Legal Battle – Lawyers Strike Needs More Attention

All too often the media is accused of making a mountain out of a molehill, looking for stories where one does not exist, or even distorting and exaggerating the facts to sell newspapers.

However, sometimes the media goes in the wrong direction and gives barely any coverage to what are vitally important stories.

One of these has cropped up today in the form of the lawyers “strike”. Just for the record the quote marks are because this is not technically a strike as it might break contractual obligations to the Legal Aid Agency.

The walk-out will affect cases in most major cities, including the Max Clifford trial, and could include up to 3,000 barristers, who have been threatened by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) with the deprivation of state prosecution work.

So what is it all about and why does it need more coverage?

The main basis for the “strike” is substantial cuts to legal aid, essentially resulting in lawyers being paid a lot less for work for those who cannot afford to pay for someone to represent them.

It would be easy to argue lawyers, like bankers, make large sums of money anyway so why would a reduction in their fees from those who cannot afford them anyway make any difference.

This argument, though valid in a prima facie evaluation, completely misses the point.

Unfettered access to a lawyer, the notion of innocence until proven guilty and a robust appeals process are not only vital in the application of the law, but essential for a country to uphold even the most basic of democratic principles.

Most people cannot afford to hire a lawyer for extended periods of time, but the whole concept of legal aid was to subsidise those who have legal case to answer and was designed so the law was not subject to corruption and discrimination based on money.

For example, take a person on an average income who wants to bring action against a large corporation.

Without legal aid the case would undoubtable side with the large corporation purely because they can afford to prolong the case and pay the legal experts to protect them.

Everyone in this country is entitled to a fair and free trial and, repugnant as it maybe when you see lawyers representing the likes of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, this cannot be a selective process.

Just because you cannot afford to hire a lawyer does not mean you should forsake your right to have your case heard by a judge and jury.

For those of you still having doubts about this argument then ask yourself one question.

What would happen if you were wrongly accused of a crime? Would you be able to afford a lawyer and would you still feel some people are not entitled to representation?

This problem, however, goes deeper than just your entitlement to representation.

If lawyers are not going to get paid to do this work then people are firstly going to think twice about entering the legal profession and secondly likely to think twice about representing state sponsored clients.

The terrifying scenario is those people who cannot afford to pay full legal fees will end up with either no representation, or even more worryingly a really bad lawyer.

An unbiased application of the law is a founding principle of everything we believe in as a free and democratic people and this must include access to qualified and competent lawyers regardless of your economic situation.

In the age of austerity there are many controversial budget cuts and an argument can be made about most eroding the founding principles of this country, but when we are talking about peoples access to a fair trial this idea cannot be overstated.

Without legal aid this countries legal system could very quickly regress to the Victorian age when the depth of your pockets meant more than the validity of your arguments, or, even more troublingly a boom in ‘Ambulance Chasers’ who promise clients the world only to disappoint them at every turn with no course of action for their clients to take.

As citizens in this country we are entitled to a fair trial regardless of our circumstances and this issue demands our undivided attention to ensure this basic right is never taken away from us.

Perhaps it was Aristotle who said it best “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.”

Free Speech – The Cost Of Talking

2011 Protests in London, UK

Image Copyright (c) Garry Knight

Home Secretary Theresa May is under pressure this week to stop a protest in London by a far-right group. No, not the English Defence League or even the British National Party, but Jobbik.

The Hungarian political party, described by some as the most powerful fascist group in Europe, is set to hold the march in April and it is believed it will also be attended by members of the Greek Golden Dawn movement and the British National Party.

Objection to the demonstration is understandable, particularly when you consider Jobbik’s foreign affairs spokesman called for a tally of the number of Jews in the Hungary on the grounds of national security, while one of the party’s MEPs was suspended after it was found he was of Jewish origin.

However, this protest is not about immigration, Islam or Judaism, but about democracy.

It was triggered when the Hungarian government decided to deny its overseas citizens postal votes.

This leads to an interesting question about the cost of free speech.

While many people find Jobbik’s particular brand of politics rather distasteful, the denial of a democratic vote is just as, or even more, disturbing.

Western governments, for want of a better collective term, praised the protesters during the Arab Spring for demanding democracy in countries long-troubled by military juntas and inherited dictatorships.

So surely, regardless of the organising party’s beliefs, we should be encouraging a group intent on delivering fair voting in a country with a history of authoritarian government?

Regulation of free speech is always a tricky issue.

Being able to say what you believe is a central pillar of a civilised, democratic society, but there will always be people who have opinions objectionable to the majority.

The BNP is a classic example of this.

There were significant objections to the appearance of party leader Nick Griffin on BBCs Question Time in 2009.

However, the protestor’s standpoint on Mr Griffin was in fact the beneficiary of his appearance, after his views were systematically taken apart by the shows panel and audience.

There is of course the fear the Jobbik march will in fact become a political rally, an attempt to garner votes in the upcoming elections, but it is hard to criticise them for this when the peoples power as voters is being denied.

So where exactly do you draw the line here.

It is hard to imagine there would be calls to ban this protest if it was being organised by a moderate Hungarian party, but just because it is an extremist group it suddenly does not matter they are standing up for democracy.

This is, unfortunately, one of those lose-lose situations where by banning the protest you oppose free and fair democracy, but if you support it you run the risk of unwittingly backing an extremist party.

Another similar issue which has arisen is the request of Chief Constables to use water cannon as Police fear an increase in street protests relating to austerity measures.

While nobody wants to see violent protests, or worse still rioting, it is still a basic right of people in a free society to protest about things they do not like.

Just because the government at the time does not agree with them should in these situations count for nothing, including suppressing protests with the use of kettling and water cannon.

The major issue here is if you support free speech, as all rational people do, you have to support it for everyone, not just the people who agree with you.

Any deviation from this results in the exact opposite of what freedom of speech is about.

Negotiating these problems is the ultimate political tight-rope-walk. On one side is the majority of normal, moderate people who understandably do not want extremist minority views voiced and on the other the extremists who have just as much right as everyone else to hold and express their opinions.

This problem is best demonstrated with the calls to ban the Jobbik march. Yes, many view them as fascists, but they are protesting about the suppression of basic democratic principles.

In the end this comes down to the famous Evelyn Beatrice-Hall quote.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

Riots in Paradise – Overnight Democracy

Many, if not all, of us have been surprised by the protests now seemingly sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East with the people calling for freedom of speech and democracy, but how effective will this be and what does it mean for the world?

Surely nothing bad can come out of pro-democracy rallies in countries where the leaders are de facto dictators? Many rulers in these countries have been in power for over 20 years, imprison political opponents and oppress their own people.

Calls for free elections, freedom of speech, association and press are all issues the West has been keen to promote in Islamic nations as part of the war on terror. Democracy is good, personal freedom is good and the people standing up to dictators is good, but what will be the eventual result of these protests?

In Egypt the major complaint has been President Mubarak sacking his cabinet, but refusing to stand down himself. In Tunisia the new government, formed after President Ben Ali fled the country, includes many politicians closely associated with the ousted administration.

It is true democracy takes time. Elections in other parts of the world, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, have taken months to resolve, been subject to voter fraud and have produced questionable results. These problems are something the people of Tunisia and Egypt will be keen to avoid.

These are not war torn countries. For years they have been led by acceptable dictators. Any voting problems will undermine what the protests were about and not bring the changes desired.

This means it may take months, or possibly years, before free and fair elections are held in these countries to ensure they are indeed free and fair.

In the mean time the people will have to remain strong to ensure their ideology is not drowned out by anther de facto dictator simply taking over, but there are major problems in these countries.

Mass unemployment was the catalyst for Tunisia. This is not an issue likely to disappear overnight. A strong government and foreign investment will be required to solve this problem and it would be all too easy for Tunisians to fall back into the usual rotation only to realise down the line they have achieved nothing.

Hypothetical time. The protests are successful across Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and other parts of the arab world. In the near future political parties are formed and there is a general election is held which is externally moderated and appears to go off without a hitch. Who is likely to win?

This is where we run into a problem. The West was never keen on some of these leaders, but it suited us to ignore the dictatorial tendencies to have them on our side. The new guys may not be on our side and could in fact stand for things we really do not like.
Is it completely out of the realm of possibility these elections result in Islamic extremists taking over in these countries. The hot beds of extremism are in the poorest areas. A new political leader promising a strong Islamic state to the poor and needy may sound like a fantastic idea to the people, but not to others.

We are told to have faith in the people and a belief in what democracy can give us, a future we get to pick. These are important countries in an area everyone is dependent on.

Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria are important trading points from North Africa to Europe, the Americas and Asia for, among other things, oil and natural gas. There is the possibility of this spreading to the Middle East, protests have already been reported in Yemen about the same issues.

Maybe, just maybe, the people will make the right choices and elect a progressive government in these countries to improve the situation in Islamic Africa and the Middle East. The West needs true allies in these areas, not these dog and pony show governments we call allies.

Anybody want to call the odds on which way this will go? Entire peoples are looking for change in countries unfamiliar with what it involves. Will they vote for strong Islamic state, or global partner?