Lesson video

Hello, my name's Ms. Ikomi and I'm a teacher from London.

I'm gonna be taking you through today's lesson.

Let's get started.

Today's lesson is called Why Should We Care About the Rule of Law?

It is part of the wider unit, the rule of law, key stage four.

By the end of today's lesson, you will be able to explain the importance of the rule of law for citizens in Britain today.

As today's topics could be seen as sensitive, we're going to discuss some ground rules for taking part in this lesson.

First of all, it's important to listen to others.

It's okay to disagree with each other, but we should listen properly before making assumptions or deciding how to respond when disagreeing, it's important that we challenge the statement, not the person.

We must respect privacy.

We can discuss examples in a general sense, but please do not use names or descriptions that identify anyone, including yourself.

We listen without passing judgment.

We can explore beliefs and misunderstandings about a topic without fear of being judged, and last, you can choose your level of participation.

Everyone has the right to choose not to answer a question or join in with the discussion.

We'll never put anyone on the spot.

Let's get started.

The key words we're going to hear in today's lesson are equality.

This is the right of everyone to receive the same treatment, citizen or citizenship.

This is a person who belongs to a country and has certain rights because they either live in the country or were born in the country.

It's a legal status given to people.

The judiciary.

This is the branch of the state that is responsible for enforcing the law.

It's composed of judges and other legal officials and lawful protest, a public demonstration or action expressing disapproval or objection to a policy, decision or situation, often aimed at raising awareness or demanding change.

We're going to start by thinking about what are our rights and responsibilities.

In a society, all people, including those who are legal citizens of a country, have rights.

These are the freedoms that are protected by law and upheld by the judiciary, which are separate to the legislature and the executive.

This is to make sure that everyone is treated fairly alongside our rights, which are applicable to everyone.

Citizens also have responsibilities.

These are the duties that are expected to carry out as members of our community.

This might be as part of a job or as citizens of a country.

Rights are the basic entitlements and freedoms that belong to every person.

They act as a set of rules that ensure we're treated with dignity, fairness, and equality.

Our rights are written down in lots of different places, including in laws and then non-legally binding declarations.

Some of the rights that we are entitled to include the right to life, freedom of thought and expression, sometimes called freedom of speech, the right to an education and freedom from torture.

Some of these might feel quite familiar.

While rights are freedoms and entitlements that belong to every person, responsibilities are the duties we have to help society function well for everyone.

Rights are inalienable.

That means that they belong to us simply because we are human.

We are born and deserve to have our rights respected.

Exercising your responsibilities helps to ensure that everybody else's rights are also respected, and this means that our communities and societies can function effectively.

Let's do a quick check of what we've learned so far.

I'd like you to organize the examples below into the rights or responsibilities column.

Pause your video to have a go at this now and we'll check our answers together in a few minutes.

Let's check our answers.

Some of the rights that we have include to live free from discrimination, to peacefully assemble and to have the right to a private life.

Some of the responsibilities may be to take part in jury service, to care for the environment and to pay taxes.

Society depends on all citizens following the law.

This protects everyone's rights and ensures that people act responsibly.

Izzy's asking us to imagine living in a society where our rights were ignored and citizens only followed laws that they agreed with.

What could happen?

One way of thinking about this is thinking about the rules of the road.

We all have the right to drive or cycle on the roads, but the responsibility to do this safely.

That's to make sure that everyone else is also safe on the road and make sure that nobody gets hurt.

If we didn't respect other people's rights through exercising our responsibilities, this could cause damage to the people around us.

Police Officer Kofi is giving us a further example.

If everyone picked and chose which laws to follow, society would quickly shift from order to anarchy.

Anarchy is like chaos.

In a lawless society, people without power or wealth may have no protection.

Whilst those that have influence could act without consequences.

This ultimately means that society wouldn't be working for everyone.

Laws only work if people follow them.

If we act responsibly and follow the law, then society's better for everyone.

An example of this could be the issue of tax.

Taxes are paid on people's wages.

However, you've probably also paid taxes through buying things.

Value Added Tax, VAT, is added on to most products in the UK.

It's important for the government to raise tax revenue in order to pay for public services.

Therefore, it is our responsibility as citizens to pay taxes and to pay our fair share.

Without tax money, public services wouldn't operate effectively.

This demonstrates why our rights and our responsibilities are intrinsically linked.

Another quick check.

If we ignored laws, our society could descend into what?

A, a democracy, B, a dictatorship, C, an anarchy?

Pause your video and choose your correct answer.

The correct answer is C, anarchy.

Let's do a longer task to put this into practice.

The statement is, my rights are more important than my responsibilities.

I'd like you to think, to what extent do you agree with this statement and give a reason for and a reason against?

Then I'd like you to reach a justified conclusion.

That means you've balanced up the arguments for and against and decided which you agree more with.

Pause your video and have a go at this now.

Let's check our answers.

I asked you to weigh up your thoughts on the statement.

Your answer might have included some of the following.

Some people would agree with this statement because human rights are considered inalienable, meaning they belong to us simply because we're human.

For example, the right to life or freedom from torture are absolute.

They should never be taken away regardless of whether a person is fulfilling their social duties or responsibilities.

From this perspective, rights are the foundation of a free society and protect us from the power of the state.

However, others would argue that rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin.

They believe that for a right to exist, someone else must have a responsibility to respect it.

For example, my right to education only works if others fulfill their responsibility to pay taxes to fund schools, and if other pupils fulfill their responsibility to follow school rules so others can learn.

Without responsibilities, society would become chaotic and the rule of law would collapse.

In conclusion, while fundamental human rights are essential for protecting individuals, they cannot exist in a vacuum.

A functioning society requires a balance.

Rights provide us with protection and freedom, but responsibilities ensure that those same freedoms are available to everyone else.

Well done if you included some of that in your answer.

Next, we're gonna think about: is everyone really equal before the law?

The rule of law means that everyone is equal before the law.

Everyone should be treated the same regardless of who they are.

In reality, unfairness, bias, and discrimination can still exist, and this can affect people's ability to be treated equally under the law.

The UK has systems in place to try and reduce the impact of bias and discrimination.

We're gonna think about some of these ways now.

The court system is designed to ensure that everyone is treated fairly.

The core pillars on which this idea is built are the concept of legal aid, the jury system, and judicial independence.

We'll talk about each of these in more detail now.

Legal aid means that if somebody cannot afford a lawyer, then the state will provide one or help with the costs.

This means that everyone, no matter if they're rich or not, is able to be represented by someone who is an expert, giving them a fair chance.

Equality before the law is essential and justice cannot depend simply on wealth.

The next is the jury system.

This means that people are trialed by their peers and ensures that a cross section of society is deciding the verdict, whether someone's guilty or not.

This prevents a biased judge or official from controlling the outcome of a case.

Last is the idea of judicial independence.

This means that the judiciary, the people who apply the law, sit separately from the government and the people who are debating and creating the laws, meaning that there can't be bias in its application.

Let's do a quick check.

The pillars designed to ensure equality before the law are legal aid, judicial independence, and what?

Is it A, trained judges, B, political interference, C, the jury system, or D, free lawyers?

Pause your video and choose your answer now.

The correct answer is C, the jury system.

Equality before the law means that everyone, no matter how wealthy or powerful, is subject to the same laws.

There are some examples of this where we've seen powerful people who have been held accountable by the law demonstrating this principle.

For example, in 2002, Princess Anne, who's the daughter of Queen Elizabeth II, was walking her dogs in the park.

Her dog Dotty attacked two children in a park.

Sofia is saying, if everyone's really equal before the law, then even Princess Anne should face consequences for these actions.

This is what happened in this case.

Princess Anne was required to appear in a standard magistrate's court, which is one of the criminal courts.

She couldn't pay to go to a different court or not appear in court at all.

She pleaded guilty to a charge under the Dangerous Dogs Act and was fined 500 pounds and ordered to pay compensation and costs.

This example demonstrates that no one's above the law, not even a member of the royal family who adopt a high status within society.

Despite her status, she had to follow the same legal procedures and face the same consequences as any other dog owner.

Let's do another quick check.

Which of the following best demonstrates the principle of equality before the law within the UK court system?

Is it A, the government decides when a court hears a case, B, only the wealthy are selected for jury service.

C, wealthy people can pay to avoid going to court, or D, an MP is tried in the same court as an ordinary citizen.

Pause your video and choose your answer now.

The correct answer is D.

Sofia's asking.

It's reassuring that everyone, even the royal family are equal before the law, but has this concept ever been challenged?

Sam's telling us, yes.

Sometimes the government can propose laws which can challenge the idea of equality before the law.

An example of this was following the 9/11 attacks, the UK government passed a law allowing them to detain foreign terror suspects indefinitely without trial.

British terror suspects could not be treated in this way.

The highest court at the time, the House of Lords, is now the Supreme Court, ruled that this was discriminatory and unlawful.

They argued that if the government suspects someone of a crime, the law has to apply equally to them regardless of their nationality, if they were a foreign terror suspect or not.

Sofia's asking, wow, should the law really protect people who are suspected of such crimes, particularly crimes that are really bad?

Sam is saying that it's showing that the courts will protect the rights of everyone regardless of what they've been accused of which is a key principle of equality.

Let's do a quick check.

In 2004, the Lords ruled that the government could not detain foreign terror suspects indefinitely without trial.

Why was this ruling significant for equality before the law?

Is it because, A, it proved the government has the right to ignore the Human Rights Act during a national emergency?

B, it showed that the law must apply equally to everyone regardless of their nationality or whether they're a UK citizen.

C, it allowed the government to create different sets of laws for people based on which country they're born in, or D, it decided that terror suspects should have more rights than ordinary citizens to ensure they're treated fairly.

Pause your video and choose the correct answer now.

The correct answer is B.

Let's do another task to put this into practice.

The UK government has decided it can no longer afford legal aid for people who already have a conviction for any crime.

I'd like you to imagine that this scenario was happening.

I'd like you to explain how the removal of legal aid conflicts with the principle of equality before the law.

Perhaps you can think about some of the examples that we've looked at so far.

Pause your video and have a go at this task now.

I asked you to explain how the removal of legal aid conflicts with the principle of equality before the law.

You might have said, equality before the law means that everyone should be treated the same, no matter their wealth, status, or background.

If legal aid is removed for those with prior convictions, justice becomes dependent on wealth.

A wealthy person with a conviction could still hire a top lawyer while a less wealthy person would be forced to represent themselves, making the trial inherently unequal.

By stripping away legal aid based on past behavior, the state is effectively treating individuals as less deserving of a fair defense.

Equality is only possible if both sides, the prosecution and the defense, are balanced.

Without a lawyer, a defendant may not necessarily understand the legal procedures or how to question witnesses effectively.

This gives the state an unfair advantage, tilting the scales of justice and undermining the idea that everyone is equal before the law.

Well done if you included some of that in your answer.

Next, we're gonna think about how can protests impact the rule of law?

Lawful protest is a way for citizens to express views and call for change.

Lawful protests seem just like a waste of time, Lucas is telling us.

He's asking, why would citizens bother?

Sofia's telling us that lawful protests are important because they raise awareness of injustice.

They pressure governments into changing unfair laws and they hold those in power accountable.

Lawful protests can raise awareness of injustices.

An example of this is the Black Lives Matter protests.

BLM was a global movement that highlighted concerns about institutional racism in society.

Institutional racism is when an organization or system treats people unfairly because of their race, ethnicity, or cultural background.

This can happen through structures and processes or behaviors that unintentionally disadvantage people because of one of those factors.

In the UK, BLM protestors gathered in towns and cities across the UK to highlight the issue of racial injustice.

BLM protests showed that even if laws exist, some people may still face unfair treatment and protests can bring these issues into the spotlight.

The idea that lawful protests can pressure the government to change their policies can be seen in the following example.

Campaigners and pressure groups organize peaceful protests, petitions, and public campaigns to call for equal marriage rights.

Same-sex marriage became legal in 2013 as a result of these community efforts.

This allowed same-sex couples the same right to marriage as opposite-sex couples.

Lawful protests can also hold those in power to account.

For example, in 2010, a UK newspaper reported the MPs' expenses scandal.

This meant that it highlighted that some MPs had misused money that was coming from taxpayers for expenses for things that weren't relevant to their role.

Following this, people protested peacefully.

As a result of that pressure, parliament appointed a new body to oversee expenses and the public are now given more information about what MPs are claiming for.

Therefore, they weren't able to abuse the power that they had because they were held accountable.

Let's do a quick check.

Which of the following protests raise awareness of issues linked to racism?

Was it the MPs' expenses scandal, Black Lives Matter or the Same-Sex Marriage Act of 2013?

Pause your video and choose your answer.

The correct answer is B.

It is very important that the right to lawful protest is balanced with responsibilities.

Lucas is asking a really good question regarding this.

Are there any limits?

Can protestors just do whatever they want?

The answer is yes, there are limits.

This is because lawful protest has to not undermine the rule of law, and therefore shouldn't impact other citizens' rights.

This is part of acting responsibly and our rights and responsibilities have to balance up.

Lawful protests can undermine the rule of law if they become unlawful.

That might happen if they become violent, if they start to disrupt others' rights, for example, through blocking emergency services or if laws are ignored entirely.

We're going to think about some examples where this has happened and how it's undermined the aims of the protests and also other people's rights.

In 2011, a peaceful protest in Tottenham over the police shooting of Mark Duggan quickly turned into widespread violent riots that spread across England.

This unrest had really negative impacts on communities.

It resulted in an estimated five deaths, over 200 injuries, 3000 arrests, and over 200 million pounds in damage to property.

Although the riots have been extensively debated, they didn't result in any meaningful change, so when the protest becomes violent, it stops protecting rights and starts damaging society.

Again, having a negative impact on the original aim of the protest.

In 2022, Just Stop Oil arranged a series of protests which blocked roads and transport links.

These were designed to cause widespread disruption.

Protestors blocked major roads and motorways to demand action on climate change.

These protestors undermined other people's rights because they prevented people from getting to work and attending hospital appointments.

There were widespread reports of emergency vehicles delayed in getting people the help they needed.

As a result, the protest lost public support.

A further example is where protests can sometimes ignore the law.

These are rarely effective and often fail.

An example of this is January 6th, supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the US Capitol building in a failed attempt to stop the certification of the election result.

Protestors made their way inside the government building looking to harm politicians.

More than 140 police officers were harmed and following the incident, 1,500 people were charged for crimes committed.

Let's do a quick check.

Which of the following protests included violent protest?

Was it A, the 2011 England riots, B, Just Stop Oil or C, Extinction Rebellion?

Pause your video and choose the correct answer.

The correct answer was A.

Let's do another task to put this into practice.

I'd like you to explain how protests can both support and undermine the rule of law.

Try to think about some of the examples we've spoken about across today's lesson.

Pause your video now and we'll check our answers together in a few minutes.

I asked you to explain how protests can both support and undermine the rule of law.

You might have included some of the following in your answers.

On the one hand, protests can support the rule of law by helping to highlight injustice and bring about legal change.

In a democracy, citizens have the right to protest peacefully, and this allows them to challenge unfair laws or decisions.

For example, campaigns for equal marriage used lawful protest, petitions, and lobbying to persuade Parliament to change the law, and this led to the Same-Sex Couples Marriage Act in 2013.

This shows how protests can work within the legal system to improve it, strengthening fairness and equality before the law.

However, protests can undermine the rule of law when they interfere with the rights of others or deliberately break laws.

For example, in 2022, activists from Just Stop Oil blocked major roads and motorways as part of their campaign, while their aim was to raise awareness about climate change these actions disrupted people's ability to travel, including access to work and emergency services.

This created a conflict between the protestors' right to protest and other citizens' rights.

By intentionally breaking laws such as obstruction of roads, these protests can weaken respect for the rule of law as they suggest laws can be ignored if individuals strongly disagree with them.

Protests can also undermine the rule of law if they disrupt the rights of others or ignore laws entirely.

If people believe they can break laws whenever they disagree with them, it risks undermining the principle that laws apply equally to everyone.

In conclusion, protests support the rule of law when they're peaceful and aim to improve fairness, but they undermine it when they involve law breaking or harm others.

Today we have been thinking about why we should care about the rule of law.

The rule of law protects our rights, but it only works if citizens act responsibly and follow the law.

We've learned equality before the law is not automatic.

It depends on citizens and courts challenging unfairness.

Independent courts and judges are essential because they ensure fairness and hold those in power accountable, and citizens can improve the law through lawful action.

This might be protests and campaigning, helping to create a fairer society.

That's the end of today's lesson.

Thank you for joining me.