Introduction
Relative civilisation is a recent invention for the human race, with anarchy slowly giving way to consolidation, imperialism and now to modern civil society – not enjoyed by all, but certainly by the western world, where we maintain a tenuous but healthy focus on a rules-based society and an emphasis on the greater good.
Rules only work if they are underpinned by broad acceptance from the populace, cultural norms and the application of common sense, from both the ruling classes and society at large.
The decline of international rules
Since World War II, the majority of nations have adhered to a rules-based system underpinned by the UN Charter, which emphasises the principles of sovereign self-determination and self-defence. The United States, as the singular superpower, has largely championed this framework, contributing to its overall effectiveness despite occasional anomalies and questionable decisions within the Security Council.
During Donald Trump’s second presidency, several actions undermined these established norms, including him asserting claims over Greenland and Canada, questioning Ukraine’s sovereignty, launching attacks on Iran without clear justification or grounds for self-defence, while in contrast rigidly affirming Israel’s sovereignty. These actions point to an emerging tendency to apply rules selectively due to personal biases or convenience.
The recent self-promotion of international structures (like the ICC, ECHR, climate change lobby and so on), rather than enablers, undermines rather than promotes the principles of adherence to recognised standards.
Consistency and impartiality in the application of rules are vital to prevent abuse, where rules and laws are used against the very people they should protect. Rules must remain clear, equitable, and uniformly enforced.
Lack of Rules or Propriety in the Digital Age
The rapid advancement of social media and artificial intelligence has revealed the inability of regulatory bodies to keep pace with major technology advancements. One practical approach could be to apply existing laws governing in-person or written communication to content shared on social media platforms and capabilities such as AI and Quantum subject to regulatory approvals with compulsory impact forecasting and limits placed on certain elements.
Although seemingly simplistic, this could provide a more structured alternative to the current situation, where tech companies deny accountability and put in play developments with completely unknown consequences. Likewise on social media, users collectively judge and publicly criticise individuals for perceived offences, while sharing content and language which would not be received in polite society. The tech revolution metaphorically resembles a child having just pushed the big red button on the dashboard, wondering, ‘I wonder what will happen now?’.
Proper Standards vs ‘Twitterati’
The case of the King’s middle brother, Andrew, illustrates the dangers of unrestrained public condemnation. Allegations were made regarding his association with Jeffrey Epstein, yet he was never convicted. Despite this, his removal from public office was met with enthusiastic applause from mainstream and social media audiences, a reaction that is inconsistent with the application of proper accountability.
Andrew is not well regarded by many and as he appears not particularly likeable, it is tempting to accept negative views about him and others without question. However, if the “there’s no smoke without fire” logic were applied to our own friends or family, we would be appalled and would demand the application of proper legal standards. Otherwise, if such harsh and final public condemnation were the norm, government control would become redundant, as authoritarian regimes thrive on societal divisions fuelled by vitriolic and vengeful argument.
Rule Makers as Rule Breakers
The Post Office scandal exposed how certain parties knowingly pursued sub-postmasters into bankruptcy, despite being aware of faults in the IT system. These individuals accused the sub-postmasters with enthusiasm, even though there was no evidence of personal gain, and the apparent surge in alleged offences was statistically extraordinary.
By seeking repayment of funds supposedly ‘fraudulently’ taken, the accusers effectively defrauded the accused, as they knew that theft had not occurred, while demonising victims. If rules are meant to apply equally, those responsible for targeting innocent people should also face prosecution; this should happen instinctively, not for law enforcement authorities to obfuscate hoping that the furore dies down.
If not the state, then who?
Mary Whitehouse was, for much of the 20th Century, a prominent voice advocating for stricter regulation of liberal influences, especially within the media. She showed unwavering commitment and courage in challenging a perceived decline in moral standards, a trend she attributed to the enthusiastic and unfiltered promotion of liberal perspectives by media outlets such as the BBC.
Although scepticism greeted her at the time, the negative outcomes she predicted have proven remarkably accurate. Today, programmes masquerading as educational often lack substantive value and instead promote gratuitously explicit themes. This had the effect of placing more extreme tastes into mainstream visibility, shifting the impression markedly as to what is usual.
Social media has complicated matters further. While these platforms claim to abhor ‘harm’, their commitment is selective, defending only particular proponents and viewpoints. At the same time, they provide open channels for vulgar and profane content, which now extends to mainstream platforms during daytime hours. This highlights an important distinction: legality does not imply propriety. Just because something is allowed by law does not mean it should be promoted; in essence, just because one can, does not mean one should.
Give an inch….
This principle is evident in the management of the nation’s roads. Previously, utility and construction companies were not permitted to close roads except in exceptional or emergency situations. Such closures were rare and considered unnecessary. Now, road closures and excessive speed limits around empty roadworks are commonplace, with little more than rows of bollards in sight. This is neither efficient nor productive, and the primary function of roads – to enable travel for work, home, supply chain logistics or hospital visits – is no longer prioritised. There appears to be no collective reflection or consequence for organisations abusing these new structures, to the contrary, excesses are actively ignored.
Etiquette and Procedure – the Spirit of Rules
The Brexit debate demonstrated that, beyond formal rules, etiquette plays a crucial role, which places emphasis on individual morality and upholding cultural values. While tactics such as filibustering are permissible within procedural frameworks, there are times when they must give way to the collective will. Similarly, inappropriate use of prorogation or disregard for established customs in extraordinary circumstances requires careful refection. The ends never justify the means.
Where rules are broken within the system itself
It is concerning that some in society view deaths in prison, for instance, as a convenient means of removing those deemed undesirable. The judicial system is responsible for the safety and security of all incarcerated individuals and every effort must be made to uphold these standards. Murder is indefensible under any circumstance, and the potential for wrongful incarceration underscores the need to protect all individuals. If an innocent person loses their life while in state custody, the injustice cannot be remedied, fundamentally undermining the principles of justice.
Need for Clarity and Consistency
The drafting of the bill addressing hate speech compromised the principles of justice and transparent rulemaking by introducing subjective definitions of hate. Laws should be universally clear and most importantly, objective, so that all citizens understand the standards, which must then be applied equally to everyone.
Recently, the College of Policing reversed its position and determined that ‘non-crime hate incidents’ do not merit police attention. It is puzzling that such matters were ever considered within police scope. Law enforcement should only intervene when an actual crime has occurred, as is evident in trespass cases, which remain civil offences (unless aggravating circumstances arise) and are therefore enthusiastically ignored by the police.
The Importance of Objective Laws and Effective Enforcement
Rather than increasing regulation, society requires clear, objective laws that are enforced without bias. Although reversing recent developments may be difficult, the priority remains to avoid unnecessary government intervention and developing regulations and enforcement structures that cannot easily be corrupted, which requires discretion and refinement. The Conservative party possesses the necessary perspective to distinguish between laws that promote the common good and those that represent unwarranted interference for law-abiding citizens. However difficult, there is no avoiding it – the genie must go back into the bottle.
You must be logged in to post a comment.