Why have our politicians and the legal profession started harping on endlessly about “democracy and the constitutional state” without even being asked?

Why have our politicians and the legal profession started harping on endlessly about “democracy and the constitutional state” without even being asked?

One explanation might be: to distract attention away from the fact that both of these concepts are nothing more than delusions because of the way in which politicians have gone about their work. Proof? But of course:

What kind of democracy is it when politicians (most of whom belong to the legal profession) come toadying up to the people every four years to receive their “carte blanche” for the next four years, before disappearing again to exercise a form of despotic rule? How else might a system of politics be described in which the politicians barricade themselves away from the people (the interests of whom they are supposed to represent), while at the same time reeling out the same one-way communication rituals (with the cooperation of the media which chronically disregards its duty) – all of which is paid for by the tax payer, also long after the politicians have retired.

What kind of constitutional state is it where people looking for justice have no opportunity to communicate directly in plain language with their “legal judge”, and where, because they have no command of the “legal jargon”, are forced to employ the services of a member of the legal profession, which almost always uses its monopoly position to take advantage of the client (mostly without repercussions)? What kind of a constitutional state is it where the court of ultimate resort does not employ the services of a “jury of common sense” made up of members of the public charged with quashing clearly absurd decisions and handing down heavy financial and custodial sentences to the perpetrators in an attempt to remind them about the job they are supposed to be doing and from whom, according to the constitution, the power of the state is supposed to stem? This includes decisions made by federal courts (as a result of intellectual inbreeding among the legal profession – not to mention other possibilities such as “corruption”).

What right do the legal profession and politicians in the corridors of power have to inflict “death by a thousand cuts” on people’s rights, won over generations through bloody conflict and years of struggle? Do any of these people ever stop to consider the possible consequences of their actions, to take into account the possibility of a violent backlash against them of the too-close-for-comfort variety – when the economy has ground to a halt, when the masses have been shaken from their false sense of security and turned their backs on being used and, as a result, when existence itself has become unbearable for the large majority of the people?

A good example of the way in which things are being broken down piece-by-piece is the continuous efforts of those involved to counter the new technological freedoms of people by using the same technology in the opposite direction. Indeed, the aim is to reel back in these freedoms and, perhaps, to limit them still further. Just a few of these issues would include: monitoring electronic communications, locational monitoring via GSM (in german), GPS/SMS bugs (in german), and RFID. And then there’s all the helicopters in the air that have to be doing more than just monitoring the traffic. In theory, of course, everything is completely above board and legal – but you wouldn’t want to bet your house on it! And then there’s the secret services, which have always operated as a state within a state.

At “winkeladvokat” we had set up a pillory for “shysters” and “judges and executioners”. This site was dedicated to pillorying those members of this profession who had been named and declared “guilty according to our charges of bringing the system into disrepute” by several of their victims.

Our experiences with this online institution have been mixed. For one, we had expected more lawyers and judges to be nominated than has actually been the case. Given that the current system produces a large number of victims, we had expected a large and continual response to the pillory. We believe that the most likely explanation for this contradiction is that the victims (provided they had heard about “winkeladvokat” in the first place) were so frightened that to name their tormentors in public was simply out of the question for fear of being finished off altogether; the other possible explanation is that victims had lost all hope of changing the system (which, incidentally, in a democracy should be a formality) following their ordeal at the hands of these people.

On the other hand, however, both direct and indirect evidence leads us to believe that some of our lawyers and judges have not been too pleased about being put into the pillory. In addition to the predictable “punishment reflex” among the persons concerned *), the pillory might indeed trigger the secondary “reflection reflex” that we so hope to achieve. The so-called reforming forces within the legal system (they are mentioned on a fairly regular basis, even if – judging by their achievements – it’s easy to doubt their existence) could also interpret the anger being expressed by the public on this site as apt and constructive and as a signal for desperately needed changes to the legal system. They could then enter into DIA-logue with the people (MONO-logues from up on their high horse are not required) – whom we would be happy to represent.

But because our faith in the ability of the legal profession to learn has been rather dented (just think about the persistence demonstrated in Germany over decades on the issue of the “legitimacy” of nazi justice and the eventual half-hearted retreat from this dogma), we have decided, for the time being at least, to maintain the pillory as a way of bringing pressure to bear: This way please to the LAWYERS (in german), and this way to the JUDGES (in german). We are also ready to add proven candidates to the list, since it’s only fair “to compare like with like”. If it can be established that the legal profession is making serious and promising efforts to reform itself in a way that is both people-friendly and in line with constitutional principles, we are prepared to consider dismantling the pillory.
*) Please don’t be rash: After all, killing someone can go unpunished and be legitimate – in “self-defence”.

PS: After receiving positive evidence, we recently published a page listing probably good and worthy lawyers (in german), that is, lawyers who have behaved in the right and correct manner.