Principles of Equity and Trust Lecture @ 2024_07_17_09_12_46 - Copy.txt

It's really nice because you get to be in on decision-making and that's why you're members of the Commonwealth but they also know in reality everything here on paper is owned by the King of England, but if you ever drive and say I think I'll just take a little bit of land, you'd go you know what tha...

It's really nice because you get to be in on decision-making and that's why you're members of the Commonwealth but they also know in reality everything here on paper is owned by the King of England, but if you ever drive and say I think I'll just take a little bit of land, you'd go you know what thank you very much we don't need you anymore. So, in reality, it's owned by the people of Papua New Guinea, but by law, it's not. Don't kid yourself. And we'll get to that. We'll get to the consequences of that. Why is that important? Now, the good thing, and we'll get to that later as well, is some of the things that you have to navigate that the rest of the world does not have to navigate is that you've got two legal systems. In my country, we don't. Even though we have strong customs and customs sometimes clashes with our law, which is not common law, it's adversarial law, just put that in there. We've got Europe and England, right? So the rest of Europe's got adversarial law. And where we went out and colonized, in Africa, wherever we went, Asia, they got adversarial law. You only got common law because you got, as the last ones, colonized by people that were represented by the Brits, not it was Australia. You have been colonized by Japan, by Holland, by Germany, go up to Canaan that way, it was the Germans now, further over, the other way it was the Dutch, Holland. if they had won, you would have been in a completely different part of law. You would have had adversarial law. That's just how it goes. And it is two different systems. Depending on who had, you had ended up, if let's say it was the French, you would actually own your land. If it had been the Dutch, who's still a monarchy, or Denmark, who's still a monarchy, you would have, you would be crowned land of them, still today. These are things that are relevant when you look at alliances out there in the world, okay? These are things that are important when you are in international negotiations with people. Who are they allies with? Who are they natural allies with? And then we say, oh well, the French stick together. Those that speak French stick together. It's not because they speak French and can understand each other. also because of that, but it's because they don't naturally speak French in Africa. They were colonized by the French. They got their legal system. They do things the way the French do. So they match. We got colonized by Australia. We got Australian law, and then that's how we work. So we have a natural good match to go and look at them, because we do like they do. We can see things, how they work down there, and then we can make the same thing work here. We have a similar system. Your system is not the same as the rest of the world, and that's okay. But there are, in law, some common fundamental things, principles, ethical ways of thinking, that are the same. Now, I preached it yesterday and said, we're going back to when law was created, no? We're going back to when it was really theology, then it became jurisprudence, and a little lovely university in Bologna in Italy, and these principles have been around since this time, and they are universal, everywhere in the world, even in the Islamic world, because guess what, they came before us with these things. the Islamic country, the Arab countries in the 13, 14 and 1500s were way ahead of us on every single term, whether it be law, economics, medicine, things like that. We were way behind, and then at some point it all kind of turned around. So a lot of what you'll learn now, if you listen to the YouTube videos, We can't exactly prove it, but we do believe that a lot of what we've got in terms of equity and trust was inspired by the crusade where people went down to Jerusalem and fought down in the Arab world, and they became friends with those Arabs, and they learned a lot from them because they were way ahead of us. And they thought, hang on, that's a good idea, we might do that at home, that would work, and then they go home and they start doing that. So these principles are universal. These are human principles. Basic ways of living together as humans. Lots of fun. First time we meet it. The first time we meet equity is even further back in Greece. Aristotle, this is 300 years before Christ, he wrote a book on ethics and he wrote a book on ethics where he says law is about getting to the best possible result, best possible result. That is one way of talking about equity. Another way is that we lean towards when we have to go into court and say there is no legislation that captures what I'm trying to do here, but in common law we will always look at the literal interpretation of the law versus what is right. We have to arrive at a fair and just result. And Hegel, in 1821, wrote a book called The Philosophy of Rights. It's a really good little piece of work. It puts the, it's people that say, okay, that's laws, and then there's all that you can, I only drive 60, all of that is pettiness. Let's get to the core. We peel some layers off the onion and say, what does it mean to do justice? What does it mean to be fair? What does equality before the law mean? And you've got to remember that in 1821, especially in the common law system, so we say that common law system and all these things were the first real pieces of democracy and constitution, But at the time, only very few people were captured in this voting system. In the beginning, it was only the rich people, no? The lordships. And they still have a house of lords in Britain, no? They still have this system where people who are wealthy and own land are seen to be smarter than those who don't. Today, we know that's not true. You don't need to have been born into money to be smart. We understand that. But at the time, that was the assumption. They must be smarter than us because they own more than us. Now some of you fall into that fallacy as well. You see a big man with lots of billions and you think he's got to be smart. I better stay next to him because he must be fat. He could be a thief. He could be the worst crook. When you see money, no, he must be smart. Better stay there, no? not necessarily true, but that's what they thought at the time. It took a long time, then they expanded a little bit, a little bit more people could vote. There was about a quarter of the population. Then they went, oh no, everybody should be able to vote, independent of how they grew up in their life, no? But guess who couldn't vote when that was? When we got free, everybody free vote, whether you were poor or you were rich, everyone could vote. Could everyone still vote then, in the 1800s? Who couldn't vote? Women. Because we were only talking about men. It wasn't until the 1900s that, oh by the way, let's include women too. Right? In most countries it's only been around a hundred years that women can vote. So when we're talking about fairness, even they said, yeah, fairness and principles of equity and all of that, but it has been modified over time. Today it includes women too, and children, and handicapped people. We're still a little bit on the should handicapped people be allowed to vote. Where I'm from, yeah, in certain countries, is if you've broken the law and gone to prison, you can't vote. In America, it's like that, which is interpreted as a racist system because guess who gets arrested and goes to jail, more black people. So that means that less and less and less black people can vote, they lose the right to be represented. In Denmark, we would say that just because you've been to jail doesn't mean you cannot have a say on democracy. because your life is more than that one action. So, when we've got elections, they come to the prison and they let the prisoners vote too. I doubt that that happens here. In principle, it's supposed to happen, but I don't know if there's a voting station for the prisoners up at Pomona. Never really looked into that. That would be interesting to see. But, in principle, you should be able to vote because you're a human being and a member of society and you've got something to say. You've got an experience that not many people have. The latest, greatest in this, so we're in jurisprudence. We're in the philosophy of law. Dworkin is someone to pay attention to if you're interested in the philosophy of law. He has recanted on the good old empire by what we call the integrity of law. What is the essence? When can we say something is fair? Now, I talked about it last time. I mentioned it on my own story. You will find that none of the stories I tell are random. So I say I come from the least corrupt country in the world. but we are raised to really understand what integrity means. We are raised from a perspective of the only person I have to live with, the only person I have to live with from the day I'm born until the day I die is myself. Everyone else will come and go. The only person I have to, in whose company I have to be in, every day, 24-7 for the rest of my life is my own. If I don't like that company, I have a problem. I have to look at me every day in the mirror. I might avoid the eye and just do the hair, but I still have to look at me. and I have to like what I see. If I don't like my own company, I have a problem. In the essence, that is what integrity is. I have to be able to say, when I look myself in the eyes, I'm all right, I can sweep before my own door and say I did right, and if I didn't, If I did something wrong, if I was unjust to someone, integrity means I go and say, listen, I thought about it, I looked myself well in the eye, what I did was wrong, I apologize, I'd like to correct it. But that means it starts with you first. For me, it starts with me first. Now I might wanna do well by all of you, I wanna pass all of you, I want all of you to shine, I want all of you to be brilliant. But I have to start with me first. And if it means that I have to break my integrity, I won't do it, because I have to live with me. And I will know for the rest of my life whether or not I broke the law. I was talking to a colleague about it yesterday, because it happens every time I travel home. I've just been back to Denmark, and I've just come back, and I'm terribly jet lagged. This is what jet lag looks like. Every single time I meet a former diploma student, in the airport, in customs, that's the way she works. She's some sort of big Mary Bosch in the customs section, and every time I come through, she comes up to say hello, and then we go through my suitcases, and she knows. She knows 100% there will be nothing in my suitcase that's not supposed to be there, because because that for me would be the worst thing that could ever happen. I've been standing here barking on about integrity and fairness and non-corruption. What if I brought in something that wasn't supposed to be there and she caught me? Now, if I was Papa New Guinea, I'd just pay her some money, no? But for me, I know how embarrassing that would be for me. That is not who I am, so I will never do it. So we just have a lovely chitchat about her children, who's also going to law school now. And most of them have graduated. And she wants to come back. And that's what we talk about. And she knows that my suitcases, I know that they're completely clean. There's nothing in there that shouldn't be there. It's not because I don't want to be caught by her. It's because I do not want to put myself in that position. I say all of this because that is the attitude you need to start having. because that is what people expect of you. That is who a lawyer is. Someone who is irreproachable, above and beyond, in every single way. We don't measure ourselves about who's around us. It doesn't matter. We're gonna be around a lot of crooks. If you're gonna be lawyers, you're gonna be around a lot of crooks for the rest of The whole idea of having a representative, a lawyer, an advocate, is that you are above the law. They can't represent themselves, so they get a lawyer, that is you. So get used to that. Get used to elevating yourself and thinking, okay, what's right and wrong for me in this particular instance? And that is what Aristotle talked about, that's what Hegel's talked about, that's what Dworkin has reinforced in the book The Law of Empire on the integrity. Integrity of the law, that is what this class is about. And where can you find those values and when can you bring them into a court case on behalf of your client. it. Now, in the early history, and yes you need to know the case of the Earl of Oxford, and yes you need to understand. Oh, we've got a whiteboard now. Let's see how to phrase the market. I normally like to draw, like sometimes I'll have to bring butcher paper in here. This is, it's all digital and we do not get to write on the screens, it's not necessary. Before, when we still had, so remember in the lines in 1615 was democracy introduced yet? No. So we're not in a time like ours, no? We're in a time where we have a king, the king's in charge, the king sets the rules, and he decides, and then if you go even further back, every time people had a grievance, they would go to the king. Now the people who would have a grievance would go to the king about it would be the rich people, the lordships. They wouldn't be the common people. They didn't have access to the king. They would then go to whoever represented them that would then go to their lordship, and then if it was a big enough thing, then they could go, they could go to the king. Now, do you think that the common people had anything to say? No, you just worked for the lordship and went, okay, whatever, this is my lot in life, no? I have to toil the soil for someone else and do what they say. But, all of these lordships were fighting. And every now and then they had something that they wanted, not every now and then, often they had grievances. He took my piece of land, I want it back. He's going to take my, whatever it is, no? And the king got tired of listening to all of this. He had better things to do with his life, so he set up a court system. And there was two court systems. There was one that was just about the law, And then there was one that was about conscience. So you had the common law, which was legal rules, and then you had the court of chancery, which was about conscience of the individual person. Now, you've got to remember, again, we don't have a parliament these days. We have something that the king decides that these people can sit and write the law. But we don't have democracy. We're not voting for people that can sit down and write law. We don't really have that many laws at this time. We also don't really have people who have people that are starting to become educated in law. But law is minimal at this time. So often, they forget things. It's just like when we create a new law in our time. So the Cybercrime Act, for example, is a really new law. And by the time we figure out what we're going to put in the Cybercrime Act, the internet has gone on and discovered things that are doing things that we don't know. So now that we've got the Cybercrime Act and we're ready to use it, AI happens. And it's not captured in the Cybercrime Act, no? So what do we do then? And this is about, this is nothing new. Well, it's the same for them. Okay, we need to do some contract law, here's some basic things. And okay, we feel we've got it, we present it, it gets agreed to, the king signs it and says, yep, this is the law, you can go ahead and do this. And then suddenly someone walks into court and says, but what about us, you haven't captured it in the law. The law doesn't say. And then they go, oh, oh, we need to change the law. But before they did that, they would say, okay, so in this situation, where the law is recapitulating, what is good conscience? Over you go to the Court of Chancery, over there we will only discuss, not the actual matter, we'll only discuss what would be the right thing to do. What would good conscience be? What is and does it mean to do fairness in this particular case? Once they'd settled that, they would say, okay, well, the right thing to do, the thing to do with good conscience, the fair thing to do is this. So now you can go back to the common law court with your little decision from the court of chancery and say, okay, we now know what the moral thing to do is. Here you go, and now we move on with the case. That was how law was created. That was how it worked. Now, you had the court of conscience, and you had the court of common law. Now, in the Earl of Oxford case from 1615, by then it had become modelled because common law judges knew it was going to go send over to the Court of Chantry and it was going to come back and they thought, oh well, we might as well make up our own rules about what's fair. And it all got modelled. Judges are like that. Lawyers are like that. We can cut a corner, we will. We can speed up a process, we will. So in 1615, in the Earl of Oxford case, it was solidified that the court of chancery is about conscience and the common law, and the court of common law is about legal rules. We separate these things. Now why is that important to know? Because it does merge later, we get to that point. It's because this is where the principles of equity come from. They come from the court of Chancery. People sat for centuries in the court of Chancery and debated what is good conscience. And like any good court, they leaned on everything around them, not just their own thing. They would read Aristotle, they would listen to other countries, they would draw in philosophy, and they would especially draw in the church. What is good conscience? What is good moral? That's what they were discussing. And that is where these principles come from. This is the origin story, if you wanna go Marvel cartoon. So they say equity, the Code of Chancery about conscience, where we get the principles of equity. It exists to correct men's conscience for frauds, breaches of trust, wrongs and oppressions of what nature so ever they be. And they exist to soften or to mollify the extremity of the law. Now the person who wrote this case down, his name was Lord Ellesmere. Just like we have judges, we will say, oh, Judge Canning in the sentence, in this case it just so happened to be Lord Ellesmere. He had many other names, that's another story for another time, but the first part of what he says is the individual person. Now you need to know this because guess what? These principles, and you will see this in the not so distant future, I'll bring me to your constitution. They didn't. In my constitution it says nothing. In the Australian constitution it says nothing. Because you guys are smart. You said, well, we might as well capture it. So we'll get to that. But this is where it comes from. You can then parallel it into your constitution. But you can always backfire to the ground principles of law. So, the first one is about the individual case. It's about we've got two people, they're fighting over something. He might be right, but he's also a crook. This one might also be right about something, but he was also unfair about something. What we have to always go back to is that two wrongs don't make a right, no? Know that saying. When people are not fair, when people are trying to get away with murder, even though it sounds good on the paper, and they might be working in according to the law. The law is about correcting men's conscience. If you are behaving in a fraudulent way, if you have lied to people, breached their trust, if you've done something wrong or you're oppressing someone, it should be corrected by the court. You should not be able to get away with that. It's about the moral standing. We're supposed to do well by each other as citizens. We're not supposed to go around and shoot and steal and lie. If we do that, that's what we have the legal system for. The other one, and we'll get to that as well, it's beautifully written into the Papua New Guinea Constitution. You will hear me say this again and again, and I know that most people don't believe it. They don't believe it. I normally say, which constitution do you think is better, the Papua New Guinea one or the Australian one? And most of you thought up until this day it was probably the Australian one, but guess what and I have tested it now I've been here for almost 10 years and every time someone asked me from the outside to meet the people from the UN and whatever they say So what's the Papua New Guinea legislation like? And I said just read the Papua New Guinea, do yourself a favor Just read the first part of the Papua New Guinea Constitution. Now you know nothing different because you haven't read the constitution from other countries. I come from a constitution that was made in 1845. People weren't that smart in 1845. Let me tell you, they didn't know better in 1845. We didn't have democracy. We were trying to get democracy in 1845, but women couldn't vote. Poor people couldn't vote. So our constitution doesn't capture all the things we know today. When your Founding Fathers were to make the Constitution of Papua New Guinea, they thought, let's look what other people have done, let's look at who we are as a people, and let's make sure we eradicate all the dumb mistakes that we know from other countries. So if they'd gone to Denmark and said, oh, they'd go, oh, yeah, no, we're not doing that, we're not doing that either, that's not working. They looked at every single crisis of Constitution in every single country and said, okay, well, we've got we've got to do something about that no I'm going to say so it is absolutely amazingly beautiful it is like it's the best one of the things that you might be surprised to find how many of you have actually looked at the Australian Constitution knows it has some sort of idea what's in it you don't have to. What would surprise you is, in Australia, they do not have any constitutional freedom rights. None. Freedom of speech, the right to assembly, all of that is not in their constitution. Their constitution is an administrative document only, which is important, but it's how do you get elected to Parliament? How long can you sit in Parliament? What's the criteria to go? How does an election work? How do you become a judge? When can you be sacked as a judge? How long do you sit as a judge? All of those administrative things around public service. But the right to free speech, it's in the underlying law. Now why is that problematic? Why is that not a good thing? Why is it important to have it in the Constitution? What does it take to change the Constitution versus changing a piece of ordinary legislation? It's a lot more difficult to change a Constitution. You need to go through a lot more hoops. It is almost impossible to change a Constitution. The more rights you have in your Constitution, the less likely it is you become a dictatorship. The less likely it is that you can suddenly get majority in parliament to discriminate or oppress minorities. Now, you would think that that is hypothetical in Australia, that they would change the law because they could. But guess what, they've done it in my lifetime and they've done it recently. So at some point, they got really mad at Africans in the Northern Territory around 2010, I think it was, they just suspended the anti-discrimination policy in the Northern Territory. It was only supposed to be for one year, so that they could clean up all those Aboriginal and get them in tow in line and do what they wanted to do so they could take their land and mine on it. Now I'm saying it like that, that was not what they said at the time, but history has shown us that that was in effect what they wanted to do. Now that piece of legislation, anti-discrimination, so basically in that time when it was suspended, you were allowed to be racist towards people because of their colour in the Northern Territory. It only got reinstated two years ago. For 12 years, up until very recently, in Australia, Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory could be discriminated, and were discriminated against, because of their race, colour, and creed. This is our neighbour that wants to tell us what we should be doing in our country. This cannot happen in Papua New Guinea because the right to not be discriminated against because of your color and your ethnicity and your origin isn't stated in the Constitution. You can't suspend the Constitution. You can't suspend the anti-discrimination paragraph of the Constitution, it's impossible. That is in the nature of a Constitution. So it could never happen here, but it happened just across the border because it's not a constitutional right. That is really, really important. It's really, really important because in your world, was that ethical? Was that a good conscience? In my world, it shows us who they are. It shows us what they think about black people, but they wouldn't say that to your face, but they just did it, okay? Know that. Pay attention to that. They won't tell you that that was going on, and if you call them on it and say, actually, what happened with that anti-discrimination thing in the Northern Territories? Oh, yeah, no, but that was just the Northern Territories. That's not all of us, you know? It's just one state. I'm like, yeah, well, you accepted it. For 12 years, you did nothing. No one called anyone on it. Is that good conscience? Is that fairness? In my world, it's not. The second part on the law tells me to soften or to mollify the extremity of the law. When the law is wrong, so let's say our parliament decides is to write a new law that says everyone from, I would say my own family, everyone from KVN, everyone from KVN had to pay double tax and cannot go to school. Just because. It's now a law. Now according to the Constitution, the judiciary has to follow the law. We have to follow the law. But would that be a fair law? No, no, they might have to up there and be here, but we're not gonna try some dog attacks, are we? Because that would not be fair. So if the law, so the first one is about the individual person that comes into the court. The second one is about when the law is wrong. When the law ends up with an unfair assault. And sometimes, in most cases, it's not as blatant as it is in the case, it's not like written into law like they did in Australia. In Australia, the Aboriginal people, if they had this, they could go into court and say, it's unfair, it's not right, we're challenging this. You can do it because it's in your constitution. And then they could take it to court and say, the law is wrong, you need to soften it, you need, right now it's harsh, we're experiencing harsh and oppressive acts, that is in your constitution, we'll get to it, harsh and oppressive acts, you need to soften that up, you need to soften that up, you need to mollify the extremity of the law. So that's the two things that equity can do. It can target the individual person inside when we're talking about a specific case, and it can soften the law when the law ends up being wrong. Now remember, we're in 1615, they're still writing the law. This was really needed. We still use it today, not as often then, They used it all the time, because they were still archaic. Sir so and so, lordship so and so, what you think? Oh, not at all. Let's just put this to start with and see where it goes. What did they do down in Italy? What did the Vatican say? OK, well, the Vatican says this, that, and the other. OK, well, we'll start there. The essence of this inequity, the essence of equity, is, how do we create a perfect system which applies equally to everyone without overlooking the needs of particular individuals? Now remember this is 1615, when they met particular individuals they were not talking about women, no? They were not talking about handicapped people, they were not talking about minors, and that will be interpreted later. We'll talk about what does it mean to be legally able. But how do we create the perfect system which applies equally to everyone or all without overlooking the needs of particular individuals? Now, in its essence what happens to law when we need to do this and this is where you need to pay attention for how you answer your exam questions in every single exam or every single test or every single quiz this actually says it because how do we create a perfect system? Main rule, the main rule is thou shall not kill you're not allowed to kill anybody, but then it needs to, are not overload the needs of particular individuals. Sometimes we have some exceptions. So, main rule, you're not allowed to kill anybody. What's the exception? There is an exception. You'd think that that one was just, if you kill someone, you're out, huh? There is one exception. Do you know what it is? So you can kill people if they were trying to kill you first and it was just self-defense and it was an accident, you had no intent, no? This is the essence of how we get the exceptions. The main rule is that will cover 95% of people and then you've got some exceptions. So the main rule is you're not supposed to drive more than 60 In town, what are the exceptions? You're being chased No, it's not that your pregnant wife is getting birthed But the police will be nice to you if that's the case, no, but it does not say that in the law It doesn't even say medical emergency. It just says if you are otherwise in danger Then you can do that. You will still be charged with the main rule You, speed limit, way out of whack, no? And you will go to court, and then you'll say, yeah, I broke the law, but here are the exceptions. And I believe the exception applies to me. Now, they don't have speed cameras in Papua New Guinea, so good luck in charging you, because they can't prove it. They have nothing to show the evidence other than I saw you. Well, how great you have great you were driving recklessly. All right, prove it The day we get those speed guns in Papua New Guinea I still think well apart from the fact that it's gonna be hard to hold people accountable because where do they live? where do you send the bill to but That's another thing we have to figure out. No, but You could make a lot of money real quick by actually investing in reinforcing traffic legislation in Papua New Guinea. My goodness. It's a small investment with a large return, but we do not want them to do that. We want them to let us drive any which way we please, so we're not going to pursue that. Now, how did we adapt---this is the last thing we'll do today---how did we adapt equity into the Papua New Guinean law. 2.2 in the Papua New Guinean Constitution talks about the underlying law. And it says that in that section we adopted the principle and rules of equity that applied in England. And they say England. They didn't say Australia. They also applied in Australia. But guess what? We are now back to we're no longer colonized by Australia. We are common law country So now we refer back to his good old King Charles and then we say the law that applied in England before Independence Day is now our law when it comes to equity There is one small detail and I said it last time. There are 20 principles of equity. We only apply 12 That does not mean that the remaining eight are not part of our law, it's just no one's ever used them. No one's ever used them. The 12 that we have that we can talk about, that we can solidly say are part of Papua New Guinea law, is only because someone used them in a court case. Now, if you wanted to get your name into a book as a lawyer, be the lawyer that somehow managed to get one of the remaining eight into a court case. Then it was, oh, well, now this one applies because so and so went to court in this particular case, so now this one's valid in Papua New Guinea as well. Don't make it your mission, but this is one way of getting written into history, creating new laws, creating new principles, no? Now we know not only that principles of equity apply, from this particular case, Mount Cairo Holdings v. Akiba from 1992, it also includes, is included even if we have revised the legislation. Because what happened in 1975? Did we change all the laws in 1975? We didn't. We changed the Constitution. But to revise and recreate the entire legal system and every single law that comes with it, that would just have been a nightmare exercise. So we didn't. We kept what we had and then we said whenever we change it from now on whatever was in the past is no longer valid. Remember that part? That's a fundamental principle that you need to know. So any cases before 75, they are still valid if the law hasn't changed. If the law changed, they are now erased and we've got new proceedings, okay? You can't use an old case on a piece of legislation that has changed, because now it's no longer the same. It's logic, it makes sense. If the law changed, that case is on a different set of rules so now it's not the same. You can't say it's the same story they're telling because the law was different then. In 1992, they tried to argue that the principles of equity do not apply because we changed the laws. We changed the law, we got a new constitution, all of those old stupid principles from England, we shouldn't have to deal with them. We got independence in 75, we got new legislation, why does this old crap still apply in our country? And the court said, we need these principles of conscience. Conscience will always remain the same, there's no difference between you and me, there's no difference in the human being, conscience is conscience, what is right is right regardless of where you are. There is no place in this world, on this planet, there is no society anywhere in the world, whether you're in the Amazon forest in Brazil or whether you're in Canada or wherever, there's There's no place on earth where it's all kill to kill. Murder has never been okay in any place, anywhere, and guess what? In most places, they also come up with the exception. Thou shall not kill. Whether they have met a Bible or not, they know not to kill. Human conscience is human conscience. There has never been a place on this earth where it was okay to rape your neighbor. It just doesn't really fly anywhere. as human beings we know what right and wrong is. You're also not allowed to steal. I've never met a society where stealing was okay. Yeah, well, let's go for it. I need a new bowl. I'll go in and get it from the neighbor. It's not okay. Human conscience is human conscience anywhere in the world. Okay? So equity stands, even if the constitution changed. And that was solidified in this particular case. And this is where when someone comes out, oh, Yeah, well it's not an argument, we've had that one, it's gone to court, the court agreed, parliaments agreed, everyone agrees, conscience is conscience and these principles are good principles and we will get into how these principles very, very, very often align with custom. It's very rare they do not align with custom. They also very much align with common law apart from when the law starts to go off into craziness. But very, very often because they're basic principles on how humans behave, they align with customs. I will leave you there, and we will keep going. And as you can tell, I'm very flexible with these notes. That's all right. We'll be fine. We've got plenty of time. Now, it's important for me that you understand that this is the essence of what we're doing. Every single thing we do in this class, every case you get, every exam question you get, it's always boiling down to what is fair. What would be the right thing? All righty. So tomorrow we don't see each other, it's fun day. You go have fun and I'll see you on Monday. All righty.