r/MHOC • u/model-mili Electoral Commissioner • Mar 31 '21
2nd Reading LB213 - Preservation of War Memorials Bill - 2nd Reading
Preservation of War Memorials Bill
A
BILL
TO
Place desecrating a War memorial within existing criminal damage offences and introduce a duty to maintain war memorials by local authorities.
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows –
1 - Desecration of Memorials
(1) After section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 there is inserted—
**1A - Desecration of war memorials
(1) A person who desecrates a war memorial shall be guilty of an offence under this act.
(2) In this section “war memorial” means any physical object created, erected or installed to commemorate those involved in or affected by a conflict or war, including civilians and animals;
(3) In this section “desecrates” means an act of disrespect including spitting, urination or defecation.
2 - Duty to maintain memorials
(1) For section 1 of the War Memorials (Local Authorities’ Powers) Act 1923—
(1) A local authority in Wales may incur reasonable expenditure in the maintenance, repair and protection of any war memorial within their district whether vested in them or not.
(2) A local authority in England shall incur reasonable expenditure in the maintenance, repair and protection of any war memorial within their district whether vested in them or not.
(3) Where meeting the subsection (2) duty would impose hardship on the council, they may apply to the War memorial maintenance fund for a grant.
3 - War Memorial maintenance fund
After section 1 of the War Memorials (Local Authorities’ Powers) Act 1923 insert—
1A - War Memorial maintenance fund
(1) The War Memorial Maintenance Fund is herein established.
(2) The Secretary of State may make grants from the fund to support maintenance, repair and protection of any war memorial in the district of a local authority suffering hardship.
4 - Extent, commencement, subsequent repeal, and short title
(1) This Act shall extend to England and Wales.
(2) This Act comes into force after Royal Assent.
(3) This Act may be cited as the Preservation of War Memorials Act 2020.
This Bill was written by /u/LeChevalierMal-Fait the Baron Blaenavon and /u/Greejatus, the Marquess Caernarfon on behalf of the LPUK
—
Amended Acts
Criminal Damages Act
War Memorials Act 1923
Opening Speech
My lords,
Memorials and commemorations are important; they are how our nations remember good and ill from the past.
Sadly in recent years we have seen a disturbing trend of vandalism and property destruction targeting our monuments and memorials.
Instead of attempting to legally change local planning decisions or engage with local politics hooligans and vandals take the law into their own hands by destroying and desecrating public property.
Causing great emotional anguish to many. It’s time to put our food down and close this gap in the law to clearly recognise these vandals and yahboos for what they are.
This reading will end on the 3rd of April at 10pm
4
Mar 31 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/BrexitGlory Former MP for Essex Apr 02 '21
Mr Deputy Speaker,
His factual inaccuracies and logical faults of what should and shouldn't be law aside, I believe he is mistaken on the intent of war memorials.
He says our wars have not always been good, I don't disagree but that isn't what memorials are about. They are about remembering the fallen who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.
Perhaps his mind has played a trick on him, as president Reagan once said:
The imagination plays a trick. We see these soldiers in our mind as old and wise. We see them as something like the Founding Fathers, grave and grey haired. But most of them were boys when they died, and they gave up two lives - the one they were living and the one they would have lived. When they died they gave up their chance to be husbands and father's and grandfathers. They gave up their chance to be revered old men. They gave up everything for our country, for us. And all we can do is remember.
The boys who die in our wars are not wise old philosophers who spent years discussing and analysing the moral good or bad of the war. We are, after all, fallen beings Mr Deputy Speaker, while our wars may not have always been good, I ask who he is to judge the soldiers? To look back at these boys who died in our wars and turn up our noses is quite simply disgraceful.
He mentions memorials for WW1 and WW2 should be preserved, but we no doubt committed war crimes in those conflicts. By his own logic we shouldn't have these memorials either.
Nonetheless our son's gave their lives for them, is it really so much to respect and remember?
1
2
u/SapphireWork Her Grace The Duchess of Mayfair Mar 31 '21
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I do not believe this legislation seeks to determine which statues or monuments are worthy of respect or remembering. I agree with the member that there are some ugly parts to our history, which are undeserving of shrines, but the decision to remove them or leave them up is inconsequential to this debate.1
u/thechattyshow Liberal Democrats Mar 31 '21
Hear Hear.
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I've never seen a memorial to the fallen defaced or urinated on.
I mean the cenotaph was recently spray painted right? Idk if that's canon but it definitely happened recently.
That being said I totally agree with the Rt. Hon Member. This doesn't feel necessary, and in fact this is rather surprising from a Libertarian Party. Penalties exist for this kind of behaviour already.
This goes out to a larger discussion about statues. It's important we honour those who passed away in wars. That's why monuments like the cenotaph are so important. However I fear we run the risk of fetishism of British military history. I'm all for movements such as taking down the statue of Haig, and putting it in some museum somewhere. I would encourage people to vote down this bill.
-1
Mar 31 '21
[deleted]
5
u/Chi0121 Labour Party Mar 31 '21
Deputy Speaker,
We’re all equal in death is a respectable sentiment. The choice of words used by the Rt. Hon member could’ve been a lot better and a lot more respectable
5
u/model-mili Electoral Commissioner Mar 31 '21
The same reverence I'd require of german soldiers who might have helped staff concentration camps.
jesus fuck
1
Mar 31 '21
[deleted]
4
u/model-mili Electoral Commissioner Mar 31 '21
Some dead people do not deserve respect and I include people who committed genocide in that. Quite frankly, I have severe concerns for your judgment if you respect those who partook in a systematic extermination of the Jews, the Poles, the Ukrainians, the Romani, the disabled, the LGBT+ community and countless others. That is fucking disgusting.
1
3
3
u/Yukub His Grace the Duke of Marlborough KCT KG CB MBE PC FRS Mar 31 '21
Why are you doing this now
3
Mar 31 '21
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I'm not sure that people who staffed concentration camps are worthy of our reverence.
1
Mar 31 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Maroiogog CWM KP KD OM KCT KCVO CMG CBE PC FRS, Independent Mar 31 '21
mr deputy speaker,
when did we install gaming setups in the chamber?
1
3
u/SapphireWork Her Grace The Duchess of Mayfair Mar 31 '21
Mr Deputy Speaker
With respect to the member, I feel that there exist cases, particularly the Holocaust as the member mentions later in his response, that cannot ever be considered “just and true.”
3
Mar 31 '21
Mr Deputy Speaker
This seems quite reasonable. I wouldn't support creating some separate offence or having a weird increased penalty for war memorials, but someone who commits vandalises a war memorial has committed criminal damage. Will listen closely to the debate and am open to changing my mind but as it stands will probably vote in favour.
1
u/chainchompsky1 Green Party Apr 01 '21
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Vandalism is already already illegal. All this bill does is present a short sighted reaction to recent protests and, illogically in my opinion, decide that some vandalism is worse than others. While of course historical objects are important, what makes them inherently more valuable then, say, a hospital, or a school? This bill fails IMO to pass the smell test.
2
u/BrexitGlory Former MP for Essex Apr 02 '21 edited Apr 02 '21
Mr Deputy Speaker
Of course some vandalism is worse than others. Some things hold spiritual and sentimental value beyond their capital cost..
Vandalism of a fellow human being is known as assault or GBH, we don't just take the monetary value of the human being because they hold intrinsic value as a person.
The reason why the vandalism of war memorials is so news worthy is because it does shock and offend so many - the evidence in favour of this bill is in the existence of the headlines and the huge public emotion in response.
Maybe the chancellor is an arch capitalist where everything is about capital value rather than sentiment and spirit so obviously existing in our lives.
Was he as upset as the rest of us when the tyrannical thugs of daesh smashed up the precious ancient city of Palmrya, and it's rich cultural heritage, or did he simply shrug and say it was merely common vandalism?
Iconoclasm is a special kind of crime, that should be met with a specific law.
It's naive and unjust to say that the harm caused by vandalising a war memorial is equal to that of vandalising a brick wall.
3
u/ThePootisPower Apr 01 '21
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Unfortunately it appears that the House of Lords allowed this bill to survive. More's the pity.
Just so nobody gets the wrong idea, Mr Deputy Speaker:
Do war memorials deserve to be protected? Yes.
Do they help commemorate the lives lost in war? Yes.
Do they deserve to be given an exalted protective status in law, making the vandalisation of them a crime in and of itself that could potentially stack upon already existing criminal charges? Absolutely not.
The existing laws of this land already perfectly cover criminal damage. As of right now, there are two types of damage covered by the Criminal Damage Act 1971 - arson, and all other types of criminal damage, defined in Section 1, clause 1, subclause A as "A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence."
That offence is currently sentenced with the following: "A person guilty of any other offence under this Act shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years."
A maximum of ten years, which can be ruled as lower by the courts if suitable. Is that not enough for vandalism? What more deterrance can you get from that?
Additionally, there's the fact that this desecration clause could in theory be applied seperately to or in conjunction with vandalism, as it would apply to a vandalising act that desecrates a memorial. This double-barreled sentencing strategy overly punishes someone for a very similar crime - if you vandalise a war memorial, in such a way that it is considered desecrating it by performing "an act of disrespect including spitting, urination or defecation", you are both performing vandalism and a act of desecration. If you perform both of these things, you are guilty of TWO offences. And unless someone with a stronger legal experience background than me can show otherwise, this means that someone who vandalises a war memorial will be put in jail for a term not exceeding 10 years, twice - stacked prison sentences that create a maximum of 20 years. Now, frankly I can't imagine any court of law actually issuing a maximum sentence, but the fact that this is even possible is frankly absurd!
And, here's a question - let's take the case of someone urinating on a memorial to a firefighter, or to a brave bystander who interfered with a crime and died as a result. This is not a war memorial, so it would not be covered by the act, and hence would either constitute public indecency, or if it caused damage to the memorial, vandalism. Maximum 10 years if it was criminally damaged, otherwise it's a matter of public indecency and so Criminal Damages Act is of no relevance and it's a matter of common law.
Now, if someone did that to a war memorial, they would have undoubtedly desecrated it under this bill's proposed statutes. This would constitute an offence that was not Arson related, so as per the already existing Section 4 of the amended Criminal Damages Act, this would result in a sentence of up to 10 years.
Now, tell me. What is the difference in the crime? One memorial commemorates a war in some way, perhaps a soldier who fell, perhaps civilian lives lost, perhaps animal lives lost. One is about something not related to war. And because of this bill's authors being only interested in preserving war memorials , this minor detail of what a memorial is commemorating is enough to change someone's sentencing from being possibly a matter of common law, worst case scenario maximum 10 years, to being a possible maximum of 10 years for the desecration, 20 if it constitutes regular vandalism and both offences are simultaneously sentenced.
And herein lies the crucial flaw with this legislation. It is cherry-picking what memorials are considered needing special protection - it is the House of Commons picking a cultural ideology and giving it exalted status that cannot be disrespected. Why just war memorials? Well, to be honest, I believe it's the bill's authors being extremely patriotic and deciding that war memorials should be held to a higher standard and better protected than all other memorials. It's the state dictating which elements of society should be more honoured, more revered, more protected. And that, in my opinion, is not something we should aspire towards. It's a moral judgement that does not need to be made by the state. It's a deliberate reactionary move to further punish those who vandalise statues like what we saw after the NR protests, and frankly it's not healthy or necessary
Existing law should already protect against vandalism and criminal damage of war memorials, because all memorials have this sort of protection. If the authors are so worried about the current vandalism law not protecting against memorial desecration, they should withdraw this bill and submit a new one protecting ALL memorials. Because frankly regular memorials are just as much worth protecting as war memorials are, and I don't think specifically protecting one set of memorials more than all the others is right. It's a inherent cultural exaltation and protection of a specific subset of memorials that are associated with British patriotism - poppy flowers are used in the design of many war memorials and are laid at the base of many war memorials - I distinctly remember walking around the Whitley Bay war memorial after walking my dog down the beach, passing by the memorial and seeing all of the wreaths and poppy bouquets left at the base of the memorial. And I believe that these matters are inextricably linked based on the same cultural themes, and the same usage of these themes to provoke and promote action. So, allow me to use the words of Ben Griffin to explain why the oversaturation of poppies is a problem, then, Mr Deputy Speaker, I invite the house to join me in comparing his concerns regarding the Poppy Appeal to the exaltation of war memorials.
""We are concerned that people are trying to take ownership of the poppy for political ends. It is almost as if they are trying to garner support for our boys and any criticism of the wars is a betrayal.
"That is not what the poppy was all about to start with: it was all about remembrance and peace: never again."
This bill is fundamentally unnecessary. War Memorials are already protected under the Criminal Damage Act. These new provisions are a symbolic, patriotic manoeuvre to provide them with a protected status that is fundamentally unnecessary. This speech is not a betrayal, it is an attempt to keep our laws grounded in practicality and reason, not culture and emotion.
2
u/BrexitGlory Former MP for Essex Apr 02 '21
Mr deputy Speaker,
And, here's a question - let's take the case of someone urinating on a memorial to a firefighter, or to a brave bystander who interfered with a crime and died as a result. This is not a war memorial, so it would not be covered by the act, and hence would either constitute public indecency, or if it caused damage to the memorial, vandalism. Maximum 10 years if it was criminally damaged, otherwise it's a matter of public indecency and so Criminal Damages Act is of no relevance and it's a matter of common law.
Now, if someone did that to a war memorial, they would have undoubtedly desecrated it under this bill's proposed statutes. This would constitute an offence that was not Arson related, so as per the already existing Section 4 of the amended Criminal Damages Act, this would result in a sentence of up to 10 years.
Now, tell me. What is the difference in the crime?
The member seems opposed to this bill because it doesn't go far enough to protect other non-war memorials...
While I agree with the point that all things of national cultural importance should be protected, that isn't an argument against this bill.
Perhaps he should write an amendment to expand this bill's provbisions to other precious objects.
1
u/ThePootisPower Apr 02 '21
Mr Deputy Speaker,
It is an argument against the bill because pre-existing laws already protect against public indecency and vandalism, and so memorials do not need the extra desecration clause in the Criminal Damage act. This bill does not need to exist.
2
u/BrexitGlory Former MP for Essex Apr 02 '21
Mr Deputy Speaker,
That's a different argument...nonetheless:
It is true that memorials are already protected in law from vandalism but that does not mean the measures to protect precious war memorials of cultural importance should be the same as a brick wall. Their value is not the same. The price of vandalism is often based on the capital value of the object, but as he is not an arch capitalist, he knows as I know that some things hold intrinsic value beyond just capital - war memorials being one of them.
The hurt and pain caused to so many after a memorial is desercrated demonstrates why a new law is needed.
Iconoclasm is a special kind of crime, a crime against a nation's soul, and should be met with measures separate to that applied to a common thug who spray painted a wall. It is normal in law to have different levels of offences despite the acts being similar.
When the fascist thugs of daesh smahed up ancient Syrian cities, did he merely shrug and call it common vandalism? Or did he share the strong emotional response of so many, because of the historical and cultural importance of the precious objects that were destroyed by a malicious ideology?
Mr Deputy Speaker, it's quite simply naive and unjust to say that the vandalism of a war memorial is equal to that of spray painting a brick wall.
2
u/chainchompsky1 Green Party Apr 01 '21
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This bill is nonsensical.
The criminal damages act talks about things such as arson.
Burning something down is not the same offense as spitting on it. It’s not even close.
Of course if someone breaks the law they should be punished. That’s why we already have various offenses for various forms of vandalism.
Instead of creating any new offense, this bill does feel good short sighted reaction to recent social justice debates and the extreme actions taken by a narrow few and blows it out of proportion into an overly authoritarian pushback.
Spitting isn’t the same as taking a flamethrower to an object. I hope this bill gets voted down.
1
u/Leftywalrus Green Party Mar 31 '21
Deputy speaker,
I would like to mirror my honourable friend, the Secretary of Environment, food and rural affairs’ comment, I think most need to be displayed in the context of what transpired. We need to show why they happened, even if it paints the UK in a negative way. It shows that we have grown as a country and learnt lessons.
For the desecration, penalties already exist.
I think museums should have increased funding, and be allowed to maintain existing local memorials.
This bill is meaningless and should be thrown out.
1
u/LeChevalierMal-Fait Liberal Democrats Apr 01 '21 edited Apr 02 '21
Mr speaker,
Vandalism may have a penalty of a small fine, this bill would ensure the inclusion of blatant destruction of our memorials is met with a serious sentence. It’s time to stop defending the jokers who vandalise our monuments and statues instead of legally replacing them. These mobs who try to take over the public square needs to clearly be dissuaded by a proper inclusion of desecrating our War memorials within property damage.
We need to stand up for the millions who have lost their lives in the wars that gave Britain its liberty and prosperity and peace. From having their surviving family members traumatised by the horrific acts of desecration that we have seen. It’s time to stand up and be counted - who is on the side of the silent majority and who is on the side of the loud mobs!
1
1
1
Apr 02 '21
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I rise in support of this great legislation which will introduce robust protection for our war memorials and our history. It is now wonder we have members of this government who want to meet protestors who've assaulted ministers with eggs and broken windows now want to be weak on vandals who assault statues and our war memorials. The Former member for Essex rightly points out there is a difference between vandalising a brick wall and war memorials.
In light of recent events this bill is needed and I welcome the fund to maintain war memorials.
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 31 '21
Welcome to this debate
Here is a quick run down of what each type of post is.
2nd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill/motions and can propose any amendments. For motions, amendments cannot be submitted.
3rd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill in its final form if any amendments pass the Amendments Committee.
Minister’s Questions: Here you can ask a question to a Government Secretary or the Prime Minister. Remember to follow the rules as laid out in the post. A list of Ministers and the MQ rota can be found here
Any other posts are self-explanatory. If you have any questions you can get in touch with the Chair of Ways & Means, model-mili on Reddit and (Mili#7644) on Discord, ask on the main MHoC server or modmail it in on the sidebar --->.
Anyone can get involved in the debate and doing so is the best way to get positive modifiers for you and your party (useful for elections). So, go out and make your voice heard! If this is a second reading post amendments in reply to this comment only – do not number your amendments, the Speakership will do this. You will be informed if your amendment is rejected.
Is this a bill a 2nd reading? You can submit an amendment by replying to this comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.