When we consider ‘the legal system’ as people who are not trained in the law, we naturally consider that the policing and the legal system are there to uphold our rights as citizens, to keep us safe from harm. We consider that the legal system and the laws are founded on some notion of truth, keeping society safe and true to what we all innately know are universal human values, of truth, decency, and respect. We know that we need order in society and that order needs to be founded on these key values, as it is those key values that underpin the functioning of society.
Yet when we turn to the legal system when something goes wrong or we are harmed, do we find consistency clarity and true support and laws upholding truth? Or do we find confusion and at times the protection of the rights of abusers in society? Certainly when you turn to the law with respect to cyber abuse, you find that the ‘rights’ of people to abuse and lie about people online are well and truly protected, particularly in Australia at the moment. Anyone who has had dealings in property realises that contracts do not necessarily endorse that which is decent or true.
How can this be so?
When we consider the ‘police’ and the ‘law’ we naturally consider that when we have been harmed that we will be protected and the perpetrators will be prosecuted and life will return back to normal. But for those who have had experience with the law, in particular those who work in it, we quickly realise that ‘the law’ is not simple and is not about truth, but it is remarkably complex with different variations, bylaws, and decisions based on the ‘opinion’ of a particular judge leading to ‘case lore’ which can then be quoted to encourage another judge to make a particular decision based on their ‘interpretation’ of the law.
Its all rather confusing with no guaranteed outcome based on actual truth, but rather on the vagaries of ‘the law’ and the power of persuasion of a particular barrister or lawyer.
Given all this, then why do we have laws?
Ought not the law be simple?
Ought not the law reflect truth?
In fact, ought not the law be absolute?
After all, everything in nature is simple. There is truth in nature. There are no lies or ‘interpretations’ in nature. It is absolute.
Everything in life operates according to natural law. There is order and it is absolute.
There are laws of science that govern the actions and interactions of literally everything in the universe. If there were vagaries according to this law or different outcomes according to the interpretation of one judge, there would be chaos in the world as we know it: we would not have the clearly defined species as we know it, we would not have the order of the stars, or the clear geometrical alignment of everything that we see in nature.
Everything is precisely interconnected and there are precise laws, that we could call universal that govern all life.
There is a consistency in life around us. This is plain to see from simple observation of life, no degree required, no legal system needed to keep it all in place and all going, the laws just are the way that things are. They do not even need to be written down, they are already lived.
Given that we can see that all of life operates according to clear laws, that are not even written down before they are ‘followed’, then how is it that we, supposedly the most advanced species on earth have the most complicated legal system and sets of laws that we try and say we must govern society with?
Ought not society first be governed by the acceptance of universal values and the legal system then founded on that level of absoluteness?
And given that these values are exactly that, universal, ought not laws be consistent globally given that we are a one humanity?
We are all people, with the same rights, same feelings, and made of the same stuff. Why is it that we consider ourselves ‘separate’ according to different regions, even within the same country and thus ‘governed’ by different laws, when we know deep down that we are all the same and affected by the same things?
Harm comes when fundamental human rights are broken and the rights of others are infringed on. When fundamental human values are broken we know that as harm.
Fundamental human values are that of decency, respect, care, truth, and respect for autonomy. We all know what these things are. They are innate and lived within each of us. We all thus know, because it is lived in us, that this is lived in all, and thus the harm that comes when these laws are infringed on or violated is equal for all.
Fundamental human rights are freedom of expression, as long as it does not harm others, freedom of thought, belief, religion and the right to autonomy.
A question to consider:
What comes first – the crime as confirmed by ‘legislation’ ? or the knowing that there is harm and thus then legislation to reflect the harm and hold people to account for bringing about harm?
Murder wasn’t a crime because there was legislation that told us so, rather people knew it was a crime due to an innate sense of knowing that it was wrong, seeing the harm it caused. And this knowing came from their bodies, from their lived experience of what it is to be a human being. And the same with theft – a crime that happened, caused harm and thus was formally legislated, but known to be a crime well before law was ‘written’.
And it is the same with everything in society.
It is our lived knowing of that which is decent and of respect and honouring of all that tells us what is a crime or not, and this needs to be deeply honoured and respected.
All of life operates according to law. Nature’s laws are not written. Laws are lived before they are written. We are part of nature.
We know what is true well before the ‘legislation’ is passed.
We already know the universal laws as they are in our bodies, no different to the way that all of life lives according to natural law without any legislation.
Do we need a legal system to tell us what is true before we live it, or can we live that truth already?
Just because something is ‘legal’ does not mean that it is true, or in accordance with universal values.
If we can see that we are all people and we have the same innate values and are affected by the same things, it makes no sense to have a complicated legal system and one that needs to be waded through region by region.
We know that the entire universe operates according to universal laws. It is simple and consistent.
Then, why do we not have a universal, global, legal system to reflect the universal laws and foundational human rights and values that we all know to be true in all aspects of life?
Our current ‘legal system’ clearly does not consistently reflect the universal truths and values that we all know and can live.
Ought not the written law simply reflect and honour the universal laws that are already there, just simply enshrining them in the same way that scientists can record the way that chemistry happens? They do not dictate what happens, or ‘interpret’, they simply record ‘the law’ governing what happens when say for example Oxygen and Hydrogen meet under certain circumstances.
Ought not we call for a legal system and written laws that reflect and support that which we know within us to be true? Founding laws consistently on universal values? Placing true values and respect of true human rights and truth before ‘precedent’?
We as people have great power. It is us as people who can call for reform of written law to reflect that which is universal for all, by first living what is true, and then calling for change from that which is lived and known, as law is not for one, but it is for all.