There are no such things as British values; certainly not in the way politicos of all stripes have been talking about them in recent weeks. In response to allegations of a “Trojan Horse” infiltrating Birmingham schools and releasing Islamic fundamentalists who are set on poisoning the minds of children and undermining the progressive, liberal monarchy that is Great Britain, politicians and commentators have been queuing up to make the claim that “British Values” must be reasserted and commanded, in particular to children. In the Mail on Sunday David Cameron listed them as “a belief in freedom, tolerance of others, accepting personal and social responsibility, respecting and upholding the rule of law”.
It is clear to all that such values are not British per se, they are respected to varying extents in numerous countries (including those not previously under the yoke of empire) and in many ways Britain does not live up to these ideals itself. They are of course notions which can be deduced from the first principles of moral philosophy and Cameron et al have merely appropriated them as their own. It may well be the case that some of these may have been popularised and codified by English theorists, but their roots, as is so often the case, extend back further in time.
To take the rule of law as an example. This is a value that those of a particular conservative persuasion (that is those confident that their tradition is the fount of all that is good, not even considering for a moment their ignorance regarding the history of law and philosophy) never tire of claiming has been invented by Britain who benevolently bestowed this gift upon a world of savages. The gift, of course, being the Magna Carta of 1215, currently omnipresent owing to this discussion of values as well as its imminent 800th anniversary. As Cameron put it in the article: the charter “paved the way for the democracy, the equality, the respect and the laws that make Britain”.
David Allen Green wrote a brilliant article for the Financial Times entitled “The Myth of Magna Carta” in which he waves away the smoke that clouds what is in fact a relatively mundane document. He details how the Magna Carta of 1215 was of a temporary nature and it is in fact a charter of 1297 that is being celebrated-its 800th anniversary occurring in 83 years. In any event, there are only three chapters that remain “in force”, two of which are protections for the rights and liberties of the Church of England and protections for the customs and liberties of the City of London. The third is in fact a broad pronouncement of the rule of law, but as the article makes clear is of absolutely no legal consequence.
In any event, the rule of law has its roots in natural law, an idea born in ancient Greece and to the best of my knowledge (although please get in touch to prove me wrong) the earliest codified theory of a secular rule of law is found in Aristotle’s Politics. The keener among the British Values Brigade are aware of these facts and therefore make the defence that these are not values created by the British, but are values that the British have traditionally held dear.
I beg to differ.
To take the rule of law again. This government is doing its utmost to put as many restrictions as possible on accessing judicial review. They are making it extremely difficult and expensive for ordinary people to challenge decisions of the government and public bodies, even when they have acted negligently or simply made a mistake. Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court recently put it to a House of Lords select committee that "If you don't have a healthy and accessible judicial review function for the courts then you don't have a satisfactory modern democratic society.” Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly apparent the extent to which a number of members of royal family, in particular Prince Charles, have been given tax exemptions, lobbying privileges and worse of all, a right to veto legislation. This is far from rex lex, it is the more traditional lex rex-the monarch is king, not the law.
I have made my point; I hardly need mention the indefinite detention, detention without trial, use of terror legislation to undermine free speech and the lack of prisoner voting to further prove how the rule of law is not in fact a treasured value in this country. To my mind this attitude is in part due to the blinkered attitudes of some towards the meta-principles of law. In the same way that Theresa May does not understand the human rights are owed to all humans, regardless of whether or not they are suspected of an offence, here the rule of law is assumed to any apply to those that deserve it.
I think that underneath this desire for “British values” there something very sinister at play. Most people are probably aware that British values is a meaningless, confused concept and hence only wield it in a profoundly cynical manner. They want to erect barricades in society between those who are “properly British” and those who can never be. In Britain, the enemy of the day are Muslims who are considered backwards, criminal fundamentalists who must be differentiated from the rest of Britain in order that they can continue to be scapegoated. Yet why does the word “British” need to be used? Surely a better argument would be one based on broad principles of democracy and equality and the fact that the word “British” is employed exposes the fact that there is something more cynical at play. Of course there is a problem with fundamentalist Muslims in this country, just as there is a problem with fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Jews. They all guilty of preaching vile ideas and must be held to account, but to do so by saying that universal ethics are British values is a cynical, hypocritical and divisive lie.
The values which are claimed on our behalf are not British and they are certainly not valued by its citizens or leaders. If Britain has any values at all surely they must include: monarchy, established religion, an unelected legislature, class division, colonialism and slavery. These are things which Britain either invented, pioneered or truly does hold dear. Values are important because of their universal nature, they should not be claimed for any group in particular and they should certainly not be used to divide an already fractured society.
It is clear to all that such values are not British per se, they are respected to varying extents in numerous countries (including those not previously under the yoke of empire) and in many ways Britain does not live up to these ideals itself. They are of course notions which can be deduced from the first principles of moral philosophy and Cameron et al have merely appropriated them as their own. It may well be the case that some of these may have been popularised and codified by English theorists, but their roots, as is so often the case, extend back further in time.
To take the rule of law as an example. This is a value that those of a particular conservative persuasion (that is those confident that their tradition is the fount of all that is good, not even considering for a moment their ignorance regarding the history of law and philosophy) never tire of claiming has been invented by Britain who benevolently bestowed this gift upon a world of savages. The gift, of course, being the Magna Carta of 1215, currently omnipresent owing to this discussion of values as well as its imminent 800th anniversary. As Cameron put it in the article: the charter “paved the way for the democracy, the equality, the respect and the laws that make Britain”.
David Allen Green wrote a brilliant article for the Financial Times entitled “The Myth of Magna Carta” in which he waves away the smoke that clouds what is in fact a relatively mundane document. He details how the Magna Carta of 1215 was of a temporary nature and it is in fact a charter of 1297 that is being celebrated-its 800th anniversary occurring in 83 years. In any event, there are only three chapters that remain “in force”, two of which are protections for the rights and liberties of the Church of England and protections for the customs and liberties of the City of London. The third is in fact a broad pronouncement of the rule of law, but as the article makes clear is of absolutely no legal consequence.
In any event, the rule of law has its roots in natural law, an idea born in ancient Greece and to the best of my knowledge (although please get in touch to prove me wrong) the earliest codified theory of a secular rule of law is found in Aristotle’s Politics. The keener among the British Values Brigade are aware of these facts and therefore make the defence that these are not values created by the British, but are values that the British have traditionally held dear.
I beg to differ.
To take the rule of law again. This government is doing its utmost to put as many restrictions as possible on accessing judicial review. They are making it extremely difficult and expensive for ordinary people to challenge decisions of the government and public bodies, even when they have acted negligently or simply made a mistake. Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court recently put it to a House of Lords select committee that "If you don't have a healthy and accessible judicial review function for the courts then you don't have a satisfactory modern democratic society.” Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly apparent the extent to which a number of members of royal family, in particular Prince Charles, have been given tax exemptions, lobbying privileges and worse of all, a right to veto legislation. This is far from rex lex, it is the more traditional lex rex-the monarch is king, not the law.
I have made my point; I hardly need mention the indefinite detention, detention without trial, use of terror legislation to undermine free speech and the lack of prisoner voting to further prove how the rule of law is not in fact a treasured value in this country. To my mind this attitude is in part due to the blinkered attitudes of some towards the meta-principles of law. In the same way that Theresa May does not understand the human rights are owed to all humans, regardless of whether or not they are suspected of an offence, here the rule of law is assumed to any apply to those that deserve it.
I think that underneath this desire for “British values” there something very sinister at play. Most people are probably aware that British values is a meaningless, confused concept and hence only wield it in a profoundly cynical manner. They want to erect barricades in society between those who are “properly British” and those who can never be. In Britain, the enemy of the day are Muslims who are considered backwards, criminal fundamentalists who must be differentiated from the rest of Britain in order that they can continue to be scapegoated. Yet why does the word “British” need to be used? Surely a better argument would be one based on broad principles of democracy and equality and the fact that the word “British” is employed exposes the fact that there is something more cynical at play. Of course there is a problem with fundamentalist Muslims in this country, just as there is a problem with fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Jews. They all guilty of preaching vile ideas and must be held to account, but to do so by saying that universal ethics are British values is a cynical, hypocritical and divisive lie.
The values which are claimed on our behalf are not British and they are certainly not valued by its citizens or leaders. If Britain has any values at all surely they must include: monarchy, established religion, an unelected legislature, class division, colonialism and slavery. These are things which Britain either invented, pioneered or truly does hold dear. Values are important because of their universal nature, they should not be claimed for any group in particular and they should certainly not be used to divide an already fractured society.