Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Double agents, nerve agents, and the rule of law

By John de Meyrick - posted Wednesday, 21 March 2018


That unfortunately, is not the case in some other countries where the heads of state assume to themselves immunity from the laws that apply to ordinary citizens. Even in many so-called democracies there are ways and means by which their leaders and officials are able to engage in corruption and to treat the law with impugnity.

In Australia and other true democracies, there is no conceivable event, situation or occurrence whereby any comment on, or characterisation of, the facts might justify reference to someone or something being in breach of the rule of law.

It should also be noted that, in context, the basic concept of the rule of law may appear to relate to expressions of inequality or unfair conduct and practises such as there being one rule for the rich and another for the poor; or one rule for white people and another for black. But such divergence in fairness and human rights or other seeming disparity does not abide in, or arise from, the rule of law.

Advertisement

That term, although consistent with (current) democratic aspirations and principles, is all about governance and the processes by which the rulers of people, nations, organisations, communities or just those vested with petty authority of any kind, are making or imposing laws and executive decisions that apply to others and not to themselves.

So, what then has the rule of law to do with the allegation that Russia is responsible for attempting to murder a former double spy and his daughter with a nerve agent?

Yes, the perpetrators of this heinous crime are in breach of the law (of the UK). But in what way can the incident be characterised as an assault on the rule of law?

So, next time you read or hear comment about an event or situation that is said to be contrary to the rule of law, consider if what is said relates to a breach of some law in respect of which we all must abide, or whether it is properly referring to a case of someone in authority being exempt from a law which they have the power to impose on others.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

John de Meyrick is a barrister (ret’d), lecturer and writer on legal affairs.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by John de Meyrick

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of John de Meyrick
Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy