Monday 29 April 2024

Needle Points

On the day that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wildly overstated the rate of Personal Independence Payment, and denied the existence of millions of people's diagnosed medical conditions, the House of Commons debated the legalisation of assisted suicide, which would give to a High Court judge in the Family Division such power over life and death as no judge in this country had enjoyed since the abolition of capital punishment.

Mel Stride's only degree is in PPE, although he plans to give what amounted to the power of life and death to people who likewise held no medical qualification, but would that power vested in the judiciary apply to cases of depression and anxiety, as it does in jurisdictions where it is already being exercised? If not, since Stride had decreed that those conditions did not exist, then every cloud, perhaps?

My paternal grandfather was born before such working-class men could vote in parliamentary elections, and my maternal ancestors included African slaves, Indian indentured labourers, and Chinese coolies. We who come off the lower orders and the lesser breeds, and perhaps especially those of us who are disabled, know perfectly well who would be euthanised, and how, and why.

Even if we had made it past the industrial scale abortion that disproportionately targeted us, then we would face euthanasia as yet another lethal weapon in the deadly armoury of our mortal enemies, alongside their wars, alongside their self-indulgent refusal to enforce the drug laws, alongside Police brutality and other street violence, alongside the numerous life-shortening consequences of economic inequality, and alongside the restoration of the death penalty, which is more likely than it has been in two generations, and which would not be repealed if the Prime Minister were a former Director of Public Prosecutions who was now a war criminal.

All this, and the needle, too? This is class and race war, and we must fight to the death. That death must not be ours, but the death of the global capitalist system. Having subjected itself to that system to a unique extent, Britain is uniquely placed to overthrow it, and to replace it with an order founded on the absolute sanctity of each individual human life from the point of fertilisation to the point of natural death. That foundation would and could be secured only by absolute fidelity to the only global institution that was irrevocably committed to that principle, including the full range of its economic, social, cultural and political implications.

Keir Starmer is the first Leader of either main party to have any record of having voted in favour of assisted suicide, and he has promised parliamentary time for such legislation if he became Prime Minister. But when I tell you that there is going to be a hung Parliament, then you can take that to the bank. I spent the 2005 Parliament saying that it was psephologically impossible for the Heir to Blair's Conservative Party to win an overall majority. I predicted a hung Parliament on the day that the 2017 General Election was called, and I stuck to that, entirely alone, all the way up to the publication of the exit poll eight long weeks later. And on the day that Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister, I predicted that a General Election between him and Starmer would result in a hung Parliament.

I have no plan to join the Workers Party of Britain, although nor would I expect to stand against it. But if it did not contest North Durham, then I would. To strengthen families and communities by securing economic equality and international peace through the democratic political control of the means to those ends, including national and parliamentary sovereignty, we need to hold the balance of power. Owing nothing to either main party, we must be open to the better offer. But there does need to be a better offer. Not a lesser evil, which in any case the Labour Party is not. We have made a start.

10 comments:

  1. Starmer is the most dangerous potential Prime Minister since the War.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mutterings in the legal world about this, "Judges haven't been able to order deaths since we got rid of hanging, we didn't sign up for this."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one who could conceivably become a judge in this day and age would ever pronounce the death penalty, of course never mandatory in this country, but sadly the same cannot be said of assisted suicide.

      Delete
  3. You're right, judges never had to sentence anyone to death and now they just wouldn't, the same can't be said of assisted suicide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The restoration of capital punishment would effectively decriminalise murder. Even if the legislation provided for it, then no judge could conceivably accept a majority verdict in a capital trial. In the Britain of the twenty-first century, there would always be at least one of 12 randomly assembled members of the general public who would vote to acquit anyone rather than risk the imposition of the death penalty. In fact, there would always be at least two or three. Those who wanted to bring back what they saw as higher qualifications for jurors would, if anything, increase that number.

      If there were never any realistic possibility of a conviction for murder, then no one would ever be charged with it. Instead, ways would be found of convicting murderers of manslaughter, resentment of the injustice of which we recently saw in Nottingham. So convicted, they would almost certainly be released earlier than if their records were of intentional homicide. Britain would become a very much more dangerous place.

      In any case, who among the kind of people who became judges in today's Britain would ever impose the death penalty? Who among the kind of people who became prosecutors in today's Britain would ever seek its imposition, or chance that by bringing a charge of murder? Even if there were a high likelihood of conviction. Indeed, especially so, on principle. Elect them, you say? Well, Members of Parliament are elected, and they rejected capital punishment by 403 votes to 159 the last time that the House of Commons divided on it at all. Under a Conservative Government. 30 years ago.

      Delete
  4. In the Britain of the twenty-first century, there would always be at least one of 12 randomly assembled members of the general public who would vote to acquit anyone rather than risk the imposition of the death penalty

    No there wouldn’t. The population of the United States is similarly bitterly divided on capital punishment yet no jury ever refuses to convict nor judge refuses to impose it because of its existence.

    Any juror that let a guilty murderer go free would attract such public vitriol no one would ever do it again. And there are mechanisms for dismissing juries that do not discharge their duty to convict or acquit solely on the evidence.

    You’re making up nonsensical scenarios that would never occur in reality. Which is because there’s no real argument against reintroducing capital punishment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one would ever know. No one knows what is in jurors' minds. In Britain, you do not even know what is said in jury rooms, an odd legacy of the Jeremy Thorpe affair.

      Delete
  5. There are many opponents of capital punishment here as there are in the US, (where no such issue with juries or judges exists). Yet there is virtually no one so extreme that they’d sooner break the law and set free a guilty murderer to kill again than risk a death sentence.

    Do you know anyone that batty? No, nor do I.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are far fewer opponents of capital punishment in states that did not have it than in those which did, but I have no doubt that what I described happens in the United States, where convictions by jury always require unanimity. We shall never know, of course. But it is obvious when you think about it.

      Delete