towards a police state? Recently I witnessed a Garda Superintendent making up laws as he went along. He, accompanied by a much younger female colleague, entered a public house and began laying down a set of rules certainly not consistent with those passed in the Dail. If senior law enforcers can do this the question must be asked, do we need a legislative body like the Dail? Or, can senior members of An Garda Siochana make the rules up for their own area to suit themselves and, perhaps, those impressionable younger colleagues they seek to impress!
Another ridiculous rule becoming law which we have tolerated during this pandemic was the having to spend money on a €9 meal before we could enjoy a pint. Not that it is possible for some to enjoy a pint directly after a meal: and given that people were only allowed a limited time in so-called dry pubs, those which sold food, by the time the meal had settled it was time to leave. Consequently, a pint of stout was still not enjoyed. But, and more to the point, what did having a meal have to do with controlling Covid-19? Nothing, nothing at all, it was more to do with maintaining some kind of profit for the limited number of publicans and, keeping the rest of us under the heel. Do as you’re told and don’t question even if it is wrong and serves no purpose!
In England the let’s take the piss out of people’s intelligence brigade were also at it with sets of rules which beggar’s belief. Take, for example, football. It was decided by the powers that be that it was prudent for the top flight Premier League teams to play, albeit behind closed doors, but lower and non-league teams could not play. Does this mean a player who is on say £300,000 per week is less likely to catch Covid-19 than a player who earns £250.00 per week? Or was it indicative of the class system, the elite can play but the lower orders cannot? I am not going through every rule brought out in every country but I think I’ve made my point.
This pandemic has certainly given states across the so-called “developed world” a mask to hide behind when attacking civil liberties. They can now do what the fuck they like, it would appear, behind the mask of the pandemic and nobody will bat an eyelid. Apart from the necessary need to wear a mask on public transport the flip side is another law for idiots has been brought in regards transport. The Dublin to Belfast Enterprise Express train service can only be used if prior booking has been made. This is because of Covid-19 we are told, the question is as restrictions are lifted [depending on who the Garda Superintendent is] will the need to book on the enterprise be lifted or is it here to stay? On the same train alcohol is banned. Again, why? If it is alright to take on tea and coffee along with soft drinks like lemonade why not a can of beer? What is the difference between drinking lemonade out of a can or lager? Ah, the powers that be will tell us, it is top prevent drunkard behaviour! Well, normally there was a bar on the train, so how does bringing a can or two of beer for refreshment onto the enterprise stop drunkard behaviour when under former normal circumstances, and if a person had the money, they could purchase a dozen cans of beer?
Another ridiculous rule becoming law which we have tolerated during this pandemic was the having to spend money on a €9 meal before we could enjoy a pint. Not that it is possible for some to enjoy a pint directly after a meal: and given that people were only allowed a limited time in so-called dry pubs, those which sold food, by the time the meal had settled it was time to leave. Consequently, a pint of stout was still not enjoyed. But, and more to the point, what did having a meal have to do with controlling Covid-19? Nothing, nothing at all, it was more to do with maintaining some kind of profit for the limited number of publicans and, keeping the rest of us under the heel. Do as you’re told and don’t question even if it is wrong and serves no purpose!
In England the let’s take the piss out of people’s intelligence brigade were also at it with sets of rules which beggar’s belief. Take, for example, football. It was decided by the powers that be that it was prudent for the top flight Premier League teams to play, albeit behind closed doors, but lower and non-league teams could not play. Does this mean a player who is on say £300,000 per week is less likely to catch Covid-19 than a player who earns £250.00 per week? Or was it indicative of the class system, the elite can play but the lower orders cannot? I am not going through every rule brought out in every country but I think I’ve made my point.
This pandemic has certainly given states across the so-called “developed world” a mask to hide behind when attacking civil liberties. They can now do what the fuck they like, it would appear, behind the mask of the pandemic and nobody will bat an eyelid. Apart from the necessary need to wear a mask on public transport the flip side is another law for idiots has been brought in regards transport. The Dublin to Belfast Enterprise Express train service can only be used if prior booking has been made. This is because of Covid-19 we are told, the question is as restrictions are lifted [depending on who the Garda Superintendent is] will the need to book on the enterprise be lifted or is it here to stay? On the same train alcohol is banned. Again, why? If it is alright to take on tea and coffee along with soft drinks like lemonade why not a can of beer? What is the difference between drinking lemonade out of a can or lager? Ah, the powers that be will tell us, it is top prevent drunkard behaviour! Well, normally there was a bar on the train, so how does bringing a can or two of beer for refreshment onto the enterprise stop drunkard behaviour when under former normal circumstances, and if a person had the money, they could purchase a dozen cans of beer?
Are these laws here to stay? This is the six- million-dollar question. Will we always have to book up to travel a couple of hours up the line to Belfast? Will we never be allowed alcohol on the train again? Will we always have to enter shops wearing a mask? Because if this is the case, and it is certainly not normal, we are going to be controlled forever. Will certain people be forced to work from home for evermore? It certainly helps the employers save money as they no longer need to heat and light up office space. Is this option for the employers here to stay? If this is the case what about the employer’s responsibility to provide a safe and healthy working environment - how can this be monitored if employees are working from home? I hope the trade unions have considered this possibility. When will people say; enough is enough, or will they ever?
How much longer before a law is introduced, under the guise of public health, demanding those who have exercised their right not to be vaccinated are herded off to special camps, supposedly to be quarantined? Then, the next step is they will never be seen again! I am being very cynical and to this I admit and do hope I am wrong I really do but what if I am not? Under the present system of liberal-democracy we have checks and balances in society. These checks and balances are there to protect against extremes but under the Covid regulations the checks are far fewer and the balances far less balanced.
How much longer before a law is introduced, under the guise of public health, demanding those who have exercised their right not to be vaccinated are herded off to special camps, supposedly to be quarantined? Then, the next step is they will never be seen again! I am being very cynical and to this I admit and do hope I am wrong I really do but what if I am not? Under the present system of liberal-democracy we have checks and balances in society. These checks and balances are there to protect against extremes but under the Covid regulations the checks are far fewer and the balances far less balanced.
Only eighty-six years ago in Germany the Third Reich passed the Nuremberg Laws in 1935. These laws forbade marriage between Aryan and no-Aryan couples and those marriages already in place were declared null and void. This meant husbands denouncing wives and vice versa. The problem was, many did this willingly and those who did not never raised a voice of protest (not dissimilar to the Statute of Kilkenny in Ireland 1366) they were too afraid. If such a law was passed by a far-right wing government today would people just accept it because it is the law? And if this ever comes to pass it will be a legacy of the apathy of not questioning certain laws, just accepting without question, during the pandemic. Who knows, let’s hope it is never put to the test. By the same token things must not be allowed to develop into a situation, like Nazi Germany, where people are too afraid to voice protest! This is not to advocate going out and deliberately break every Covid regulation but to merely question the logic, collectively, of some of them.
Even the soaps on TV constantly remind us of the need to obey the law, even if that law is wrong, and long before this pandemic descended on the planet. Characters can often be heard saying such idiocies as we must do it because it’s the law, even if it is wrong or “I know it’s wrong but it’s the law”. Such comments are regular on the soaps from Heartbeat to Coronation Street to Fair City, a constant reminder we must obey the law no matter how wrong that law is. A potentially dangerous avenue to travel.
Even the soaps on TV constantly remind us of the need to obey the law, even if that law is wrong, and long before this pandemic descended on the planet. Characters can often be heard saying such idiocies as we must do it because it’s the law, even if it is wrong or “I know it’s wrong but it’s the law”. Such comments are regular on the soaps from Heartbeat to Coronation Street to Fair City, a constant reminder we must obey the law no matter how wrong that law is. A potentially dangerous avenue to travel.
Would the same Gardai who patrol our streets today do the same under a far-right administration? Would they enforce the fascist law as they do that of liberal-democracy? Would they enforce a law demanding Catholic and Protestant mixed marriages be deemed null and void and future intercourses made illegal? Remember the next step for capitalism in crisis is, certainly historically, fascism. Should capitalism ever descend into these depths, and there is nothing to suggest it won’t as the rightward trend continues, could we witness modern equivalent of the Nuremberg Laws and other draconian rules?
As John Stuart Mill said in 1867 “He is not a good man who without protest allows wrong to be committed in his name”. Well, as we all often admit we know something is wrong but it’s the law therefore we must do it, is that not doing exactly what Mill was referring to, warning us against? These are just a few notable points I have picked up on over the last sixteen months or so and to be honest they concern me. Not so much the fact that these rules have been hurried through to try and combat Covid-19 but the longer-term implications and potential danger to our civil liberties and human rights.
 |
Caoimhin O’Muraile is a member of |
Independent Writers' Union, Dublin
Everybody breaks the law to some degree. I agree with breaking it in a circumstance where not to break it seems worse. The challenge is in how to make the call. Carl Jung said we are not what we say we will do, we are what we do. That being so, socialist laws have been no less oppressive. Thinking a socialist utopia will universally remove the need to break the law is like thinking in Heaven we will all live happily ever after.
ReplyDeleteAnother element is that once you assign to yourself the right to break the law, you allow everybody else the same right. So, we will have every theocratic coming along demanding the right to impose their religious belief on others. We would be limited in our right to oppose sharia law and canon law. How would the One Law For All Campaign fare in such circumstances?
It is an age old question you pose and worthwhile considering by anyone who wants to live in a society that has one law for all.
For someone who doesn't care for crime and punishment, you're taking arguments straight out it. I have been waiting for an excuse to pull you up on that, rubbish my favourite book, the cheek of it haha
DeleteI agree, the challenge is when to make that call. That is why I think "collective" questioning insults to our inteligence where some of these ridiculous COVID rules are concerned is right. I highlighted, as an extreme instance, the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. If people had stood up and said NO it may have saved the world a lot of bloodshed, bloodshed which for once was neccessary. The point I am trying to make is it is time people caught themselves on, the establishment are and have been taking the piss out of our inteligence. By the same token avoid demonstrations organised by far-right groups who are using the COVID crisis to attract an audiance for their hidden racist, xenophobic agenda. As far as religious nutters are concerned, look back in history to 1348 when they walked the streets flogging themselves half to death in a stupid equally ridiculous attempt to rid bubonic plague!
ReplyDeleteThe people of Nazi Germany left it too late to question as husbands and wives denounced each other. The point I am making is ask questions now instead of wearing a mask every time you are told to don't leave it too late to exercise the right to question, it is easy to sleepwalk into an irreversable situation. A question of Simon says do this or SIMPLE SIMON says do this!!??