I'm gonna rant in this post.Just a warning. About many, many things to do with justice.
To start of with, no, I'm not a lawyer. Nor a solicitor. I barely know ANYTHING compared to most people involved with this. BUT you know what? I am a very, very mature and passionate girl. So that's the first point STRAIGHT OFF: I might not know a lot, but when I know something, I know something.
So, History is one of my favourite subjects. I'm doing a new project, about how life differed between the start of the Middle Ages to the end. I've been looking into the Feudal System as a part of this. When we did it earlier this year, we didn't explore it too much, only what happened, not what it affected. I realised that part of it was sort of justice, because the peasants didn't get a lot, whereas the barons did. Was this fair? Not really. For those of you who don't know, the feudal system said that the barons had to supply the king with the knights for 40 days a year, the knights had to serve those 40 days and the peasants had to do whatever anyone told them to do, in short. The barons got the most land, the knights less, and the peasants the least. The king's own promise was to God. So, there wasn't a lot of justice in this system. Justice is more about fair trial to me, I guess, but no-one had any choice, and if they didn't fulfil their promise they were consequenced.
During this time period, the Magna Carta was also introduced. This says a lot about justice because King John wasn't giving anyone justice without delays or bribes, or with a fair trial. So when the Magna Carta was put together, they made sure to put a lot about justice into it. It is said that King John didn't actually READ the Magna Carta properly, which would explain why he actually signed it. Though, if he'd read it and not signed it, there would be no justice now. But wait! Oh yes, Mr. Grayling could throw the Magna Carta out of the window, couldn't he.
Which brings me to my next point: The Ministry of Justice. Why the heck is Mr. Grayling the Lord Chancellor? He doesn't really seem to have thought this out much. I mean, the proposal is messed up, and very obviously isn't needed. I mean, it's pretty badly written. Then, the MoJ in general. Just look at the response they sent when we got enough signatures that they were forced to reply to us. But enough on thay response, if you want to read about my take on that, read it here.
So, next, remember I was saying what JUSTICE means to me? It naturally means different stuff to different people, but some people's thoughts are completely bi-polar. I can't say bi-polar to the actual definition, cuz technically there isn't an ACTUAL definition, it's one of those things that's on opinion, but when I have some-one tell me it's being accused for something, I know they either 1) don't understand what I'm talking about or 2) are a Mr. Chris Grayling.
Another one of my various points is the fact that the MoJ doesn't seem to be doing a lot. They put the consultation out. Released a few documents and a response paper. THEN, loads of people, lawyers, solicitors, some badgers and me, send out letters, tweet to death, rally, and I don't even want to count the amount of blog posts there are on #saveukjustice out there. I mean, I don't expect them to come out when 1000 odd people are protesting, but you think they would do something. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they shouldn't. Don't look at me, I'm only 12, like I say, I don't know everything. I would think Mr. Grayling would be quaking in his boots by now, we're at 88k. Only 12k to go and we get into Parliament.
Next up is my theory on CHILDHOOD. Mr. Grayling must have had a different childhood to how I've grown up. I, and I'm sure many others, have grown up learning that there should always be justice, no racism, rights, free speech, no sexism. You shouldn't judge, and people are innocent before proven guilty. I was bought up like that, and I'm proud of that. Look where that's gotten me. But Mr. Grayling's parents obviously had very diverse views or they didn't teach him well enough. I wonder if they know that their son could reverse 800 years of history and destroy justice.
Cuz personally, I think a person's childhood affects their life. Education, upbringing, environment, religion, opinions, and things like this. Me, I'm going to be a very passionate, opinionated woman that fights for what she wants, and wants to give back to the world what's it's given me. Others, such as Mr. Grayling, must have not grown up like that, or just have forgotten all of the simple stuff.
I also think that Mr. Grayling must be quite independent. I wonder how much input others had on this, or if he just decided on it without thinking about the common sense factors first. I put in a Tweet a while ago: "I wonder how many staff in the MoJ actually disagree with Grayling but can't say anything in fear of losing their job" and I seriously do think there will be staff inside of the MoJ that think Mr. Grayling is off his rocker (which, frankly, he is...) and has no sense, common or otherwise.
In my response, I wrote:
"Justice should be given according to necessary times when it is
needed, urgent or less urgent, not according to who is first on the
register due to when their birthday is or their surname. In school, the
person first on the register gets the "best sweets" or something because
they are lucky to have the first spot on the register. This is the same
principle- a person shouldn't get justice before another due to name.
Therefore cases should be on their urgency, not due to the provider,
name or birthday. I understand that when I reference to schooling here I
sound childish, but I am a child, though mature, and this is how I
understand this part of the proposal- it is a very similar situation."
Like I say within this small piece of my response, I do sound childish, but when doing something like this, I, like many others, relate to the situation. The questions on the consultation response paper were hard for me to understand, I answered what I could. The situation is similar; I personally cannot believe the consultation even thinks about putting people before others because of their surname or birthday, it should be on urgency.
I found this quote online:
I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for or against.
-Malcolm X (who I study next year!)
This quote says it all for me, really. That's my opinion in a nutshell. Truth and justice are very important to me. Obviously not to Mr. Grayling.
I think Mr. Grayling's main problem is thinking about the future. I'm not a psychic, and I don't think he is either, but I can see that it's gonna affect the future A LOT. It could be BEDLAM! I mean come on, people could get away from something, some-one might need a restraining order who doesn't get one, a lot could happen. Because ACTUALLY, legal aid basically makes sure Britain doesn't blow up or anything like that. OK, that's not quite it. But you know, it stops a lot of things from happening again. Parliament? Parliament is more changing stuff as opposed to stopping it.
That is the end of my rant. I hope it gave you a lot to think about, because I certainly did whilst writing it. My question for you today: WHY is justice important to YOU? Not anyone else. YOU. Cuz if you're a lawyer, your answer will be different to mine. I'll tell you my answer next time.
P.S This is the longest post I've ever done! Just over 1,300 words!!