During the "42 days without trial" debate last year, the mantra "going all the way back to the Magna Carta" was constantly and unthinkingly reeled off; in a BBC poll, June 15th, the day it was signed, was the chosen date for our suggested “British Day”- the Magna Carta surely "is an infallible guide to our current liberties".
Perhaps not Andrew Marr argues.
For a start it wasn’t signed. Secondly it was more a cobbled-together, back-room deal, a compromise between one of England’s most corrupt kings and a bunch of “territorial hardmen” than the basis of our common-law system or some kind of predecessor for a human rights bill. Anyone claiming the latter would need to explain away several anti-Semitic clauses or the classic "Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing"! It was less a medieval English Constitution, more an attempt to consolidate the power of the warlords and barons (interestingly 19 of the 25 who forced John to sign had French names).
So why do we still not just remember the Magna Carta, but hold it up as the standard by which all subsequent human rights and civil rights measures and proposals must be measured? Superficially because almost hidden away amongst incomprehensible rulings on inheritance and property, a promise that "freemen" (albeit with a slightly different definition of what that meant at the time of King John!) should have their liberties forever and, particularly relevant in connection with 42 days, that no freeman shall be imprisoned unlawfully.
But Marr’s basic point is that the Magna Carta implicitly gives us the message, even today, that "tyrants may be toppled", be those tyrants the absolute Monarch or the absolute State, determined to chip constantly away at our individual and collective liberties. That’s still a pretty revolutionary message and one that "State” should be constantly made aware of.
3 comments:
Marr, strangely for a Scot, forgets one thing. That the Magna Carta is an English document with very little relevance or binding to Scotland. Alexander II (his son-in-law) apparently signed it in his capacity as an English landowner (like the English king before John was a French landowner)but that is far as it goes. Alex refused to do homage for Scotland.
Scotland has the Declaration of Arbroath which explicity says that a monarch that fails in their duty can be removed and replaced. This was backed up by the resolution of the Scottish Parliament in October 1488 over the removal (and death) of James III.
"That the Magna Carta is an English document with very little relevance or binding to Scotland."
To be fair to Marr, his main argument is that it, with the exception of the point I mentioned in the last paragraph, has also very little relevance to the rest of modern-day Britain. And I'm sure that most Scots won't be too displeased to be also given the permission to topple tyrants!
Agreed. And what really matters is not the content of the Magna Carta, but the principles that underpin it. For me, Sir Winston Churchill encapsulated it perfectly when he talked about preserving the "long continuity of our institutions." It's the preservation of the right to grow our democracy as the PEOPLE of the nation see fit that really matters. One of the things that most makes me proud to be British is the impact that diversity has had on our development as a nation and a people. There are many border battlefields near where I live. Our nation was forged in these places every bit as much as it was at Runnymede, in Westminster, or on the beaches of Normandy, for that matter. The really improtant idea to hold on to is that We, the People, hold the key to our democratic future. That's been forgotten in the whirlwind of rising house prices and plasma screen TVs over the last few decades. But if the expenses scandal does nothing else, I'm hoping that it will herald a return to proper democracy, within which we'll all need to play our parts.
Post a Comment