On Jurisprudence (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues)

[Goddlefrood]

No: HPFGUIDX 169599

> lizzyben04:

> Britain is a democracy, with a Constitution that formed the
> basis of our own. They came up with the first principles of
> a democratic society a thousand years ago w/the Magna Carta 
> (that states that the king is not above the law), & habeas 
> corpus (you can't be thrown into a dungeon w/o a hearing). 
> The Magna Carta created a society of "laws, not men." 

Goddlefrood:

Define Britain, kindly. Is it the United Kingdom that is 
meant, Great Britain or one of the UK's sub jurisdictions 
(being England & Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland)?

Britain exists as a concept rather than a country.

As at the time of the Magna Carta King John was basically 
coerced into signing that at Runymede by powerful barons. 
The regent retained many powers and was largely above the 
law de facto until the Civil War some 4 centuries later. 
The reduction in the sovereign's power only became entrenched 
in law after the Glorious Revolution of the latter 17th 
Century.

In the early 13th Century Wales had not yet been fully 
subdued and Scotland was entirly independent, as was Ireland 
really.
 
Currently only two provisions of Magna Carta remain in effect, 
I wonder if anyone could tell me which ones? There is no 
written constitution in the UK *now* and has never been one, 
to suggest that the US based their Constitution on a non 
existent document rather detracts from the fine founding 
fathers of the US. 

You will find no equivalent document in the UK, sad to say. 
It seems to be the Declaration of Independence that is referred, 
rather than the Constitution, which came a little later after 
the Revolutionary War, did it not?

Habeas Corpus simply means produce the body, and was rather 
for the opposite of keeping people out of dungeons. It was 
originally designed to get them out from dungeons once they 
were already there. The basic concept was to avert injustice, 
but was based at the time on Christian values, as I believe 
has been pointed out elsewhere today.

Oh, and I think the Greeks might have something to say about 
where democracy came about, although the barons no doubt would 
be pleased to know they are thought so highly of ;-)

Basically then I disagree with the entirety of the above quoted 
material for my above set out reasons.

> Lizzy Ben 04:

> However, in the WW, there is a system of "men, not laws." 
> The MOM & Dumbledore *are* above the law, and the rules seem 
> to depend mostly on who happens to be in power at the time.

Goddlefrood:

In your opinion perhaps, but they do have laws. There is a 
plethora of legislation in many forms, Codes, Decrees and 
Statutes to name but three types. These suggest that, although 
there is corruption, the basic precept is not dissimilar to 
our own. That the legal system in the WW does not work is not 
a matter I would contend.

> Lizzy Ben 04:

> You can be thrown into a dungeon (Azkaban) without a hearing 
> or a fair trial. The WW is basically an autocratic society.

Goddlefrood:

Happily in the US there has never been martial law, or any 
military induced state of emergency. Other countries are not 
so lucky. Life was cheap in the UK until quite recently (by 
recently I mean from about the 15th Century onwards). 

During the first rise of Voldemort imprisonment without trial 
was possible and I am sure there were necessary promulgations 
by the Minister, or more probably Barty Crouch Senior, to the 
effect that witches and wizards could be imprisoned without 
trial. Cough :: Guantanamo Bay :: cough.

I have lived under a state of emergency twice in the past 7 
years. They are not a great deal of fum and paranoia is rife.
Just because you are not paranopid does not mean *they* are 
not out to get you. The WW most probably would have been 
similar in that when a state of emergency is declared basic 
rights and freedoms that might otherwise be taken for granted 
fly out of the window.

If anyone is interested try coming to Fiji and criticising 
the current Prime Minister. You'll be in the Army camp being 
interrogated before you could say Jack Robinson. It's a lovely
place to visit, though.

> Lizzyben04:

> Human rights are not a "relatively new" concept, especially at 
> the time the books were written. The Geneva Convention, Hague 
> conventions, international laws have all created & guaranteed 
> basic human rights. 

Goddlefrood:

Did I say that, I only stated it in respect of legislation. 
For instance the Human Rights Act 1998 (?) - UK. The US has 
no named act or statute that says Human Rights in it as the 
Constitution is adaptable and there is a huge body of common 
law. Australia still has no Human Rights Act.

On these conventions brought in, first I'd like to know which 
of the Geneva Conventions is meant, or was it the Protocols? 
All 4 of the Geneva Conventions and the 2 Protococls refer to 
war situations and how prisoners are treated and civilians etc.

Look it up at many and varied sites, I'd not suggest Wikipedia 
for that though.

There are a dozen Hague Conventions, but again they set out 
certain specific matters without dealing with Human Rights as 
a whole. Both Geneva and Hague Conventions are quite recent 
anyway. Only from the mid 19th Century were the Geneva concepts 
developed and the Hague conceptsa have been dribbling in 
throughout the 20th Century. Perhaps their ratifications by 
certain countries could be another line of enquiry, if 
interested.

Once more I say the Human Rights legislations are recent 
developments and would have had no bearing at all on the 
development of the WW and its rights. It is difficult to 
separate the concept, but not impossible. I try not to 
impose my personal values on a system like the WW, which 
is corrupt and very different from anything seen in the 
real world for centuries, in terms of its legal system, 
and other of its values, actually.

> lizzyben04:

> If the sentient beings are so content & happy, why do we 
> keep hearing about "goblin rebellions"? (Unlike Harry, I 
> paid attention during History of Magic!) 

Goddlefrood:

As did I. The last one which is dated occurred in 1612, iirc. 
The goblins are now looking after the majority of wizarding 
world money and also fulfilling the role of bookmakers. Of 
the sentient beings they seem the most trusted, but they 
are far from integrated. Kemper said it well in his recent 
post, so I have little to add, but to commend that post of 
Kemper's to you (generic).

Elves do not seem overly displeased with their lot, but of 
course we do not know how they became enslaved. They are older 
magical beings than wizards and witches most likely and are 
based on hobs, iirc, so do have a look at the lifestyle of a 
hob, should you care to.

Centaurs and Merpeople choose, by the account we have, to live 
separately from witches and wizards, and who would really blame 
them?

> lizzyben04:

> Oh, I think the MOM does have a problem with the Order. Fudge 
> gets paranoid that Dumbledore is building an army, and he 
> really asn't too far off. 

Goddlefrood:

The Order was not an army, the DA wasn't either, it was an 
ironic name based on Fudge's paranoia, a joke in other words, 
little more nor less. The MoM has not taken any counter 
measures to the Order at all, and as I said earlier, why 
on earth would it seeing as they are on the same "side".

Supreme Mugwump, etc.

Jealousy may creep in. The Order is not subverting the MoM, 
IMO. That's not to say I think the MoM has any great virtue, 
but while it may be corrupt and have little separation of 
powers to boot, at least it is now trying to do what is right, 
rather than what is easy, in my reading of it. Doesn't mean 
I like the underlying ethics of the matter, but then it is all 
just fictional and highly amusing.

Goddlefrood, who did not peek at any resource in composing this 
response ;-)