RULE OF STRAW

 Mike Tyson is an American boxer who spent three years in jail after being found guilty of rape. British law states explicitly that anyone who's been convicted of a crime carrying a penalty of more than 12 months in jail must be denied entry into the United Kingdom. Yet Mr. Tyson was admitted to England at London Heathrow yesterday to train for a fight in Manchester in 10 days' time. Why? Because Home Secretary Jack Straw feared that "innocent" promoters and fans would suffer financially and otherwise from a cancellation of the fight.

 Our position is clear, we hope, on the Pinochet case. In our view, his detention was more a response to political pressures from the left than to the legal arguments pulled out of a hat by an obstreperous Spanish judge. But there is a broader theme here, about the rule of law and how it applies to the "Third Way" New Labour is trying to export to the rest of Europe and the world.

 The rule of law, which Mr. Straw is charged by precedent and tradtion with upholding, requires that all citizens be treated equally, and prohibits the poliltician of the day from making an exception in favor of any one person or group.

 When politicians arrogate to themselves the power to apply their own discretion in legal matters, they are by definition abridging the rule of law. Thus, when a political party or movement adopts "pragmatism" as its guiding light, beware, because pragmatism and discretionary use of power are soul brothers. In a significant minority of cases it is simply "unpragmatic" not to at least bend the law. The Tyson decision, anyone will recognize, was "pragmatic".

 The Third Way is sometimes described as a compromise between the policies of Old Labour and neo-conservatism. Since this marriage is not always marked by conjugal bliss, it is argued that a certain amount of pragmatic compromise is required. "Pragmatism" is of course a positive-sounding word, but its first cousin, expediency, has more negative connotations. When a politician takes a decision which he feels he must defend as "pragmatic" what he really means is that it makes short-termsense.

 "Ideology," which Third Wayers rail against, is considered too inflexible. But "principles," closely related, enjoys a better reputation. Principles are for the long term. What some of the best literature, from the Bible to Thackeray on down, tells us is that adherence to principles serves the human cause better than pragmatism.

 The professed conversion of Third Way theorists to free-market, Thatcherite captialism was a welcome sign of enlightenment, but always a bit suspect as merely a useful expedient for regaining control of the government. The Prime Minister's fight against Ken Livingstone's Labour candidacy as Mayor of London is waged, for example, because under "Red Ken" and other Loony Leftists, Labour in the 1980s "became unelectable."

 But the Pinochet case, by contrast, was a way of handing a gift, at little cost, to that same far left, which remains at least nominally a part of Labour's constituency. Mr. Straw would have remembered the anti-Pinochet rallies of the '70s and '80s. But more importantly, so will Old Labour voters who mistrust the New version because of its pro-market positions.

 The pragmatic thing to do was therefore to hold Gen. Pinochet in captivity, even though he had come into Britain as a guest of the government, just as the pragmatic thing to do now is to send him away for medical reasons after 14 months in captivity without trial.

 With his rant about "woolly liberal" opposition to taking away the right to a jury trial in some cases, including theft, Mr. Straw has performed a useful service. The word "liberal" could not have been better used, as true classical liberals have a real attachment to blind justice as a regulator not only of relations between individuals, but also between individuals and the government.

 Many true liberals have taken a look at the Tories over the last few years and decided that their ideology has now boiled down to an adoration of "throne and altar," a revulsion against "Europe," and little else. Given the attractiveness of this policy mix, it is little wonder that the Tories are so far behind in the polls that they have dropped out of sight.

 The Tyson case, fudging the law for benefit of sports promoters, will not, in and of itself, destroy British legal traditions. But if the Tories really want an issue, and can reinvent themselves in respons to Tony Blair's grab of their best issues, it has possibilities. If New Labour is to the champion of "pragmatism," a la Bill Clinton, then it is time for some party to step forward and defend the rule of law. We see no reason why it shouldn't be the Tories.

Thank you. You are visitor number since 28Jan00.
For comments on this page, please contact Briame Gerdan.
For further reading at this site, please return to Briame Gerdan's "Public" Home Page.