Author Topic: Legal decolonization  (Read 981 times)

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7862
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Legal decolonization
« on: August 11, 2020, 11:55:36 pm »
OLD CONTENT

Here is a somewhat confusingly laid out map that nonetheless shows the pandemic impact of Western civilization on law worldwide:



I certainly encourage people from all formerly colonized countries to study the legal systems in those countries prior to Western influence, and consider how to go about eventually reviving them.

I myself have in the past proposed, for example, eliminating the jury system as part of a broader movement to eliminate decisions made by voting.

---

www.yahoo.com/news/chinas-hong-kong-law-set-104923076.html

Quote
BEIJING (Reuters) - Beijing's planned national security legislation for Hong Kong is set to block its foreign judges from handling national security trials, people familiar with the matter said, which would exacerbate concerns about the city's judicial independence.

Note the cognitive dissonance here. How can the city have "judicial independence" when foreign judges handle national security trials FFS?

Quote
Its highest court, the Court of Final Appeal, has 23 judges, of whom 15 are foreign, from places like Britain, Canada and Australia.

Oh, I get it. "Independence" means being a British colony!

Quote
While under the new law they would no longer be able to handle national security cases, they will not be excluded from civil, financial or other cases, the sources said.

Not good enough.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7862
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Legal decolonization
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2020, 12:17:44 am »
So, I was reading this article:

https://us.yahoo.com/news/agnes-chow-former-hong-kong-090200653.html

Quote
Arrested for alleged national security crimes, Agnes Chow hails from a generation of Hong Kong democracy activists who cut their teeth in politics as teenagers and are now being steadily silenced by China.

The media cameras flashed incessantly as the 23-year-old was led handcuffed from her apartment on Monday evening by police officers with Hong Kong's new national security unit.

She is one of the first opposition politicians to be arrested under Beijing's new security law -- on a charge of "colluding with foreign forces" -- and could face up to life in jail if convicted.

Late Tuesday, she was released on bail.

And it suddenly hit me that the option of bail would not have been available if not for colonialism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail#History

Quote
In the early 17th century, King Charles I ordered noblemen to issue him loans. Those who refused were imprisoned. Five of the prisoners filed a habeas corpus petition arguing that they should not be held indefinitely without trial or bail. In the Petition of Right (1628) Parliament argued that the King had flouted Magna Carta by imprisoning people without just cause.

The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 states, "A Magistrate shall discharge prisoners from their Imprisonment taking their Recognizance, with one or more Surety or Sureties, in any Sum according to the Magistrate's discretion, unless it shall appear that the Party is committed for such Matter or offences for which by law the Prisoner is not bailable."

So we should aim to eliminate bail. On ethical grounds, bail obviously advantages the wealthy, as the poor are less likely to be able to afford bail. There is also room for further discrimination by judges on other counts:

Quote
A common criticism of bail in the United States is that a suspect's likelihood of being released is significantly affected by their economic status[61] and systemic racial bias.[62]

A flat absence of bail would at least remove these discrepancies and thus produce fairer treatment overall.

Furthermore, the very notion that a monetary deposit is sufficient collateral for the possibility of the accused escaping encourages the view of people as basically a commodity. A good citizen, in contrast, should consider it a civic duty to voluntarily remain in detention prior to trial in order to simplify state administration. So why should the state pander to the bad citizens (those who lack such dutifulness) by providing an option of bail (but only to those who can afford it.....) in the first place? Thus we see Western inferiority in its understanding of civics once again.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2020, 12:23:01 am by 90sRetroFan »
Like Like x 1 View List

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7862
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Monetary Wealth
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2021, 11:53:32 pm »
Bankruptcy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy

Quote
Bankruptcy is a legal process through which people or other entities who cannot repay debts to creditors may seek relief from some or all of their debts. In most jurisdictions, bankruptcy is imposed by a court order, often initiated by the debtor.

is another Western institution spread around the world during the colonial era that has been thoughtlessly continued, but which we need to get rid of. It is an institution that favours people who take risks with money, since if it goes well they keep the profits, but if it goes badly they are insulated from the consequences:



It is strategically sensible for capitalism to support bankruptcy as capitalism wants more people to take risks with money (so that some succeed). By eliminating bankruptcy, we would also weaken capitalism as a whole, as people would become more cautious with money.

So where does bankruptcy come from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bankruptcy_law

Quote
In Judaism and the Torah, or Old Testament, every seventh year is decreed by Mosaic Law as a Sabbatical year wherein the release of all debts that are owed by members of the Jewish community is mandated, but not of "gentiles".[1] The seventh Sabbatical year, or forty-ninth year, is then followed by another Sabbatical year known as the Year of Jubilee wherein the release of all debts is mandated, for fellow community members and foreigners alike, and the release of all debt-slaves is also mandated.[2] The Year of Jubilee is announced in advance on the Day of Atonement, or the tenth day of the seventh Biblical month, in the forty-ninth year by the blowing of trumpets throughout the land of Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Act_1705

Quote
Under the Act, the Lord Chancellor was given power to discharge bankrupts, once disclosure of all assets and various procedures had been fulfilled.

Discharge from debt was introduced for those who cooperated with creditors.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2021, 11:55:42 pm by 90sRetroFan »

rp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
    • View Profile
Re: Legal decolonization
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2021, 10:03:25 am »
Racist origins of u.s. "law":
https://youtu.be/FFebp7GZeHY

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7862
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Legal decolonization
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2021, 10:41:00 pm »
Here comes our chance!

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/u-needs-constitution-address-fundamental-110000829.html

Quote
The U.S. Needs a New Constitution to Address the Fundamental Wrong of Slavery

Persecution based on race is one of the grounds on which people from other countries can seek asylum in the United States. To be successful under the Immigration and Nationality Act, asylum seekers must show they have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution because of grounds like their political views, religion, or nationality, and that the perpetrator is the government (which includes the police) or a group the government can’t or won’t control. Black Americans experience persecution based on race and reasonably fear such persecution by the American government, and if they lived in another country, it stands to reason America would grant them asylum. The extent of America’s oppression of Black people means that to dismantle systemic racism, America must begin by replacing the U.S. Constitution with one based on equality and human rights like South Africa did after the end of apartheid — a system of racial discrimination and segregation that has been compared to America’s Jim Crow laws.

I agree that a new constitution would be a good step, but disagree that it should be based on "equality and human rights". If there is to be a new constitution, it should be based on duty to never initiate violence and duty to engage in retaliatory violence against all initiated violence (what we usually call Ahimsa, though for an American document we should use an American name for it). A complete legal system can be derived from this principle alone.

Quote
While this may seem like a radical proposal, the U.S. Constitution is actually the world’s oldest written charter of government still in use today. The vast majority of countries have rewritten their constitutions to account for changing historical circumstances. And other suggested remedies to address systemic racism, like the House’s recently passed bill to create a commission to study providing reparations to Black Americans, may be necessary steps, but are not enough on their own. The many crimes America has committed against its Black citizens are not just economic. For decades, the U.S. government has systematically and intentionally persecuted Black Americans because of their race.

Again, let’s take the example of an asylum seeker from another country. An applicant who is pursuing asylum on the basis of racial discrimination must show a direct connection between their race and the persecution they have experienced or have a reasonable fear of experiencing. For example, a Black man would have to demonstrate he was repeatedly arrested and beaten by the police because he is Black, or that he received a harsher punishment for the same crime a white man committed because he is Black. In its Asylum Manual, Immigration Equality, an LGBTQ immigrants’ rights organization, explains that “courts have held that a ‘threat to life or freedom on account of race…is always persecution.’” Courts have held that serious physical harm, coercive medical or psychological treatment, invidious prosecution or disproportionate punishment for a criminal offense, severe discrimination, economic persecution, and severe criminal extortion or robbery are forms of abuse that may be considered persecution. Various types of harm that may not amount to persecution on their own may become persecution when evaluated as a whole, such as “enforced social or civil inactivity; economic harm; or constant surveillance,” according to the National Immigrant Justice Center.

In America, police are far more likely to kill Black people. Black men are approximately 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men, and Black women are 1.4 times more likely to be killed by police than white women, with Black men and boys facing the highest risk of being killed by the police when compared with other groups of people. Recent examples include the police killings of Ma’Khia Bryant, Daunte Wright, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Elijah McClain. Moreover, the police rarely face repercussions for killing people on the job. From 2013 to 2020, 98.3% of police killings have not resulted in officers being charged with a crime, according to the Mapping Police Violence project. These higher and disproportionate rates of death at the hands of the police are an example of serious physical harm by a government actor. The lack of consequences for police who kill Black people is further evidence of the state’s failure to protect Black citizens.

Police violence, harassment and over-policing is not limited to one or even a handful of states, which means a Black person can’t simply relocate to another part of the country to escape it. Almost everywhere in the U.S., police departments kill Black people at a disproportionately higher rate, including states as varied as Missouri, Utah, Nevada, Florida, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and California. In her research, Daanika Gordon, an assistant professor of sociology at Tufts University, has found that “predominantly Black neighborhoods are simultaneously over-policed when it comes to surveillance and social control, and under-policed when it comes to emergency services.” Black people are also harassed by police on the road. A 2015 analysis by The New York Times found that in North Carolina, police “used their discretion to search Black drivers or their cars more than twice as often as white motorists — even though they found drugs and weapons significantly more often when the driver was white. Officers were more likely to stop Black drivers for no discernible reason. And they were more likely to use force if the driver was Black, even when they did not encounter physical resistance.” Sometimes such stops result in death, such as in the cases of Wright and Philando Castile.

In comparison with other races, the government disproportionately incarcerates and punishes Black Americans for criminal offenses because they are Black. Based on statistics for 2019, Black men are imprisoned at nearly six times the rate of white men and Black people are imprisoned at more than five times the rate of white people. Moreover, according to a 2017 report by the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, one in 10 Black children has a parent in prison, compared with about one in 60 white children. Judges are also more likely to incarcerate Black people with longer sentences than white people for the same or similar crimes. A 2017 U.S. Sentencing Commission report found that judges give Black men prison sentences that are 19.1% longer for federal crimes that are the same in all relevant ways as the crimes committed by white men. One example of the way the criminal justice system, racial bias, and voter disenfranchisement can come together to impact Black Americans is the five-year prison sentence Crystal Mason received for voting when she did not realize a prior felony conviction for tax fraud had made her ineligible to cast a ballot. Her vote was never counted. Terri Lynn Rote, a white woman with no prior convictions, who tried to vote twice in the 2016 presidential election, was sentenced to two years of probation and fined $750.

Discrimination rises to the level of persecution if it leads to substantially harmful consequences for the person, such as serious restrictions on the person’s right to earn a livelihood or access normally available educational spaces, according to the United Nations Human Rights Council. It’s not hard to see how over-policing of Black neighborhoods and frequent traffic stops and searches could lead to more police killings and the disproportionate imprisonment of Black people, who are then subjected to harsher sentences because they are Black. Incarceration also leads to disenfranchisement, which means Black people lose another right of citizenship. In 18 states, people convicted of a felony lose their voting rights during incarceration and for a period of time after, and in 11 states, people lose their voting rights for even longer or indefinitely for some crimes. These laws mean that one in 16 Black Americans of voting age is disenfranchised, according to the Sentencing Project, which is 3.7 times greater than the number of disenfranchised Americans of other races. Black people who haven’t been incarcerated are kept from the polls through voter identification and automatic purge laws, intimidation at the polls, and frequent changes to polling station locations. Taken together, killings by the police, lack of police presence when Black people need help, harassment of Black drivers, over-policing of Black neighborhoods, disproportionate incarceration, and disenfranchisement, could be argued to amount to the kind of persecution asylum seekers are asked to prove.

Additionally, a hypothetical Black asylum applicant could show a well-founded fear of persecution by demonstrating a historical pattern or practice of persecution against Black people. There is no shortage of scholarship and articles documenting such a pattern or practice in this country, from slavery, Jim Crow laws, lynching, and redlining to voter suppression. Many of these policies continue to impact the lives of Black Americans.

To fix its racism problem, the United States should replace its constitution with one guided by principles of equality and human rights. Our constitution was written when “we the people” did not include Black people. Since then, attempts to modernize the constitution via amendments, like the Fourth Amendment and the 14th Amendment, have not done enough to protect Black citizens — or any other vulnerable communities for that matter — because systemic racism cannot be fixed via a patchwork approach. It requires a holistic overhaul of the systems that perpetuate it and a clear commitment to anti-racism and equality. As a starting point, the U.S. can look to South Africa. After the end of apartheid in the early 1990s, the South African government did two important things to begin building a non-racist society. First, it created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to uncover and review atrocities committed during apartheid. Second, in 1996, it adopted a new constitution based on the idea that “human dignity, the achievement of equality, and the advancement of human rights and freedom” should guide everything the government does. The constitution was drafted with input from the public and 26 different political parties. As the BBC notes, it is considered one of the most progressive constitutions in the world.

Like South Africa, the U.S. should make the right to equality explicitly “non-derogable,” meaning it can’t be suspended or limited under any circumstance due to its importance. South Africa’s Bill of Rights states that neither the state nor a person may “unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race…ethnic or social origin, color…and birth.” That’s the kind of moral clarity we need. Black Americans are Americans and it is time the U.S. Constitution treated them as such.

South Africa's Bill of Rights is not nearly good enough. Anything based on "human rights" is promoting humanism (ie. treating non-humans as the outgroup). And anything based on "equality" is delusional. People are not equal. Racists are inferior. Humanists are also inferior. America can do better.

Would anyone like to draft a new truly American constitution? Zea_mays?

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7862
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Legal decolonization
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2021, 02:28:50 am »
Finally!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hong-kongs-first-trial-under-023636416.html

Quote
Hong Kong's first trial under its harsh national security law began on Wednesday in a trial without a jury.
...
Why is there no jury?

The trial without jury is seen as a landmark moment for Hong Kong's fast-changing legal traditions.

The defendant's legal team has been pushing for the case to be heard by a jury, arguing it was Mr Tong's right given that he potentially faces a life sentence if found guilty.

But Hong Kong's justice secretary argued that a jury trial in this case would put jurors' safety at risk given the city's tense political situation.

Bad argument. The correct reason for why there should be no jury is because juries were introduced by Western colonialism, therefore to continue to use juries is to fail to decolonize.

Quote
Tong Ying-kit faces life in jail

Screw imprisonment! (Why should tax money be spent on keeping criminals - especially Westerners such as Tong- alive?) Bring back the dog head guillotine!

« Last Edit: June 24, 2021, 02:40:28 am by 90sRetroFan »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7862
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Legal decolonization
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2021, 10:36:32 pm »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cvOAeOQu7U

Quote
Senior Taliban commander Waheedullah Hashimi told Reuters that Afghanistan would not be a democracy and the new government may take the form of a ruling council, with the group’s supreme leader Haibatullah Akhundzada in overall charge

This is merely what was considered normal all over the world before Western civilization came along. Hopefully all laws will be de-Westernized over time.

By our standards, the Taliban actually has a reputation for being soft:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-adultery-idUSKCN0R13UE20150901

Quote
KABUL (Reuters) - An Afghan man and woman found guilty of adultery received 100 lashes on Monday in front of a crowd who filmed their punishment, TV footage showed.

No executions?? Let's hope the Taliban get their act together in future.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2021, 11:06:35 pm by 90sRetroFan »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7862
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Legal decolonization
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2021, 09:55:13 pm »
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/taliban-says-strict-punishment-and-executions-will-return-to-afghanistan-01632413451

Quote
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — One of the founders of the Taliban and the chief enforcer of its harsh interpretation of Islamic law when the group last ruled Afghanistan said the hardline movement will once again carry out executions and amputations of hands, though perhaps not in public.

Why not in public? Not only must justice be done, justice must be seen to be done. The Taliban are getting soft!

Quote
Even as Kabul residents express fear over their new Taliban rulers, some acknowledge grudgingly that the capital has become safer in just the past month. Before the Taliban takeover, bands of thieves roamed the streets, and relentless crime had driven most people off the streets after dark.

“It’s not a good thing to see these people being shamed in public, but it stops the criminals because, when people see it, they think, ‘I don’t want that to be me,’ ” said Amaan, a storeowner in the center of Kabul. He asked to be identified by just one name.

Another shopkeeper said that such punishments represented a violation of human rights but that he was happy he could now open his store after dark.

"Human rights" are a Western notion. The sooner we discard it the better:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/antropocentricism-the-most-dangerous-ideology-in-the-world/

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7862
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Legal decolonization
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2021, 02:06:08 am »
Awareness is finally rising:

https://us.yahoo.com/news/dont-blame-sharia-islamic-extremism-212108996.html

Quote
Don't blame Sharia for Islamic extremism -- blame colonialism
...
In the 1950s and 1960s, when Great Britain, France and other European powers relinquished their colonies in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, leaders of newly sovereign Muslim-majority countries faced a decision of enormous consequence: Should they build their governments on Islamic religious values or embrace the European laws inherited from colonial rule?
...
Invariably, my historical research shows, political leaders of these young countries chose to keep their colonial justice systems rather than impose religious law.

Newly independent Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Somalia, among other places, all confined the application of Sharia to marital and inheritance disputes within Muslim families, just as their colonial administrators had done. The remainder of their legal systems would continue to be based on European law.
...
My research uncovers how today’s instability across the Middle East and North Africa is, in part, a consequence of these post-colonial decisions to reject Sharia.

In maintaining colonial legal systems, Sudan and other Muslim-majority countries that followed a similar path appeased Western world powers, which were pushing their former colonies toward secularism.

...
In the long run, that disconnect helped fuel unrest among some citizens of deep faith

I agree so far. But then the author exposes himself as just another False Leftist after all:

Quote
In other words, Muslim-majority countries stunted the democratic potential of Sharia by rejecting it as a mainstream legal concept in the 1950s and 1960s, leaving Sharia in the hands of extremists.
...
For the Muslim world, finding a system of government that reflects Islamic values while promoting democracy will not be easy after more than 50 years of failed secular rule.

Why should we want democracy, which itself is Western? Do False Leftists even bother to read their own writing before publishing?
Like Like x 1 View List

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7862
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Legal decolonization
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2021, 10:30:21 pm »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTbaHTUslF4

The real question should be: do formerly colonized countries prefer an incompetent legal system? If not, why have juries at all?
« Last Edit: November 12, 2021, 10:31:59 pm by 90sRetroFan »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7862
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Legal decolonization
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2022, 03:11:01 am »
This area of decolonization is gradually receiving more attention:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/opinions-colonial-legacies-endure-in-africas-legal-systems-%e2%80%94-undermining-rule-of-law/ar-AAVe4ok

Quote
Recently there was a huge controversy in Zimbabwe over the alleged purchase of British horsehair wigs for Zimbabwean judges. Given the financial challenges faced by ordinary Zimbabweans, it was not surprising that the issue manifested in a larger debate over government financial mismanagement and its failure to provide adequate legal services for regular citizens.

More poignantly, in the larger African context the debate was also about the continued influence of European metropoles over their former African colonies in many aspects of life. That the Zimbabwean judges needed to purchase British horsehair wigs — which are no longer required even in many British legal contexts — is a telling relic of the colonial legacy foisted by Britain on its African colonies. Not only must Zimbabweans pay Britain for the wigs, but they do so to fuel a legal system rooted in the colonial era, when Britain systematically created and maintained legal systems, constitutions and other institutions patterned after its own. While in recent decades those colonial-era legal systems and institutions are being replaced by many African nations, they continue to hold such influence that a formerly colonized African nation’s adherence to the “rule of law” cannot be evaluated without considering the impact of its subjugated past.

As Britain established its colonial rule in Africa, it brought with it ideas about the rule of law, with the two becoming inseparable.

In 1844, the legal system in what was then the Gold Coast colony became attached to the British legal system. Before 1821 several European powers held claims in this region and established commercial settlements and forts to facilitate the trans-Atlantic enslaved person trade. The British consolidated control gradually over the 19th century. Local groups gradually submitted to British “protection” in an ongoing conflict with the Asante state to the north. Finally in 1844, some Indigenous Ghanaian chiefdoms accepted British sovereignty over them in exchange for protection from their warring neighbors. While conceding to British sovereignty, the chiefdoms also agreed to the British adjudicating serious crimes and to a long-term plan of adapting their customs and practices in conformity with British law.

When the British formally colonized the chiefdoms, they agreed to accept Indigenous law as part of the dual legal system. But they also added “repugnancy clauses” that excluded aspects of the Ghanaian customs or cultures that the British considered “appalling,” “ridiculous” or “unhelpful to maintaining Christian ideals.”

Hence, during the colonial era, customary Ghanaian courts led by Indigenous judges were allowed to adjudicate matters deemed to be part of the Indigenous customs on issues such as marriage and inheritance. But besides being subject to the repugnancy clauses, the legal system’s ultimate decision-maker, the supreme court, had a British official at the helm.

This system endured and became even more complete after the British consolidated rule over the entire Gold Coast territory by the turn of the 20th century. The British metropole introduced the 1925 constitution that empowered it to legally rule over Ghanaians as well as control the colony’s financial interests, including Ghana’s vast gold deposits and cocoa, which during that era was fast becoming a global cash crop. Notwithstanding the British introduction of new constitutions in 1946 and 1954 to appease Ghanaians by granting them some legislative powers, the metropole retained full powers over the colony’s legal systems, police and defense systems, and external affairs.

The metropole specifically created the police force in 1876 to protect the railways and gold mines, which generated significant financial benefits to it. While the colonial government tasked police with generally maintaining order, their primary responsibility was to protect Britain’s property interests and the colonialists’ personal safety. Policing was used as part of the empire’s tools for the larger commercial enterprise of colonization, to maximally generate funds for the mother nation and minimize its costs.

Eventually as the nationalist movement gained power, Ghanaians demanded full independence, which they achieved in 1957.

And yet, many parts of the colonial legal system endured.

Like other former British African colonies, Ghana has a pluralist legal system that includes the British common law
, customary law and religious law. The current Ghanaian constitution, established in 1992, specifically identifies that the “common law of Ghana shall comprise the rules of law generally known as the common law, the rules generally known as the doctrines of equity and the rules of customary law including those determined by the Superior Court of Judicature.”

Notably, Ghanaian legislators eliminated the repugnancy clauses right after independence between 1958 and 1960, because they were insulted that their own laws were somehow “repugnant.” Even so many provisions of Ghana’s criminal code and supreme court decisions closely tracked British law and influenced judicial administration in a post-colonial Ghana. For example, Ghana’s current Criminal Code specifically criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual acts between males. This law is a relic of British colonial era when the metropole transported its anti-sodomy laws to its colonies.

Until 1993, Ghana utilized the British-created magistrate and circuit courts to administer its judicial system. With the 1993 Courts Act, Ghana finally created regional, circuit and community tribunals that replaced the British-instituted courts and were placed under the Judicial Service headed by Ghana’s chief justice.

Some legal commentators note that despite relatively recent changes to the Ghanaian constitution and its overall legal systems, the influence of the British colonial order persists even in the current constitution, evident by the subordination of customary law — “the rules of law which by custom are applicable to particular communities in Ghana” — to other sources of law. Customary courts have jurisdiction on issues such as marriage, divorce, child custody and guardianship. For example, a customary court may determine alimony and other marital benefits.

Besides the colonial legacy shaping Ghana’s legal system and constitution, colonial relics can also be discerned in other institutional structures driving the rule of law in today’s Ghana. For example, successive Ghanaian political and ruling classes since 1957 have used the police as their tool to oppress ordinary Ghanaians. For instance, the first Ghanaian president, Kwame Nkrumah, used the police to spy on his political opponents, and the police leadership was actively involved in the military coup that toppled Nkrumah in 1966.

Various constitutions introduced by successive post-independent Ghanaian governments retained the British Westminster-style government structure until the 1979 constitution, which adopted the U.S. presidential-style government. And similar colonial-era legacies and influences can easily be identified in other Ghanaian institutions such as the military (which was also established by the British) and the judiciary.

Similar to Zimbabwean judges’ tradition of wearing British horsehair wigs and judicial robes, Ghanaian lawyers and judges engage in the same behavior of wearing British-styled wigs and robes despite disdain and indignation by the general public who consider it a relic of a painful colonial past.

Ghana is not the only African nation struggling to rid itself of its colonial legacies. Kenyans are having the same conversation about the continued influence of the colonial past. They are questioning local governmental laws that prohibit making noise on the streets, committing acts deemed contrary to public decency, washing or repairing vehicles in non-designated areas, and loitering at night, all traceable to laws instituted during the colonial era. The #EndSARS movement against dismantling the SARS (Special Anti-Robbery Squad) unit of the Nigerian police was in large part a protest of overall police brutality common in Nigeria since the institution was created during the colonial era. And in my recent book on the rule of law, I systematically show how colonial legacy continues to manifest in five British-colonized nations (Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and Zimbabwe) and how it undermines each nation’s adherence to the rule of law.

While the leaders and people of African countries have gradually made changes to these institutional structures to limit the influence of colonial legacies, many ordinary African citizens are still suffering colonialization’s ill effects when subjected to contexts involving the rule of law.

Those who prefer living under British law should emigrate to Britain. It is that simple.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7862
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Legal decolonization
« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2022, 03:04:20 am »
They should have been hanged as the colonialists they are instead of being allowed to resign:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/uk-judges-quit-hong-kong-082839506.html

Quote
LONDON/HONG KONG (Reuters) - Two senior British judges, including the president of the UK Supreme Court, resigned from Hong Kong's highest court on Wednesday because of a sweeping national security law imposed by China cracking down on dissent in the former British colony.

Robert Reed, who heads Britain's top judicial body, said that he and colleague Patrick Hodge would relinquish their roles with immediate effect as non-permanent judges on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA).
...
Local lawyers said the resignations would likely put pressure on the 10 other foreign Court of Final Appeal judges to quit. Six of these are British.

Those judges, also from Canada and Australia, are mostly retired senior jurists in their home countries, unlike Reed and Hodge, who were still serving.

Two other foreign judges, Britain's Brenda Hale and Australia's James Spigelman, have also stepped down from the city's highest court since 2020.

Yet many remain psychologically colonized:

Quote
"It is a big blow to the local fraternity and the grand tradition of Hong Kong's rule of law," one veteran barrister told Reuters. "For all the pressures ahead, we really needed them and I fear what comes next."

In a statement on Wednesday, Hong Kong Law Society president Chan Chak Ming urged Reed and Hodge to reconsider their moves, expressing "deep regret" and saying that the decision "disappointingly falls short" of the support among the public and legal community for the continued role of overseas judges.

If there existed genuine benefits to having overseas judges, Britain would also invite judges from China to sit on courts in Britain. It doesn't.

rp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
    • View Profile
Re: Legal decolonization
« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2022, 08:45:31 am »
On the issue of the court system, I am in favor of abolishing the state court system and replacing it with the Federal court system. I believe this could help us gain control over states with rightist judges/courts. In addition, this would also strengthen autocracy, as federal judges are appointed (albeit by a democratically elected president, but in the future that shouldn't be a problem due to demographic blue shift), in contrast to state judges, most of whom are elected (by rightist untermensch/Atlantic Gentiles, I might add).

Remember, it took the federal government to stamp out the segregationism of the individual states. What do you think?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2022, 09:01:38 am by rp »

rp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
    • View Profile
Legal Decolonization
« Reply #13 on: May 18, 2022, 02:24:29 am »
This is worrying our enemies:
Why the Left Could Push For a National Police Force
https://www.texaspolicy.com/why-the-left-could-push-for-a-national-police-force/

I'm all for a Gestsapo style secret police force hunting down barbarians and executing them on the spot.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2022, 11:43:45 am by rp »

rp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
    • View Profile
Re: Legal decolonization
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2022, 11:47:42 am »
If only!:
https://twitter.com/JacobHeaton96/status/1423318822040178689
Quote
Democrats don’t want to defund the police, they want to nationalize the Capitol police and turn them into a Nazi style SS.