The emergence and subsequent passing of the Bill of Right of 1689 into legislation date back to the English Civil War when parliament was fighting for the right to govern and protect itself against external interference from the monarchy. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights states that “the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”. The purpose of this article is to ensure that members of parliament are able to express themselves freely in parliament with impunity from the courts and the crown. However, despite such liberty, parliament has always observed a convention which encourages its members from making statements in parliament which are not in the public interest.

One may also argue that the good intention of the founding fathers for enacting such a novel legislation was to ensure that parliamentarians are able to perform their duties effectively and responsibly. Therefore it is fairly reasonable to suggest that the founding fathers would be very saddened if they had thought a member of parliament will one day use the privilege they had fought hard for to satisfy his gossip appetite by making silly statements in parliament which promotes the interest of tabloid newspapers . I am in fact referring to the latest incident in which an attention -seeking Liberal democrat MP (John Hemming) exposed a Premier League footballer as the celebrity who obtained a super-injunction from the court to protect his extra marital affair. This kind of behaviour by Mr Hemming seems to go beyond the realms of the purpose of parliamentary privilege. It is not in my opinion for MPs to make statements about the private life of individuals which are not in the interest of the public. I think we have to start differentiating between the public interest, and a proper definition of what that means, and stories that the media decide the public people might be interested in… Its not the same thing.” (Alistair Campbell BBC interview)

Shame fully enough, instead of accepting the fact that his attitude was out of order, he and his supporters continued to peddle the false argument that the public have every right to know about the marital life of the celebrity in question. If thats the case, then what gave the public that right?

Well, assuming an hypothetical celebrity had spent most of his celebrity career promoting himself as a good role model for unmarried men; and as a result he had managed to procure brand sponsorships for himself, then in this case, if he had then gone to do something that contradicts the image he had conveyed to the public, it will be justifiable for the public to express deep interest in his fidelities. Conversely, if all that the hypothetical celebrity does is to do the job he was paid for as opposed to projecting such image, then in this second situation, the public has no right whatsoever to know about his private life. The same logic also applies to the footballers case; his private life should not be subjected to public debate and scrutiny since he hasnt done anything to suggest to hes a good husband.

Even prior to this particular incident, there had been series of attempt by some members of parliament to evade justice by claiming that their criminal behaviours fell within the parameters of Article 9 of the Bill of Right. This was certainly true in the case of the three MPs who were charged for abusing their parliamentary expenses. They argued “proceedings in parliament cannot be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of parliament. These principles mean that it is for the House of Commons alone to decide whether the conduct of Mr Morley, Mr Chaytor and Mr Devine has been such as to call for sanction.”(Mr Knowles; the MPs legal representative)

But despite making such a despicable attempt to avoid facing the music of the law, the courts rejected the premises of their argument by reiterating that “Scrutiny of claims by the courts will have no adverse impact on the core or essential business of Parliament, it will not inhibit debate or freedom of speechthe only thing that it will inhibit is the making of dishonest claims.” (Lord Philips) On the contrary if the courts had allowed such an appeal, democracy as we all know it will never be the same again. It would have triggered cracks within the democratic society which our great grandparents fought hard to build for us. But luckily enough, the Supreme Court applied common sense which saw subsequently resulted in the incarceration of some MPs.

In addition, although Article 9 of the Bill of rights states clearly that members of parliament are unanswerable to the courts for things said in parliament, the British constitution has always impose a responsibility on the shoulders of MPs to respect the judgements and independence of the judiciary. It will be disingenuous and wrong for the British government and its allies to go around the world (as they are doing now) preaching about the importance of democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties and the right for individuals to have free and fair hearing in their respective countries when members of their own country refuse to adhere to judgements made by their domestic courts.

Moreover, one may also trace the root cause of the intrusion of civil liberties from the way the press has been allowed to operate. For so many years the British press has enjoyed an unprecedented right of self-regulation. This self-regulation, although good for freedom of speech, gave the press an unfettered playing field which encourages them to report stories which are damaging to civil liberties even when they know that such stories may have a detrimental effect on the individual and his family. In some cases, some newspapers go the extra mile to hack into the phones of ordinary citizens; a further attempt to infringe upon individuals right to privacy. I am not in any way in favour of a privacy law which may or may not restrict the freedom of speech journalist. However I certainly think it is not morally defendable for a news organisation to plough through the phone records of ordinary people without any compelling reason for doing so.

It is this relentless intrusion of civil liberties by the press that encourages the courts to issue super- injunction to ordinary citizens so as to protect their right to privacy. As judge Eady explained the court’s duty remains to try and protect the claimant, and particularly his family, from intrusion and harassment so long as it can.”

In this regard, it is therefore right for judges to be encouraged by both parliament and the government to continue to devise new ways of protecting civil liberties whiles at the same time making sure freedom of speech is properly upheld. It is also time for MPs to stop hiding behind the veil of parliamentary privilege and take responsibility for their action. Failing to do so will push the UK down a slippery slope.

To the Evangelical of the land:

For years in one manner of speech or another I have listened to people give their answer to the question of why righteousness is loosing ground in America today, and why more and more of whatever is called Christian is increasingly being persecuted, despised and rejected. How is it that this nation who’s coinage boasts, In God we Trust, can increasingly, in one point after another deny the laws of that God, even though approximately one half of it’s populace claim to be born again evangelicals? When I ask this question of people, most always the answer that is given although perhaps expressed in different words is, It’s because it’s the last days. And in saying this the people are endeavoring to communicate that things are suppose to be that way, for according to their understanding and acceptance of the Bible, righteousness is suppose to give way to ungodliness in the last days.

I am in full agreement that the kingdom of darkness will continue to grow in intensity until such time it shows itself to be the epitome of confusion and wickedness, and that this gross darkness will permeate many. This will happen, (even now is happening) it is forecasted by the Holy Scriptures and it will surely come to pass. However, at the same time it is forecasted that the Kingdom Of Light will develop into the completeness God has intended for it to be in the earth. The best way I know to illustrate this is to imagine the peace, order and righteousness that will be the every day norm in the age which is next to come (the millennium age, where Christ will reign in person here on earth) and know that the church must grow up into the fullness of this character in this present age, before entering that next age. Even as a child has to be first fully developed in the womb before it can be born. In like manner the Kingdom of God has to be fully developed in this age before the new age (millennium age) is birthed.

So, back to the original question: Why is righteousness loosing ground in America in this generation? It is the last days, that is for sure, but that is not why righteousness is loosing ground in America. No, it is not! I will give you the answer. It is because the chemistry of the righteousness of the acts of the American Church (Believers) by in large is not pure and powerful enough to hold back sin. You might say it this way, our powder is not dry, therefore when it is ignited it does not have the power to destroy sin that it is supposed to have. Jesus said it this way, but it means the very same thing. (Matthew 5:13 KJV) Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

We, the evangelical of the land, we that say we love the Bible and the God of the Bible have lost our saltiness. We do not fully love and obey God’s laws, and the testimony of righteousness that the Scripture proclaims. There is a very sincere spirit of confusion and spiritual apathy that grips us, thus allowing for great and many blind spots in our understanding and the practice of righteousness. We have surrendered ourselves to many forms of confusion and sin. A brief description of this is that in the mid to later 1800’s, we who were once a very strong Bible based society with the advent of the multiplication of modern technical knowledge began to throw off the wisdom of the Scripture, taking in it’s place the doctrines and practices of humanism. (where man is supreme in wisdom and power) This needing an answer to what our origins brought forth the doctrine and practice of evolution. Which birthed the spirits of socialism and feminism, which are twin sisters. In fact, they are Siamese twins, for they are joined at the hip. The one spirit, that of socialism, works in the realm of government. It works there seeking to promote the ideology that man is the servant of government, and not government the servant to men who have both created it and maintain it. The other spirit, that of feminism is at work in the male-female relationship. (particularly in the marriage relationship, but not by any means exclusively) It seeks to corrupt both the true nature and calling of manhood and womanhood by promoting the woman to usurp the place and calling of the man and the man to resign his place and calling to the woman. Thus you end up in both society at large and in the family unit a corruption of manhood and womanhood. These spirits have introduced what is called liberalism, the which has filled America with what seems like unending confusion and vices. So we have modern America, where 40 million plus babies have been murdered by means of abortion. Where a search engine can boast 1,000,000 pornography sites, where our jails are filled beyond capacity, where many pay 50% taxes, where 8 out of 10 teenagers boasts sex out side of marriage, where 50% of our people will never marry, but cohabitate, where nearly 70% of those that do marry will divorce, where homosexuality becomes the law of the land, where the promotion of the name and law of God are exulted from public life and institutions, etc, etc.

We, the evangelical of the land that say we love the Bible and the God of the Bible cry to God to bring forth righteousness and stop the flood of iniquity that has been spreading across our land. But little do most of us know that in many ways we promote the very wickedness that we say we hate. We do this by ( in our confusion) practicing in our own right many forms of of sin. It is no wonder that righteousness is loosing ground in America. For it is according to the saying of Isaiah, the ancient prophet who said these words. (Isaiah 59:1-2 KJV) Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it can not hear: but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

In one of my featured writings, WHO LEFT THE DOOR OPEN (which is available through our website) I show that in common practice and by civil law we as American people practice (participate in) 82 manners of life that stand contrary to God’s laws. According to my perception, 48 of these are commonly practiced by nearly all that is called Christian in this land. This America, is why righteousness is loosing ground against liberalism in this generation. It is because we have been duped into confusion and apathy, and do not recognize sin for what it is. For the apostle John defined sin in 1 John 3:4: (KJV) Whosoever commiteth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. There are many ways where the practice of modern western theology and it’s associated life style promotes the transgression of God’s laws.

In conclusion I say this. It is the last days, but the reason we are loosing ground to the forces of unrighteousness is that our powder is wet. If the righteousness of our deeds could be illustrated as gun powder, when it is ignited it would only make a small poof, and not the mighty explosion that it is suppose to create. Is it because our sins keep God’s power from working in and through us as He would have it to work, and sin can not be held back in our personal lives, nor in our public life without the working of God’s power.

Jesus forecasted this situation in the parable of the ten virgins which is told in the book of Matthew chapter 25. He said in the last days that all ten of the virgins would slumber and sleep. This speaks of the general apathy and confusion that Jesus forecasted would grip the entirety of the Kingdom Of Light in the world at the last time. But the cry is being made to those that have ears to hear. This cry is that Christ is soon to return. Wake up. Shake yourself. Dress yourself with every manner of righteousness for the day of His return and judgment is very near. All things must now be brought to completion.

Let us search and try our ways, and turn again to the Lord. Let us lift up our hearts with our hands unto God in the heaven, and turn again to the Lord. Jesus, and His gospel, which brings forth true and enduring righteousness is alone the answer.

A Watchman,
Gregory DeHart