I can’t not mention my old boss Lord Goldsmith’s report on citizenship, which has attracted a lot of attention because of its suggestion that teenagers might swear allegiance to Queen and country. I have to say if this had been in place when I was sixteen, I’d have refused.
Actually the report is more interesting than that, though. Lord Goldsmith also recommends, for instance, limiting the right to vote in Westminster elections to British citizens, giving discounts on Council tax and student loan repayments for those who do voluntary work, and, most interestingly of all, that there be an enhanced “narrative of citizenship” which could be helped by a narrative statement of rights and responsibilities which is not meant to be justiciable (para. 26 to 32 of Chapter 6). He suggest the government could think about this as part of its policy on a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
I think junking the Bill of R&R and doing what Lord Goldsmith suggests might be an excellent wheeze to cop out of the impossible and nonsensical task Justice ministers are currently faced with – if they’ve got any sense they’ll seize on his recommendation as a way out.
What this Government – in the shape of Goldsmith – is desperate to do is to somehow inculcate a loyalty. Although quite what that loyalty is to is another matter. It’s about creating a quiescent homogenous and above all manageable society. As such it is a direct admission of abject poverty of intellect.
I am unimpressed by Lord Goldsmith’s propositions. He and his colleagues have failed disastrously to persuade the populace of their positions, and now wish somehow to enforce conformity by legislation and/or semi-legislative means.
Leadership is a rare quality. It does not entail expertise in any particular field, but it does require that majorities feel inspired and are persuaded. Goldsmith et al are simply unable to do this. They have removed their only Leader and have lost their way.
Just like Unsworth, one gets the feeling that there is more to this than meets the eye.
The report discusses the concept of “allegiance” and also recommends (para 42) that there is a thorough reform and rationalisation of the law of treason and related offences. This is a subtle and largely overlooked element in this report.
Goldsmith states – “The Law Commission examined these offences in detail in 1977 and much of their work remains relevant. The Commission concluded, as I have done, that there remains a case for the retention of the offence and that the present statutes should be repealed and replaced with new legislation. It is instructive that several common law countries, including Canada, New Zealand and Australia, have drawn on our law and have placed the offence of treason, in similar but updated form, in their criminal codes. It may be right that it is the Law Commission who takes this work forward in the UK building on their earlier working paper to conduct a thorough comparative analysis and make detailed proposals to modernise the law.”
On one view, given its archaic nature, reform of the law of treason may be needed. However, it is more likely that this government will produce a very extensive and wide-ranging new Treason Act rather than a straightforward and narrower version such as that adopted by the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 section 73 as:
Treason
“Every one owing allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand commits treason who, within or outside New Zealand,—
(a) Kills or wounds or does grievous bodily harm to Her Majesty the Queen, or imprisons or restrains her; or
(b) Levies war against New Zealand; or
(c) Assists an enemy at war with New Zealand, or any armed forces against which New Zealand forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between New Zealand and any other country; or
(d) Incites or assists any person with force to invade New Zealand; or
(e) Uses force for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of New Zealand; or
(f) Conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in this section.”