Edinburgh Western MSP Alex Cole-Hamilton wrote a blistering column in yesterday’s Daily Record in which he lambasted the suggestion that public officials in this country should swear an oath. It’s as passionate and liberal as you would expect from Alex.
My column in today's @Daily_Record on the cold irony of a Government demanding that its citizens swear an oath to tolerance @scotlibdems pic.twitter.com/g9nCgGWfHc
— Alex Cole-Hamilton (@agcolehamilton) December 20, 2016
Some of the highlights:
I’m sorry, but ask anyone associated with the Black Lives Matter campaign in the States (a country which makes its citizens swear allegiance before they draw breath in the morning) whether such a pledge makes any difference to racial harmony…
…This is the latest frontier in a new kind of politics in this country, a politics of nationalism and identity driven by a right wing tabloid press which seems to harness and inflate the darkest public perceptions around immigration and radicalisation…
…Our country is built on a rich tapestry of cultures which have all, over time, crafted what it means o be British. Immigration has shaped our national cuisine, our music, and the way we speak. That process is ongoing and it won’t ever really end.
To hammer out a meaningless set of couplets which make up a definitive set of British values would effectively say: “The rest of the world has no more to teach us. This is it. Britain in a nutshell. If you don’t like it -go back to where you came from.”
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Brexit: The Uncivil War - the BBC drama with Benedict Cumberbatch
A power vacuum?
HMO plan for Market Harborough's Bottom Club
I am liberal, woke and proud of it. We should all accept such descriptions with pride
David S
Paul R
Daniel Walker
Paul Holmes
24 Comments
Mr Javid actually said:
“The pledge could include phrases such as “tolerating the views of others even if you disagree with them”, as well as “believing in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from abuse … a belief in equality, democracy, and the democratic process” and “respect for the law, even if you think the law is an ass”.”
If the oath was along those lines I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Okay, so we’ve now seen a huge flood of articles on LDV from people opposed to this idea to tackle segregation and the existence of parallel communities. Might it be possible to hear from Liberals what we *do* think is worth doing to halt the growth of ghettoes and reduce segregation? Or are we only ever against stuff these days?
@malc – me too.
@ Malc,
I would be pretty worried if someone who immigrated to this country felt they couldn’t sign up to those values.
The Panglossian approach to integration has not worked. So if not this, what? And please, no woolly abstract terms like open, tolerant and united when clearly as a nation we are not, and the goal seems even more out of reach. Proposals please.
@malc
“…and “respect for the law, even if you think the law is an ass”.”
If the oath was along those lines I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.”
I happen to see lots wrong with it whatever it says, but that’s a good specific example of where we get into difficulty.
If I genuinely think the law is an ass, then I don’t think I should respect it, and I think I should also say so. I happen to think that is the more “British” response.
@ Cllr Mark Wright………….. Sorry, Mark, but I’m afraid the onus is on you to say what evidence you have to say why it would be effective.
Modus Tollens ‘n all that.
Merry Christmas.
“respect for the law, even if you think the law is an ass”.”…
Would this be the sort of ‘respect’ shown, by those newspapers who most often preach ‘Britishness’, over the ruling (and personal integrity) of those High Court judges in the ‘Brexit’ case?
Would this be the ‘respect shown by Javid and other members of his government in their mealy-mouthed, reluctant ‘support’ for these judges and their ruling?
Handsome is as handsome does ..rulingc
@David Raw – oaths are considered to have some effect, otherwise we wouldn’t ever bother to take an oath on giving evidence in court, or joining the armed forces, or joining the police, etc; and there would have been no need for the Oaths Acts.
malc , Jayne , and as ever , Mark
I am so delighted that I am not the only person on here to think the reaction to the report by the centre left , and especially to Sajid Javid , a moderate , Tory supporter, of that excellent think tank, and membership organisation, liberal Conservative, Bright Blue , and a man fro an ethnic minority and a working class background .
It is not a policy I agree with , not keen on oaths , have a bit of the Quaker in me , in sympathy , but it is the fact that we are in dangerous times, read and listen to our own member , Majid Nawaz , the clue is in the name of him, and the communities secretary , they are worth listening to even if some do not share the view !
And why is it this party welcomes “identity ” when it is self described , on mental health or LGBT, and rightly so , but the minute someone might like to self describe , not as British , and patriotic , all we get is oh no !
Alex Cole Hamilton is entitled to his point of view , as is Sajid Javid .
The difference is I bet only Javid would pass Tebbits cricket test . 1
“not as British ” is meant to be written , “as British “
Mark
Yes oaths do have some effect. A person proved to have lied can be jailed for perjury.
As to preventing parallel communities one thing a number of Liberals do is to intermarry.
I hope any such oath as well as committing to ‘freedom of religion’ would also commit to respecting ‘freedom from religion’.
Paul
And freedom from Christmas?
Why not simply swear to obey and uphold British laws?
Oaths – in some form that does not force a person to choose between lying and revealing their religious or non-religious beliefs – may have a place in public life, and that’s a debate worth having.
However, I’m utterly appalled by the idea that, in a democracy, the choice of the electorate could be overturned because the person they have elected feels unable – for any reason – to utter words imposed on them by a government politician.
John Probert
“Why not simply swear to obey and uphold British laws?”
Good point – but do we need to? There are penalties if we don’t….
One only needs to read private eye and Mr Javid’s comments on judges that he has problems with the oath he proposes.
The fundamental problem with this oath is that being British entitles one to oppose prevailing British values. What if we had had the oath in the 1950s’ where people would have ben expected to respect the law on homosexuality even if they thought it an ass, or support the colour bar at their place of work as part of tolerating the views of others ? Does swearing to support democracy preclude support for the monarchy ? Does freedom of speech mean no libel laws ? Any values with need pages of subsequent explanation.
Upholding British Laws in 1910 included women and most men not being allowed to vote.
Caractacus: Well, the oath would be to observe and uphold British law [at all times].
Of course the law changes over time.
Manfarang; Personally I have always enjoyed celebrating the mid Winter Solstice/Saturnalia et al as has been common from long before the, historically, relatively recent arrival of Christmas. I was raking leaves in the garden only this morning, enjoying the (weak) warmth of the sun on my face and looking forward to the coming of Spring now that days will gradually start to lengthen again.
@ John – “Well, the oath would be to observe and uphold British law [at all times].
Of course the law changes over time.”
What if my Britishness was of the old school variety (englishness?), and I believed we had natural rights that derive innately, rather than from the state, in particular the right to lawful rebellion against authority that lacks justice and equity?
JediB.: Firstly, British law is of course one thing in England & Wales and another thing in Scotland. Secondly, I believe a judge famously said “This is not a court of morals, it’s a court of law” and I don’t believe our British law includes any right of ‘lawful rebellion’ (but that’s an interesting thought, especially with brexit looming).
Anyway, have a Happy Christmas!
@ John – “This is not a court of morals, it’s a court of law” and I don’t believe our British law includes any right of ‘lawful rebellion’”
Of course it doesn’t, law derives from the state and this notion draws its legitimacy from an innate right to reject the authority of the state.
The Cassey report (in the executive summary https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/575975/The_Casey_Review_Executive_Summary.pdf) states “”Ensuring that British values such as respect for the rule of law, equality and tolerance are enshrined in the principles of public life and developing a new oath for holders of public office”.
I don’t understand why anyone who is a councillor, MP SMP or AM or holder of any other public office could object to swearing an oath to “respect for the rule of law, equality and tolerance”. (There is no need to call them British values in the oath.)
However the right to protest against laws you dislike would also need to be included in some way. So it makes it clear that respecting the rule of law does not mean accepting the laws of the UK are correct. If I want a law changed or repealed I still respect the rule of law.
Sajid Javid’s specific suggestions for content are sensible enough; and in reply to the comment about respect for the law even if it’s an ass, I suppose this means you believe in the rule of law while feeling free to campaign against laws you dislike. The problem comes when, shall we say, a Town Councillor wishes to join a protest by his/her constituents against, say, live animal exports from their town and the protest involves peacefully but illegally blocking a road. I think any commitment to the law must have a conscience-based get-out, though it must be sparingly used. Otherwise, if a UK government democratically-elected (to the extent our current one is) passed a law establishing a duty which was a cruel breach of human rights, our elected representatives could not disobey it.
If it were actually an oath, no Quaker could be an elected representative because we won’t swear oaths: for example, we affirm in court, a simple statement.
Finally, I just can’t see how the proposed oath would do any good. What precisely would it change?