6 ms·
>the right to protest. There are two problems here: first, there never was a right to protest, formally. The UK has no constitution, so any such right would ne
by pasabagi 5y ago
>the right to protest.
There are two problems here: first, there never was a right to protest, formally. The UK has no constitution, so any such right would need to be inferred from precedent.
Second, the UK has no strong practice of allowing protests, especially on very contentious issues.
The UK system is deeply and fundamentally undemocratic, because it was founded before the idea of a constitution was really a thing, and there have been no revolutions since, so it has essentially developed as an oligarchy which has slowly incorporated democratic elements when put under intense pressure (e.g the Chartist movement, the suffragettes, etc). All of these movements were violent, and the members were subject to extreme state violence.
The UK is a liberal democracy today essentially because it became impossible for the state to contain the labour movement without democratizing - and the result is a bunch of systems (FPTP, the cabinet, etc) that are a compromise between an essentially undemocratic state and a society that's basically democratic in mentality.
- Y_Y 5y agoThe UK grants a limited right to protest under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights since 1953. The UK absolutely does have a constitution, but it (roughly) consists of all of the laws (including unwritten ones). What it does not have is a "documented" single constitution, like the US or France.
- pasabagi 5y agoI feel like this idea of a constitution (my wife, a lawyer, makes this argument) completely beggars the question. If you're going to say a constitution is just a gestalt of laws and norms, then there is no nation without one. I would rather restrict the notion of constitution to documents that lay out foundational principles from which all other laws derive. That's how a constitution works in France, the US, or Germany. That's also the traditional (18th C) meaning of the term. It's precisely because there is no such document that nobody can say that a law against 'nuisance' demonstrations is an invalid law. There is no essential conflict with a higher principle, because there is no higher principle - except parlimentary prerogative.
- Y_Y 5y agoYour argument is persuasive, but I think it at least relies on a Common Law system and the jurisprudence of the English legal system and its descendants. In that context I would be inclined to agree. All the same the term "constitution" was in use in the UK sense by the 17th century, though one may argue that your narrower definition can be traced to Roman and Classical Greek constitutions at least.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]