Is the Magna Carta a big deal to UK folks?

[Janx]

I was thinking about how some non-US folks don't get how gun rights are a big deal to some folks in the US. Then I was reminded by google about the Magna Carta's big birthday.

In the US, we don't talk about the Magna Carta outside of history class. The rights designated therein don't resonate much, plus we've got our own hallowed document, the Bill of Rights.

So, I'm curious if there are folks in the UK (or wherever the Magna Carta applies) have folks who strongly refer to the Magna Carta as much as we do for our Bill of Rights in various political disputes (ex. Lord Bumblebottom totally violated our Magna Carta rights!)

My example is silly because I have no context into the matter. I'm just curious if maybe there's similarity that might help folks understand why some people go rabid over various Bill of Rights things in the US.

 

[Morrus]

No. It's historic, incredibly old, and very influential in the development of western culture, but it's not something that comes up in non-historical contexts. It's not current law or anything - most of it has been covered by more recent law.

That said, I'm no lawyer, and I do seem to recall it being cited a few years back in some legal scuffle regarding the time people could be held without charge, but I could be misremembering.

I'd say it's historically symbolic, but it's certainly not part of everyday life.

 

[Janx]

No. It's historic, incredibly old, and very influential in the development of western culture, but it's not something that comes up in non-historical contexts. It's not current law or anything - most of it has been covered by more recent law.

That said, I'm no lawyer, and I do seem to recall it being cited a few years back in some legal scuffle regarding the time people could be held without charge, but I could be misremembering.

I'd say it's historically symbolic, but it's certainly not part of everyday life.

Do you guys even have arguments about the people's rights due to various laws over there?

As I recall, UK freedom of speech isn't quite the same concept as here in the US. does freedom of speech even come up as a dispute over there?

 

[delericho]

Yep, what Morrus said.

The most recent use of the MC I can recall is the hysterical media using it as a stick to beat our Prime Minister with - in an interview he couldn't recall the date when it was signed.

That same hysterical media has since dropped that line, after the PM did another interview in which he forgot which football team he supports.

 

[delericho]

Do you guys even have arguments about the people's rights due to various laws over there?

It's mostly confined to a noisy fringe. We mostly kind of muddle along.

The reason it's mostly confined to the fringe is that we've no written constitution, which means there's not really any notion of a court striking down a law as unconstitutional. And that means any debate has to happen before the relevant legislation is passed. But it's far easier to get traction for a discussion on something that has gone wrong than for something that might go wrong if such-and-such a law is passed. So nobody much cares.

(Even there, there are some exceptions. In particular, if a law is found to violate someone's human rights, then it can be overruled. But that's very uncommon.)

 

[Janx]

It's mostly confined to a noisy fringe. We mostly kind of muddle along.

The reason it's mostly confined to the fringe is that we've no written constitution, which means there's not really any notion of a court striking down a law as unconstitutional. And that means any debate has to happen before the relevant legislation is passed. But it's far easier to get traction for a discussion on something that has gone wrong than for something that might go wrong if such-and-such a law is passed. So nobody much cares.

(Even there, there are some exceptions. In particular, if a law is found to violate someone's human rights, then it can be overruled. But that's very uncommon.)

So it's possible that while the Bill of Rights was a neat idea to outline stuff the people have that the government can't take away, it's also given argument fodder for any proposed law that might touch one of those rights.

 

[Morrus]

Do you guys even have arguments about the people's rights due to various laws over there?

As I recall, UK freedom of speech isn't quite the same concept as here in the US. does freedom of speech even come up as a dispute over there?

I certainly don't, but I'm not particularly politically active. I imagine maybe some folks discuss it more.

 

[Ryujin]

As a "Colonial" I don't think that I've heard any reference to Magna Carta or the English Common Law in more than 30 years, since high school, unless it came out of the mouth of a North American adherent of the "Freeman on the Land" movement

 

[pedr]

As Morrus says, almost all of Magna Carta has been repealed. Almost all of it is utterly inapplicable to our modern constitution and political arrangements - it was about protecting Barons' rights against the king, so a kind of very early anti-federalist settlement, rather than something which made a difference for ordinary subjects. I believe John repudiated the 1215 charter anyway, and it was later charters entered into with his successors that had a greater effect on the development of English law.

On "rights", until 1998, English (and British) concepts of rights were based on an approach which pre-dated the Enlightenment idea of writing broad statements of generally applicable rights (e.g. the US and French rights documents). Rather "rights" were those things which a free man could do without hinderance, and the threat to those came from the King and his agents. So the way to protect rights was to ensure that the King's power was checked by a legislature - to the point that, by 1688, it was Parliament which was effectively sovereign. In this settlement, attempts to create greater state power would be opposed by representatives of the people (or, at least, the propertied) - Parliament, and the House of Commons in particular, was the safeguard of liberty.

That approach fails once the Executive takes political control of the House of Commons, as was inevitable as the modern era developed. But British politicians still believe that Parliament should be sovereign and the arguments about placing limits on Parliament's ability to make whatever laws it likes stem, in part, from a kind of delusion that our legislative process is capable of effectively protecting minority rights and preventing absolute government power.

In 1998 we tried to create something which was, effectively, a modern Bill of Rights. The current government hates it!

We definitely do have rights-based arguments, many of which are based on discussions about the extent of the rights which are protected. Does a commitment to democratic elections mean some prisoners should be able to vote? Does a commitment to protecting family life mean deporting foreign criminals needs to consider their spouse, children etc? Does freedom of religion mean companies' dress codes need to be adaptable to accommodate religious dress? And so on!

 

[Morrus]

As a "Colonial" I don't think that I've heard any reference to Magna Carta or the English Common Law in more than 30 years, since high school, unless it came out of the mouth of a North American adherent of the "Freeman on the Land" movement

Common law is a different thing. You have a common law system, as do we. It's case law based in precendent, which is as big a part of your legal system as it is ours. English common law is just English case law. I think you use the term "case law"?

We don't have a written constitution, but a constitution doesn't *grant* rights; it just tells you about them. You don't need a written constitution to have the rights one might list - we still have a constitution, and experts in constitutional law. The constitution is a body of law, rather than a document.