Silence should not be taken as consent
I DOUBT that they realise it or would admit to it, but most members of the public are far too trusting of their governments. While many are apathetic, a large proportion of the remainder only engage in political issues when they are effectively told or nudged to do so by media or government and even then takes things at face value – even those who care to do some independent research into whatever subject is put in front of them.
Disappointingly few remain grounded to the bedrocks of Common Law, democratic principles and good governance which underpin any well functioning society. It doesn’t help, to put it mildly, when societies prioritise above all else economies which are based on a fraudulent financial system which even by the admission of its creators is dependent on confidence. It is, unashamedly, a confidence trick.
Streamlining governments and law enforcement to the extent that checks and balances are sacrificed in the name of making economic savings has a massively negative effect too.
Too many of us, I think, fall into the traps of engaging in or responding to arguments driven by emotive hype, talk of the need for change, convincing ourselves that we are history makers and that almost everything is an unprecedented emergency. ‘Look over here’ or ‘that’s not how it’s done any more’, we are told. At times it’s almost as if our predecessors and ancestors never existed.
A few examples in recent chronological order. There was much condemnation of the so-called ‘Sour Six’ for supposedly being bad losers and sexist over the female candidates issue at the last election. The furore also briefly reignited the argument about whether there should be more female politicians or not. But little was made of the core issue, which was that the last States had deliberately afforded to one group of people a better opportunity to have a successful election campaign than they had afforded to another group. This was quite probably against election rules and leaves the current States on thin ice if anyone questions their legitimacy. And if it wasn’t against the rules, then well, what sort of rules are they?
Then there was the Vale by-election when your newspaper did highlight the fact that one candidate was provided with a different electoral register from the others. This is the stuff of tin-pot republics from 1970s Africa, yet it gained little traction with the public.
Recently we’ve had a debate revolving around the merits or not of euthanasia, but scant attention has been paid to the issue of deputies debating matters which are not on their manifestos. If a new situation arises which needs addressing then fine, but that was not the case with the assisted dying requete. Hitler had a brilliant record for fulfilling his manifesto undertakings. It was what he did that wasn’t in his manifesto which caused a problem or two. Deputies don’t have to contradict their manifestos to cheat the voters. I would guess there are thousands of members of the Guernsey electorate thinking ‘I wouldn’t have voted for that deputy if I’d known they felt like that about euthanasia’ or ‘I didn’t vote for them but would have done had I known that was their view on euthanasia’. Effectively, the practice of voting on matters outside of manifestos turns the election into something of a lottery.
The most dangerous ‘blind-siding’ of the public yet though is the opt-out organ donation scheme being proposed by the Committee for Health & Social Care. At the moment if you are happy that in the event of your death your organs can be transplanted into someone else, then you have to give written consent. If the new proposals are approved that will not be the case – you will have to go into writing if you don’t want your organs to be donated. It’s not hard to see what will happen when the matter comes up for debate. Many people will say ‘oh yes, organ donation, that’s got to be good, if this scheme makes more organs available then great’. Others will highlight examples of doctors, anxious for fresh organs, being a bit too ready to declare the donor dead before removal, and talk about commercial issues, profiteering and black markets in organ trading.
But under the radar of most, I predict, will be the most dangerous aspect of this plan – the precedent of silence being taken as consent. We should remember that Tony Blair went into a war which killed millions after ‘a million people marched in protest but 59 million didn’t’. Locally, both sides at different stages of the protracted and U-turning incinerator saga claimed support from the silent majority because they hadn’t protested at the latest States decision.
Those are in the past, but what of the future? It wouldn’t surprise me if our non-consent has eventually to be renewed every few years, like patents. And it would surprise me even less, unless this concept is nipped in the bud (and this is easier to implement in a party system) at elections anyone not turning out to vote will be declared to have voted for the existing government because they have not expressed dissatisfaction with it.
And of course, a ‘silence as consent’ society makes it easier for the state to identify the freethinkers and dissenters within.
Also, how can the States possibly guarantee that everyone in the Bailiwick, at any given point, has read, understood and remembered the opt-out organ donor scheme proposals? They can’t. If someone does not know about something or does not understand it, how can he possibly agree to it? This, I believe, is why at the outset of any trial, the defendant is asked if he understands the law or legislation which he is being accused of breaking. If he does not, he cannot enter a valid plea or a relevant defence. It is one of the most important moments of any trial and long may that continue.
Our silence is not our consent and any suggestion to the contrary should be fought tooth and nail.
MATT WATERMAN,
Flat 2,
3, Burnt Lane,
St Peter Port, GY1 1HL.