A very English revolution

Seen last night via EU referendum, but I was too tired to comment on: The real English rebellion begins. Albeit a 'lawful' one. 'Arresting' a judge for not confirming that he was 'serving under his oath of office'? What a super wheeze.

I've been getting a lot of traffic from the good Captains site for some time because we share some common ground, ideologically speaking.

Essentially the Captain and his mates are as ticked off as a lot of ex-pats like me (Or should I call myself a refugee?) with the UK political antics of the last twenty years. Yet they have decided to act, and I wish them well. Although my natural cynic looks sidelong at things like the evil civil contingencies act, and the repression it could be used for. Though Ranty and friends are in a state of 'Lawful (not legal) rebellion', the legitimacy of their protest under law may be considered a mere administrative detail when the live ammo is handed out.

Notwithstanding, my own understanding of the state of 'Lawful rebellion' is this; Your sovereign and government repeatedly ignore you, and overturn the law to their own advantage. They perform acts of effective treason against their legal offices; ignore sworn oaths, sign over sovereignty, that sort of thing. Which leaves the dissenting subject one of four options; leave, knuckle under, open revolt, or the more obscure state of 'lawful rebel'.

To become a lawful rebel, there is an old, I think medieval, provision within the law saying that a subject may in protest transfer their alleigence to a 'committee of barons' by serving three affidavits properly witnessed and served. The rest is knowing the difference between a 'law' and a 'statute'. Laws must be observed, but as a 'lawful rebel' you do not have to observe statues. As EU and local authority powers are based in statute, there lies the lawful rebels power. Ranty and friends have all the details.

The knowledge base required to be a lawful rebel is quite extensive, and from what I can see, you have to be pretty sure of your ground. Migraines beckon, methinks. This is an area where even lawyers may fear to tread.

While Mrs S is indisposed, we have got the popcorn out on this one. Being history buffs and very aware of the context of what Ranty and friends are up to, we will be watching with keen interest from the other side of the Atlantic.

I'm given to understand that there are a few folk around Vancouver Island who are giving the 'lawful rebel' thing a try, but the law is a trifle different over here, and the RCMP will have no truck with people drinking and driving, then claiming to be 'lawful rebels' when pulled over. Disregarding Statutes of Contract law is one thing; using it as a license for anti-social behaviour another.

As an aside; the average RCMP Constable has a battery of legal powers which might make the average despot drool; but there are a lot of checks and balances in the system here, which makes abuse of those powers a risky business. Besides, they still command the respect of many Canadians, and if you have that, keeping the law and 'maintaining the right' is a lot easier.

This revolution thing seems to be the meme for 2011. Gadaffi is being offered an out by his rebels, and all across the Middle East a seismic political shift is underway. In all colours of regime; from Theocracy to nascent democracy, changes are afoot. The world will be a very different place, politically speaking, when the dust settles, and the Western powers would be best advised to stay out of it, or be mightily embarrassed. We can do deals to keep the oil flowing, but not use military force, which will annoy the locals, and make them less amenable to doing business in the future. This ain't the late 1800's or early 1900's and gunboat diplomacy won't work there. We (and the Russians, and the Chinese) sold them the weapons, remember?

Hi ho, back to watching volcanoes and seismic shifts, of one sort or another.