Searches

The Badman has put his thinking cap on and decided that the way forward for home education is to treat home educators like criminals. No, worse than criminals. Guilt will be assumed, innocence must be proven. Even the most persistent offender doesn't have to do this.

Badman's recommendations have not come as a surprise to anyone who has watched the review unfold - it was clear from the start that the review could have only one outcome: that homes should be inspected, children `interviewed' by a battalion of newly recruited Badmans and that those who resisted would be carted off and incarcerated, their childen taken into "care".

We have been here before. A couple of hundred years ago, another group of Britons found that the Badmans of the day were willing to take similar, draconian steps to stamp out what they saw as a threat to their monopoly. Today, ancient liberties are being tossed aside in order to allow the Badmans to enforce their monopoly over the propagation of ideas (however they might dress it up as child protection). Then, it was over tax revenues. Having imposed taxes on certain categories of imports, Badmans in London were alarmed to see the revenue streams upon which their comfortable lifestyles depended eroded by the actions of smugglers, who were eluding the customs men and bringing in tax-free goods from overseas.

Badmans are, of course, willing to sacrifice ancient liberties at the drop of a hat, and in this case they used writs of assistance as their chief weapon in their fight to retain their rents. These writs were effectively general search warrants, allowing the little Badmans to search the premises of anyone they liked at any time. No suspicion need be shown, no evidence presented. The warrants never expired, and the Badmans could not be sued for any damage they caused. Badmans were above the law.

I'm sure you see the parallels unfolding. Will the battalions of modern-day Badmans break down doors? Will they be liable when they traumatise children and disrupt lives? When educational prospects are destroyed, will any Badman hold his hands up and say "We were wrong!". Will they lose their jobs or their golden pensions?

We know they will not, don't we? Badmans are never liable, never accountable. It's always "within the rules". Nobody ever foresaw what might happen. Badmans were only trying to help. It was for the children.

To return to the story of the writs of assistance, in the face of the hated searches, a group of merchants decided to challenge the writs in court. In a fiery speech, their lawyer, James Otis denounced the writs as "instruments of slavery" and argued that such a general warrant was illegal in English law:

A man’s home is his castle, and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it is declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom house office may enter our houses when they please and we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court, can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient. This wanton exercise of this power is not a chimerical suggestion of a heated brain. What a scene does this open! Every man, prompted by revenge, ill humor, or wantonness to inspect the inside of his neighbor’s house, may get a writ of assistance. Other’s will ask it from self-defense; one arbitrary action will promote another, until society be involved in tumult and blood.

Otis's oration had its intended effect and the crowd of ordinary people watching seemed suddenly to loom threateningly over proceedings. Might violence ensue if the court upheld the writs? The judges, seeing what was happening, delayed a decision, hoping to win themselves some breathing space.  Weeks passed, and then months. It was nearly six months later that the judges dared to bring the case out of mothballs, arranging to have the whole case heard again. This time they got their way and the legality of the writs were upheld.

However this wasn't the end of the story. Unbeknown to the Badmans, Otis and his colleagues had still to play their trump card. It was a trump card from which there was no turning back and from which there would be no negociated settlement. In their worst nightmares the Badmans never dreamed that the people they had abused for so long would ever take a step so drastic or so final.

Proclaiming the rights of Englishmen, the "true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties" of the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta, Otis and his colleagues - men like Washington and Adams and Jefferson - took up arms against the Badmans, and in the face of apparently insurmountable odds, they won.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Comments

[Lord T]

Let's hope it does.

[The watchman]

Some chance, Its a which hunt.
The Christians in Rome had similar acusations when Nero wanted a scape-goat to take the heat off.