On the one hand this has the woo of freeman on the land bollocks written all over it.
A man who refused to register his son’s birth because he says he does not want him to be controlled by the state has lost a high court case.
Tower Hamlets social services, the London council which has responsibility for the baby’s welfare, asked a high court judge to intervene in the case after the man and his partner, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, failed to register the child’s birth earlier this year.
Why?
Hayden said the couple’s deliberate decision not to register the birth stemmed from the boy’s father’s unusual and somewhat eccentric beliefs about the concept of personal sovereignty.
Yup, definitely lawful Rebellion/Freeman of the Land, I can recognise the woo from here. This stuff is drawn from a flawed understanding of common law and adherence to Magna Carta, most of which has long since been repealed. It’s wibbly-woo and no one who goes to court with this guff will win a case – nor have they. Indeed, judges are getting wise to it.
However…
He said the father had a genuinely held belief in the power and writ of the individual. The father told the judge: “We are each our own sovereign. We are governed by a common law but only to the extent that we depart from three principles. These three imperatives are: to do no harm; to cause no loss; to inflict no injury.”
Those principles are sound – indeed, they are principles that libertarians adhere to. Nothing wrong with them. But it is a misunderstanding of our law to suggest that this is all that applies. We have statute law, which has common law principles underpinning it, and is tested using precedent in the same way. However, contrary to Lawful Rebellion’s protestations, this statute law is perfectly legitimate and if you take the wibble approach when confronted with it, expect to be put firmly in your place by the judge.
The judge added the essence of the father’s objection was “his belief that registration will cause his son to become controlled by a state which he perceives to be authoritarian and capricious”.
Well, it is… Can’t argue with that.
Hayden pointed out that the 1953 Births and Deaths Registration Act required a birth to be registered within 42 days of a child being born.
And there you have it. You might not like that law, but it is the law and if you choose to disobey it, there are consequences as this gentleman is finding out to his cost. I really don’t have any sympathy. This Freeman on the Land stuff is pure wibble, faux legalese, and leads its followers into believing themselves above the law to their ultimate cost.
Had he been successful he would have saddled the kid with far more problems than he would get from the authoritarian and capricious state. As a non person he would be unable to access education, healthcare or even be allowed to work. I suppose that you could argue that you should be able to live your life without having to get permission from the government at every step, but we are where we are. We need to press for change perhaps but trying to buck the system on your own is never going to work. Even if you found an effective loophole, you can bet that the powers that be would close it pretty damn quick.
Mentioning the word loophole just reminded me of the song Loophole by female comedy duo Garfunkel and Oats. You can probably still find it one YouTube, but be warned, it’s a bit rude.
And yet I still can’t quite believe that the might of the State has been used to crush this annoying ant while seemingly powerless to deal with baby-batterers, honor murders and FGM…
Indeed.
Freeman on the land is bollocks of the first water. Muslim on the land is not (or LGBTEIEIO…or an uncountable myriad of other “free spirits”)
As I was oft told at school (showing my age here) “can’t means won’t”.
This is not going to end well.
Fair point, however, I suspect even they wouldn’t have got away with this one. The bureaucracy of the state is mighty powerful in its own right.
Mark makes an interesting point. Do the travelling community register their sprogs with the state? I suspect that they would only do so as long as it was in their interests to do so, in order to claim benefits for instance. The second that it became a problem to them I’m pretty sure that they would stop doing it. What are the odds of the state jumping on them in the way that they have on this guy?
Perhaps someone needs to explain that to an extent society is a social contract. You can choose to drop out of it, but don’t expect society to provide your child the benefits of NHS cover, or benefits, or the Police coming out to help if you are assaulted…