Work, Productivity & Pay
  • Home
  • Browse
  • About
  • Conversations
Work, Productivity and Pay

Wanjiru Njoya, PhD (Cantab.) MA (Oxon.) LLM (Hull) LLB (Nairobi) PCAP (Exeter)
​Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy

​​​

The private sphere

11/5/2021

 
Picture
in which Lord Cornwallis enjoys colonising his private sphere
Long ago the world was divided into two spheres, public and private. There was a concept known as 'privacy' which sprung many offshoots such as a private life, private space, private correspondence, private shenanigans, and a place called 'home' where you could install a dinner table and say anything you wanted without running the risk of committing a public order offence. 
In modern times, where we are all civilised, the two reigning spheres are 'public' and 'quasi-public'. There is no private sphere, because if we allow privacy people might say rude things about other races and religions and genders in the privacy of their own homes, and then what. Disaster. Calamity. We'd be back in the simplistic Dark Ages where everyone hated everyone else, and nobody wants that. Modern life is too complex for privacy. The quasi-public sphere recognises that complexity, the reality that you can no longer claim any space as private in case it causes offence for example by excluding other people. We want to live in social peace and harmony like good little Wokies. It's therefore best to abolish privacy, for your own safety and to protect all those around you.

You should not worry about 'public order' criminal laws extending into your quasi-public home. Just don't say anything rude about other people, ok? It's not difficult. You'll be fine. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Our police have better things to do than going around eavesdropping at dinner tables, and will only come knocking at your door if you've been saying rude things about others. Most of us are careful always to be polite, so we have no reason to be concerned.

The old-fashioned private sphere has been under consistent erosion since the civil rights era of the 1960s, when it became clear that in order to equalise all the wealth and make a fairer world we would need to prevent rich people from stashing money in their private spaces. Abolishing wealth creation is tricky, but abolishing private spaces is easy because where there's a political will, there is a legal way. Ultimately the question whether the law recognises private autonomy is a political rather than conceptual question.

The cause, however, plainly is not conceptual; it must rather be political: the greater or lesser prevalence in a society's decisive quarters of some combination of 
(1) a special commitment to freedom of choice of aims and activities by persons and groups in society, 
(2) a correlative reluctance to extend throughout society the same set of restraints we devise for the state viewed as the monopolist of lawful force, the sole power from the reach of whose command there is virtually no exit; and perhaps, along with those, 
(3) a belief in the superior ability of on-the-spot parliaments—as compared with rarely assembled constitutional framers—to work out contextually responsive, aptly fair, and freedom-optimizing solutions to societal conflicts, at least as long as the parliament acts under the effective control of good basic laws (a bill of rights). 


​Frank I. Michelman, Constitutions and the Public/Private Divide  

Applying this test, the less committed we are to freedom of choice, the more we want to replace the ordinary private law with constitutional law. We are all public bodies now, governed by Woke Marshalls, and we all owe each other constitutional public sector equality duties.

How was the private sphere abolished, and where were the lovers of free choice when this was happening?

The first step in abolishing private spaces was to stipulate that any institution in receipt of public funds is public. So a charitable, religious or educational foundation in receipt of public grants is transformed into a public body owing public sector equality duties. 

That proved easy to sidestep by the simple expedient of never accepting public funds. Some private educational institutions, especially those with religious foundations, adopted this approach. Oh dear. A giant loophole!

The next step provided that any space open to members of the public is a public space. So a restaurant or shop or college may be privately owned and funded, but by welcoming customers it automatically transforms itself into a public space. Anybody who welcomes members of the public to visit their home, by the same reasoning, transforms their private home into a public space. Don't let your children set up a lemonade stand on your driveway. That transforms your home into a public space and you probably need a licence for that, health and safety inspections, plus of course doing all the public sector equality duties.

Still a considerable loophole, because many people work outside the home and interact only through social media. They can easily lock everyone out of their home and still make their voice heard. Loophole!

The next step in cracking down on privacy therefore focused on the platform. If you speak on a public platform like social media it is no defence to say that your settings were 'private' - it is a forum accessible to anybody and that makes it public.

Unfortunately this still leaves a lot of wiggle room for those with something to hide. They might instal a front door to their home and put up a sign 'Trespassers will be shot!' which signifies that members of the general public are not welcome and it is therefore not a public space. Sometimes they even keep a vicious dog and set it on anyone who walks up their garden path without an invitation. In these conditions if they stay off social media it's very difficult to see how public order legislation can be extended to their private space.

Finding themselves at the utmost end of need, our lawmakers have therefore abandoned all pretence that they respect the private space. They now blatantly apply the public law to your home without attempting to offer any justification, and put YOU to the proof to offer your excuses and reasons if you feel that your home should be exempt.

Rather than setting up tests for the creation of a public space, the law now requires YOU to establish why public duties should NOT apply to your private dwelling. Good luck! The people of Scotland did not succeed in coming up with a convincing rationale, and now they will have to mind what they say at the dinner table in case their children grass them up for hate speech.

In Scotland, speaking hateful words is a public order offence so why should it NOT be an offence in the home?

​Are we saying that, as a society, we are comfortable with no criminal sanction being applied to people because [the public order offence] is being done within the confines of their dwelling whereas if they stepped out into the street outside of their house then that would be an offence?

Justice Secretary

Um, yes, Mr Secretary, exactly so. That is precisely what we are saying. That's the meaning of privacy. The private sphere is a space in which you can do or say things that would offend public morals if you did or said them in public. People do not need permission to say hateful things in their homes, if that's what they want to do. Their home is a space where they have absolute autonomy, and this is not dependent on promising only ever to say nice things at home.

What next? What if people who live alone say hateful things at the dinner table? Surely they'll get away with it because they have no family members to grass them up. That's a giant loophole in the law! Maybe the government should put recording devices in everybody's home so nobody can commit hate-speech crimes with impunity. The only people who would object to this are those with immoral motives, who have something to hide. If you are not uttering hateful speech then you won't mind being monitored. It's to protect everyone, and to keep all our communities safe.
Nikki link
11/5/2021 06:48:17 pm

Great article! I find Scotland's hate speech law chilling. What's happening there? The ghosts of East Germany and the USSR seem to have been summoned. As for listening devices, they already exist, in the form of Alexa, Echo and smartphone. A good thing these laws didn't exist in the late 80s, when my grandad used to have one of his many rants about the Budget, World in Action, the Irish or the poll tax. Many a time, I came home from school, and he was yelling for Norman Lamont to be "birched and shot." (It was always poor old Norman or Neil Kinnock, if I recall) Definite hate crime there!

Wanjiru Njoya
11/5/2021 08:05:18 pm

I guess your grandad lived in a free country, with free speech, free expression, free conscience, and general freedom to live like a human being not a contrived Woke automaton.

I don't know what's going on in Scotland, but they started by cancelling David Hume so I'm guessing it's something dark and existential. Maybe it's a grand apology for their role in the Enlightenment.

Shawnelle Martineaux
13/5/2021 06:31:00 am

Wow! I'll have to pay close attention to whether this decelops here in Trinidad. They were suggesting that we have no constitutional right to privacy a while back.

Wanjiru Njoya
13/5/2021 10:20:40 am

Right to a private and family life is a fundamental human right. I think the Wokies come in under 'there are exceptions to every right'. Wokies are of course more interested in exceptions than in rights - typically the rights will be thinly defined and drowning in exceptions.

Shawnelle Martineaux
13/5/2021 04:13:27 pm

Yeah! And our Parliament is filled with opportunists. They live for exceptions.

Nikki link
13/5/2021 12:57:19 pm

Hi Shawnelle! *wave*

Don't tell me this wokery has reached Trinidad too? I was hoping that countries far away from the west would have more sense.
I believe humans are like volcanoes - we need to erupt now and again, i.e have a good, unrestricted debate. Sort of a pressure release valve. If everyone keeps bottling up all their emotions up through fear of causing offence, well I forsee an explosion in mental health issues. Today, you're encouraged to have a sense of offence instead of a sense of humour.

Wanjiru Njoya
13/5/2021 01:10:52 pm

The mental health explosion has already happened. Resilience and a sense of proportion are important for mental health, so encouraging people to feel supersensitive contributes to mental instability.

Robust young people, weeping floods of tears and unable to cope with life because someone from 300 years ago wrote racist words in a book. Then the authorities following up with 'we take this very seriously' which validates the perception that being offended is an existential threat.

Shawnelle Martineaux
13/5/2021 04:34:15 pm

Hey Nikki! The Cornish dolls still make me chuckle!

And yes. The wokeness has been here for a while! Most academics here are mimic men, so when America sneezes, Trinidad catches a cold. As an example, in the first year of my LL.B, my tutor said black Caribbean people were an oppressed minority in the Caribbean...by white people. My dean grieved Castro's death. We have an Institute of Gender and Development Studies pushing the gender narrative and the head of it teamed up with Islamists to get my friend Kevin, the longest running columnist in Trinidad and Tobago history, cancelled. She wrote about strategically teaming up with editors-in-chief and heads of news to make it happen. Now, he cannot write for any local nesspaper. They're not letting him and they're all run by super modern feminist types. His transgression? Poking holes in her arguments and daring to question Islamists on their extremism. A university colleague called me selfish and disconnected from the common man during my degree for saying that I didn't think socialised healthcare should be a human right and that regular people didn't and shouldn't care about the academic discussions on constitutional theories, but were, as they ought to have been, concerned about whether we had a judiciary that protected their rights.

The oppression olympics have been in full swing here. The chancellor of The UWI has been negging for reparations for slavery...since he could talk. I think that because we have just one regional research university it exacerbates the issue, because it has a monopoly on certain fields. The other, minor Trinidadian universities are new and not as prestigious. I could go on and on. As professor Njoya said above, the mental health explosion has happened/has been happening.

I couldn't agree more regarding the need for debate. Humans are a communicative, social species and we find out what we think by speaking most times. I think Wokies are envious of normal people's good mental health and they're pushing their agenda to make everyone else as insane as they are. The entire world will start screeching in frustration! And I don't think they realise (or want to realise) that their extremism is provoking real extremists out of the shadows. Wokies refusal to criticise Islamism for instance, probably had something to do with TT being the country with the highest per capita recruitment for ISIS some years ago. It's a lot to deal with, but tenacity is a fun trait to have!

Hope you're in good spirits!

Nikki link
13/5/2021 05:28:14 pm

@Shawnelle So sorry to hear you're battling with the depressing spread of CRT. Shame on that university colleague saying that to you. Does the Christopher Columbus statue still stand in Moruga? At the current rate of thinking, surely there'll be calls to rename Trinidad soon, as it was Columbus who named it, so a friend who holidayed there told me.
Ah well...I do try to remain in good spirits...gin mostly!


Comments are closed.

    Wanjiru Njoya

    Scholar, Writer, Friend

    Archives

    July 2022
    May 2022
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    January 2021
    July 2020
    April 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017

    Categories

    All
    Academic
    Capitalism
    Income Inequality
    Liberty
    Redistribution

    RSS Feed

Copyright © 2015
Photos used under Creative Commons from stefan.erschwendner, Sustainable Economies Law Center, erikaow, trendingtopics, Sustainable Economies Law Center, musee de l'horlogerie, Sustainable Economies Law Center, tracie7779, Michela Simoncini, cliff1066™, topten5, thedailyenglishshow, symphony of love, wuestenigel, uncafelitoalasonce, symphony of love, CarlH_
  • Home
  • Browse
  • About
  • Conversations