THE LAST DITCH

Here is a short quote from someone you have never heard of; Elise Groulx Diggs, co-chairman of the International Criminal Bar. The source for the quote is here, though I read it in the International Bar Association's dead tree magazine.

Law is an amazingly transformational tool and it doesn't take that many people to bring about change.

Whether or not you agree with the particular changes she's talking about doesn't really matter that much. Law is there to set limits to human vices, not to promote human virtues. This not least because humans are in closer agreement as to the former than the latter. Every law diminishes liberty and even a good one is a necessary evil. A bad one (and most are now bad ones) is just evil.

To put it another way, Law itself is a prison and the fewer people who ever see its bars, the better. That 'not that many' people can transform the lives of the rest of us by force of law is undoubtedly true. It happens all the time, but does not strike me as a thing to be happy about.

The lady has had a distinguished career and, from my brief research, has done a lot of good in this world. I am sure she is very admirable and I don't single her out because I think she is in any way to blame for our situation. It's just that her words sum up crisply, for me, the great mistake about the nature of Law that is making the Free World less so by the day.

9 responses to “Our dangerous zeitgeist”

  1. Peter Whale Avatar
    Peter Whale

    Hi Tom I remember blaming your profession for the state of laws being foisted on the people. Are you now agreeing with me?

    Like

  2. james higham Avatar

    Every law diminishes liberty and even a good one is a necessary evil. A bad one (and most are now bad ones) is just evil.
    That’s interesting from a lawyer, Tom.

    Like

  3. MickC Avatar
    MickC

    But she is, and those like her are, entirely blameworthy.
    She is in a position where she should know better, and she most certainly is in a position to speak out, or do something.
    But she’ll take the money, and acclaim, and stay silent, won’t she?
    In response to Peter Whale, the legal profession once understood that rules are for the guidance of the wise, and the obedience of fools. Nowadays, it seems to me they would willingly go along with the Nuremberg Laws-and enforce them to the maximum.

    Like

  4. Tom Avatar

    No. Though of course some lawyers are involved in drafting the laws and implementing them and though failed lawyers make up a ridiculous percentage of the legislature.
    I spent my career honourably helping business people get on with economic production despite the laws in their path, so I accept no blame (except perhaps for making the damned things bearable, so that they were not revolted against as vigorously as they should have been).

    Like

  5. Tom Avatar

    Not from a libertarian lawyer, surely? I am very surprised not to see a comment from you on my religion post, James. I thought I was finally in your blogging parish!

    Like

  6. Tom Avatar

    I think it’s important to distinguish between Common (some very common) and Civil (some very uncivil) lawyers. The Common Law has always seen laws as a limit on freedom and ‘liberty’ as what’s left when the laws have been accounted for. The Civil Law tradition sees rights as being derived from or at least founded on law.
    Without their grundnorms and constitutions and human rights charters they see Man as a beast totally at the command of the ruler. Working alongside them in the EU has been a bit of a disaster because of the clash of those two great traditions, as different in their way as Christianity is from Islam. My legal career was odd in that two-thirds of it was spent across this, the greatest ideological divide in the world.
    Of course you can arrive at a civilised place just as well from one direction as the other. Some Civil Law countries now rival us in freedom. That speaks more to how far we have drifted downwards to tyranny than to how far they have risen, alas. It was always easier for tyrants to rise in Civil Law countries than Common Law but it seems that was not because of the nature of the laws, but of the people conditioned to such a view of law. Now that most Britons are craven lapdogs of the state, I think that protection has gone here. It lives on in America and long may it do so.
    Incidentally, the lady mentioned in the post is a Civilian, from Quebec, but Canadian legal education was very good in her day and she will understand the different approaches of the two systems perfectly.

    Like

  7. MickC Avatar
    MickC

    Yes, I consider that of all the good things which England has historically produced, the Common Law was the greatest.
    As you say, it is much diminished in the country of its birth-but if we are ever free of the EU it will revive.

    Like

  8. Moggsy Avatar
    Moggsy

    You are right Tom. Each new law is basically just another brick in the wall that imprisons our liberty, except they are also horribly like some unstoppable tide of sewage. Ew!

    Like

  9. Tom Avatar

    To try and unmix your metaphors, perhaps laws should properly be seen as walls to contain sewage?

    Like

Leave a reply to Peter Whale Cancel reply

Tom is a retired international lawyer. He was a partner in a City of London law firm and spent almost twenty years abroad serving clients from all over the world.

Returning to London on retirement in 2011, he was dismayed to discover how much liberty had been lost in the UK while he was away.

He’s a classical liberal (libertarian, if you must) who, like his illustrious namesake, considers that

“…government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”

Latest comments
  1. Lord T's avatar

    They are servants. Just not of the public. He gets a full pension because he did his job for his…

  2. alec5384's avatar
  3. Lord T's avatar
  4. tom.paine's avatar
  5. Lord T's avatar