Whilst the rhetoric of democratic governments everywhere espouse those rights to freedom from oppression and the right to chose, very few offer that right to chose or the right to be free from oppression where the state is concerned.

The consequence is that, whilst breaches of the criminal law necessitates access to 'free', albeit lower quality justice and legal protection, it is the only area where the state often intervenes to afford that token protection to individuals.

In the civil law the structure is such that it provides 'rich pickings' for the already rich, where there is no 'legal aid' unlike that for breaches of the criminal law. Often in the application and operation of the civil law, a commoner's right to criticize, to speak freely is fettered by the threat of litigation in defamation and punitive sanctions in damages for which there is no legal aid and therefore the right to defend.

The result is that the fundamental right to free speech and freedom of expression, a cornerstone of any civilized society is fettered for most and the prerogative of the rich and powerful.

With the birth of Law on Order comes freedom of choice and the right to make those decisions free of the chain and fetter of costs. Lawyers are by and large an expensive commodity for many to engage in exercise of their 'rights' in a free society. Lawyers cost money, a commodity the people who most need their services can ill afford.