THE SEPERATION of morality and law in the 1960s has led to some strange judicial rulings. This time, a High Court judge has decided that military personnel ought to be covered by the Human Rights Act, even on the battlefield. The ruling was handed down during a request for military inquest guidelines in a case relating to Pte Smith, 32, who died of heatstroke in Iraq in 2003. According to the solicitor representing Pte Smith’s family, British soldier’s would now have the same human right as any other Britons and must be properly eqipped when sent into battle. Splendid show. Now if the Judge could explain how a soldier’s right to life, enshrined in the HRA, can be guaranteed on a battlefield we’ll all be the wiser.
The Human Rights Act, Tony Blair’s ‘proudest achievement’ in politics, was long intended to replace Christian morality in law and justice. This foreign and explicitly anti-British Act, the benchmark against which all existing and future laws must be judged, is the new morality. No legal principles, even secular ones, can exist seperate from any standards. God’s morality was abolished, and so the liberal establishment which despises us and has no feel for our culture adopted a secular legal deity – the Human Rights Act. But a prior benchmark exists for the military by which we may judge their treatment. It was drawn up by serious people in serious times who knew their’s country’s history. It’s called the Military Covenant and can be summed up thus:
When you join the military you give up certain freedoms and put the needs of your country first. You will be bound by service, duty and an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. You will be called to do harsh tasks and you will have to make sacrifices. In return you will the very best training and equipment and your families will looked after.
You may be required to fight your country’s enemy and you may die. In return you will be sent home, your grave will always be tended by those who care for what you did and you will always be remembered.
This covenant is all that the Armed Forces need. They have always abided by their side of the bargain, even if successive governments have repeatedly failed to uphold theirs. From training time and budgets to battfield equipment, casualty evacuation and post-trauma care, leave time and rehabilitation, this government especially has torn up the covenant and spat on our best. Ultimately, however, we are to blame. The British people have smugly elected to government clear and obvious enemies of our nation and those who hate the military. Never once has Blair or Brown stood at RAF Brize Norton to see the the return of the body of a fallen British soldier. They can’t say they don’t know where it is: Blair especially went through the place every week while he took the Queen’s Flight off to exotic locations.
Either the HRA applies in its entirety to the Armed Forces, which is a nonsense, or not at all. For a court to cherry-pick certain rights for application whilst leaving others out would also be absurd, because they are intended to be universal rights. Of course, we wouldn’t be here if Britons hadn’t been so feckless and voted for those who hate us over a decade ago.