cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/25749999
LONDON (AP) — Britain’s High Court ruled Friday that the government’s decision to outlaw the protest group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization was unlawful, but it kept the ban in place pending an appeal.
When I do something illegal, I get punished. So that means the people who banned the group, are going to be punished, right? Right?!
Well no, there are many situations where you will not be punished if you do something illegal (even if caught). If you do something illegal in the course of your job, it is quite likely that it is your employer who is taken to court, not you personally. If you don’t pay the correct amount of tax, you won’t be punished if it was found to have been an honest mistake. If caught speeding but not by much, and you aren’t a dick to the police, you may be let off with a warning.
There is also a relevant pedantic distinction between “unlawful” and “illegal”. The latter means in breach of the law. The former means otherwise than in accordance than the law. What’s the difference? If the law says “don’t drive over 30mph when the number 30 appears in the red circle” and you drive at 40, you broke the law and did something illegal. If the law says, “the local authority shall consider the conditions of the road when applying speed limits” and the local authority instead assigns speed limits at random, they didn’t do something specifically forbidden, but they didn’t do what they’re supposed to. That’s unlawful, and is treated differently.
Ultimately though the difference comes down to a presumption of good faith and the idea that if politicians or civil servants were prosecuted every time they got something wrong, we’d run out pretty quickly.
Honestly. Would you really want the law to work that way.
The result would be a government that is impossible to legally fault. As doing so would be to expensive for the people in power.
But the answer is. No the acts of any MP in parliament are not within the remit of any legal authority other then parliament. Act outside parliament. IE not involved in the passing of laws are as for all others.
But nothing said or voted for in the house is allowed to be addressed outside the house.
The original reason for this was to prevent each party trying to make the actions of the last gov a crime. It really dose not take long to imagine the harm that would cause, unfortunately the only way such a thing could work. Would be if corruption did not exist. As it will always exist in all political movements. Allowing one political group to have the ability to make the ideals of another a crime. Is never workable.
Except it’s the same government, not the previous one that banned it. So the government can just act illegally without consequences?
Yes. As far as making laws they can. That is the whole meaning or the phrase parliament is sovereign.
It’s not a good thing. But is why voting and education is so important. Because when it comes to actions in parliament only voting has any authority.
It’s not unique. As we see in the US. Where both houses have to act on many things. And when one party is given power their is little the nation can do to stop it.
But honestly there is not real answer. Any organisation given the authority to arrest parliament is under the same risk of abuse. As we see with the US FBI. All it means is the corrupt political org. Takes control of that first.
In the US and UK. It is why the right has taken control of the media over the last few decades.
This is also why both main parties have worked so hard to remove the right to protest. The mass is the only control we have.
Good.
Today is a good day for civil liberties.
