This woman is the British Prime Minister’s wife, and she is a fool. And here’s why:
Now we need judges more than everReally, Cherie? Well, I guess that all depends on how much damage has been done to the institution itself, in the face of ludicrous appointment after ludicrous appointment; political creatures with more experience agitating than deliberating; equal idiots with little knowledge and/or appreciation for age-old fabrics of law, but a very solid grounding in the mechanism of the apparatchik and the group-think collective.
In the face of terror, they are the guardians of democracy itself
Nowhere has the importance of independent judges policing a constitution of principle become clearer than in the context of the threat and reality of terrorism.The ‘constitution of principle’? What the HELL does that mean?
I say this in the month that London experienced a series of bomb blasts, killing and maiming many innocent civilians. . .At the same time, it is all too easy to respond in a way that undermines commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions and cheapens our right to call ourselves a civilised nation.A civilised nation? Of that there is absolutely no doubt. So, I wonder what you could possibly be leading up to, Cherie?
The choice of options in response belongs to the executive or legislature. But these are not unbridled. As the president of Israel's supreme court put it: "The court's role is to ensure the constitutionality and legality of the fight against terrorism. It must ensure that the war against terrorism is conducted within the framework of the law."It most certainly does. The question is, what law? Laws we already have on our books? Laws that govern, for example, acts of high treason? Oh, ho, but no – I’m sure you can’t be talking about that kind of law, can you, you blithering fucknozzle. Of course – silly me – that’s where the ‘constitution of principle’ comes in, doesn’t it. That’s the little circuit breaker that ensures we can’t do a damn thing to defend ourselves or our way of life.
An obvious conflict arises between the need for national security and human rights.There ya’ go. Knew she’d hit that button sooner or later, didn’t we.
Recently the House of Lords has grappled with this conflict when faced with a challenge to indefinite detention of foreigners at Belmarsh prison under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001. The house ruled that such detention was a breach of the European convention on human rights - a landmark decision described by Lady Justice Arden as a "powerful statement by the highest court in the land of what it means to live in a society where the executive is subject to the rule of law".Thanks so much. Doesn’t sound to me like they had much ‘grappling’ to do at all – they simply sold us out. What a wonderful legacy from the Eurabians. So, what would have been the case, for example, only some sixty years ago, here in Australia, with the detention, indefinitely, of some 25,000 persons representing a potential risk to our society? Answer? Simple. Let them all go. Set them all free. How could we possibly do such a dreadful thing (while fighting for our lives). They must be allowed the opportunity to wreak havoc before we can act. It’s only fair. . . It’s only just. . . It’s only democratic. . .
The public reaction to this decision has not been uniformly favourable.You got that right.
What the case demonstrates is the potential for judges to educate the public about the real meaning of democracy.Is this woman serious? The ‘potential for judges to educate the public’? ‘Educate’ in what way, Cherie? Educate us in ways of taking it up the back passage? And the ‘real meaning of democracy’? What’s that, pray tell? That we must sit back while deadly dangers threaten us, and do nothing? Of course, casting back a moment, we can all hear this moronic mindset, bleating at the gates while all those poor, unfortunate Nazi and Fascisti internees were locked up. An appalling breach of their human rights? Yes – it’s a small step to take. Because this is exactly what this tosser would have been shrieking.
With every contentious matter that constitutional courts hear, judges have to grapple with opinions held by the public and to respond in a way that teaches citizens and government about the ethical responsibilities of being participants in a true democracy. This is so even when - one might say particularly when - a nation is confronted by the threat of terrorism.There’s that word again: ‘constitutional’. And ‘ethical responsibilities’? Like the responsibility our law makers and law enforcers have to keep our community safe from internal threat to the very fabric of our being? Precisely the reason why laws such as treason were enacted in the first place? Nah – that’s not what she’s talking about.
In the Belmarsh case, Lord Bingham addressed this issue powerfully: "I do not accept the distinction which [the attorney general] drew between democratic institutions and the courts. It is of course true that the judges ... are not elected and are not answerable to parliament ... But the function of independent judges charged to interpret and apply the law is universally recognised as a cardinal feature of the modern democratic state, a cornerstone of the rule of law..."They’re quite right, of course. The question is, however, what happens when they elect to pick and choose which law they will apply (and on what basis), which ethics they will uphold? Are we actually talking about the Law here? Or are we really jabbering on about ‘constitutional principle’ (whatever that really means on planet Moonbat)?
The democratic potential of constitutional courts lies not only in their role as guardians of the weakest, poorest and most marginalised members of society against majoritarian politics.Oh – you mean what the rest of us want? Ignoring that, ‘democracy’ is effectively undone, then, isn’t it? So what the hell are you blathering on about? Rule for the minority over the majority? That’s democracy?
It also lies in the judges' vital role as teachers in a national seminar on meaningful, inclusive democracy in the 21st century. In these troubled times, where terrorism, division and suspicion are the order of the day, this role is perhaps more vital than ever.‘Meaningful, inclusive democracy’? Ahhh – the new catch-cry. Roughly interpreted, it’s read as: sorry, you can’t act on the most outrageous, culturally/ideologically-based behaviour, except within the strictures of the most basic of criminal law. Strictures of apprehension, arrest, detention and rules of evidence that operate in the face of relatively minor, one-off acts, and that largely proscribe pre-emption. So what of treason, then? If we are talking about law and its framework, why is that particular framework being so carefully left out of the equation?
We know damned well why. And if anyone is still unsure about what Cherie the moron is beating on about, she tells us now:
Sometimes democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its back. Preserving the rule of law and recognition of individual liberties constitutes an important component of its understanding of security.Wrong! That only works when respect for that ‘rule of law’ largely cuts both ways, when the societal pact is adhered to, when the organs of enforcement confront the kind of domestic criminality that challenges the law of property (for example) rather than the wholesale freedoms and rights of the community at large – its very survival, in fact. When faced, as we are now, with a far greater ideological threat that utterly rejects our ‘rule of law’, which seeks to destroy those larger individual liberties, those freedoms and rights, then the response should be simple: all bets are off.
And that’s exactly why the laws of treason exist. And the fact that these laws do exist? That we can act within the framework of our law? Well, that’s precisely why they’re pretending they don’t and we can’t.
And if you thought she couldn’t sound more stupid and duplicitous than she already does, her finale doesn’t let us down:
Our institutions are under threat; our commitments to our deepest values are under pressure; our acceptance of difference is at a low point.So, ‘. . .our acceptance of difference is at a low point’ is it? And what differences is she referring to, I wonder, and that we aren’t accepting so well? Not differences in fundamental respect for concepts like – well – human rights, womens’ rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and thought, to name but a few? The very things this unbelievable cretin is banging on about?
Well at least she’s got something right. We don’t respect that ‘difference’. And neither should the ‘judges’ nor she.
At this time our understanding of the importance of judges in a human-rights age should be at its clearest. And it is at this time that our support for the difficult task that judges have to perform must be at its highest.The ‘useful idiots’ at work, yet again. I’m not sure I know which I find the more terrifying: that these mindsets abound, or that this one in particular has the ear of the British Prime Minister.
The real question is, though, will they, this time, finally manage to bring us down?