Draconian Laws Home

Draconian Laws
9/12/2005 posted by Kevin S
The term Draconian law orginates from Draco the Greek codifier of law. In the year 610 B.C, in ancient Athens, nobles agreed that more consideration should be shown to the simpler common folk, cruel laws, decided on impluse, would be no more and instead would be arranged in a plainly worded system that could no longer be twisted by the nobilty to their own ends and the common people might know what the law really was and therefore not break it unconciously.

Once plainy worded, it turned out that all the old half-remebered laws mostly involved death, even for the smallest infringement. Eventually the people and the Gods revolted and the laws and their law-keepers were banished.

Fast forward a couple of millenia and the term Draconian is being applied to some of the current legislation that is passing throught the British Houses of Parliament.

Do we really need laws to restrict peoples movements, ID cards, anti-terrorist legislation, laws to prevent freedom of speech under the guise of stopping racial hatred or are these really means to control the population, make sure that they are 'kept' safe by restricting their choices and their freedoms.

Maybe its too late already? Most people are under the illusion that that they are free and they can do what they want, but this is just not true. We ( in the western democracies ) live in countries that are constantly protecting us by restricting what we can do. Law and Order allows our freedoms but at the same time time removes our freedoms, after all you might live in a democracy but you can't do exactly what you want because the law will intervene if the action is illegal by its own definition.

Draconian laws are only a short step away, people being arrested for a trivial thing such as heckling under anti-terrorist laws at the momment. Continuing down this path may lead to a greater 'safety' for the population, but at what cost.

The real problem with these new laws that are being rapidly introduced are not what they mean now, the arguments are squarely placed and rationally applied - at the moment, the real worry is that future goverments might, in times of crisis, invoke the laws passed previously and use them to administer a harsher effect than was originally intended. With enough of these laws available who knows what goverments will be able to do in ten years time, lock a malcontender away because they didn't agree with the majority? Where is freedom and free speech then ?