LADY HALE, PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT AND FEMINIST ACTIVIST

LADY HALE, PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT AND FEMINIST ACTIVIST

Many lawyers and constitutional commentators have pointed out that Lady Hale, the President of the Supreme Court, who delivered the Judgment in the proroguing of Parliament case, and her colleagues in the Supreme Court, invented a completely new basis on which “Proceedings in Parliament” would be dealt with by the courts.  They completely ignored the legally and constitutionally correctly traditional Judgment of the High Court.  

I thought however that it was worth highlighting Lady Hale’s comments that were reported approvingly in the Sunday Times on September 29^th under the headline of “Take the right partner to be supreme at law” by Nicholas Hellen.  He writes about Lady Hale and her political views from a speech that she made at the launch of “Cambridge Women in Law” in which he says that she “spent an hour dispensing her thoughts on how women can succeed in the male dominated world of the judiciary”. 

The article reports Lady Hale as saying:- “When I came to Cambridge, I knew it was a privilege.  I bet every woman in this room knew it was a privilege to be here.  But I was surrounded by men who thought they were entitled to be here.  And that is one of the things that we still have to go on fighting against.  The male sense of entitlement.”

She spoke of loosening the grip of the “quadrangle-to-quadrangle-to-quadrangle boys”.  A reference to a man who goes from a public school to Oxbridge and then to the Inns of Court “we haven’t got the history of people of our sex doing the job for generation after generation”, she told the audience. 

Hale said:- “Feminism is believing in equality, equality for women and the validity of women’s experiences.  That is how I define feminism. 

Men can be feminists too and there are lots of them and there are loads of women who aren’t.  Those are probably the people that we most have to contend with rather than men because they are in many ways the real problem rather than men.”

She also spoke of sometimes lacking in confidence, and talked of how Gina Miller, the businesswoman and campaigner who brought the case to the Supreme Court, dressed to help give her the confidence to fend off “people’s bigoted assumptions”. 

Hale suggested that this was a metaphor, “throwing light on this problem that women generally lack confidence”. 

The article finishes by saying that Lady Hale has asked Mary Arden, who has joined the Supreme Court:- “I have asked her please, please when I retire, would she keep up the good work”. 

Whatever you think of Lady Hale’s views, the one certainty it seems to me is that she is demonstrating yet again where on the spectrum her political values come from.  So she is vividly demonstrating that the Blairite creation of the Supreme Court has worked well from its creator’s point of view in entrenching Blairism into the Constitution.  It also vividly demonstrates the general effectiveness of the Left’s “Long March through the Institutions”. 

What do you think? 

CLEARING THE WEEDS IN THE POLITICAL GARDEN

CLEARING THE WEEDS IN THE POLITICAL GARDEN

As any gardener knows, the first thing you have got to do in sorting out a flower bed that has become choked with weeds is to remove all the weeds and cut out any of the dead flowers etc. in order to make it worthwhile digging in your fertilizer or compost and planting your new plants.

This is the sort of stage that we have reached with our Parliament, which is now stuffed, in both the Commons and the Lords, with people who are not merely unpatriotic, but are actually anti-patriotic and are hostile to the very idea of our Nation.  They are Internationalists and Multiculturalists. 

For our national politics to flourish we need to see such weeds removed from our political flowerbed and also all the deadwood and old decayed plants as well, so that we can have a fresh and more honest and a patriotic revival!

In this sense it is welcome to see that Boris Johnson’s Government has had the guts to withdraw the Whip from all those Conservative MPs that betrayed the trust that had been placed in them by voting against Boris Johnson this week.

Even better was seeing Amber Rudd resign form Cabinet and the Conservative Party in response. She is the classic career-minded entryist who, in ideological terms, is a Liberal Democrat Remainer, Multiculturalist, Globalist, but could see that her career prospects would be better if she badged up as a Conservative.

These people were all elected on the ticket of implementing Brexit and, as ‘Conservatives’ were expected to be loyal, not only to their manifesto mandate, the country, but also to their Party Leader.  They proved disloyal on all counts.  They have no place to be remaining in our Parliament and it will be good to have them all thrown out of Parliament come the next General Election.

As for those who have crossed the floor to join other parties, they have gone fully beyond the pale and so will have to stand or fall come the next General Election with their new party rosettes on.  Let’s see what their local electorates make of them then!  I suspect none of them will be re-elected.

Less visibly, our Left-wing biased media has been more coy about reporting the movement of Labour MPs to the Liberal Democrats.  The latest one being Luciana Berger. 

Looked at from the point of view of purging our politics of the corrupt old ideologically meaningless “broad church” Establishment parties of Labour and the Conservatives, both of these developments are to be welcomed.   

We need to move to a politics where its voters can rely upon a party label to tell us much of what is in the political tin, as we would expect to be able to do if we were buying tinned food.  

If an ordinary trader made a business out of putting labels of baked beans on tins of peas, they could expect to be prosecuted under the Trades Description Act.  We urgently need something similar with our politicians to enable us to hold them to account if they fail to deliver on what they promised when they were standing for election.

I notice that those MPs that betrayed their electorates often talk about Edmund Burke’s idea that he was “a representative” of his electorate rather than his electorates “delegate”.  It is however worth remembering that, despite that explanation sounding quite grand, in fact at the next election, when he had proved himself to be unwilling to do what his electorate wanted him to do, he lost his seat! And quite right too! 

We need to move away from the bogus pretences of so-called “Liberal Democracy”, where undemocratic elites hide behind the pretence of democracy.  I think that we need to move instead to a proper functioning “Popular Democracy” where politicians are expected to live up to focussing on doing what is needed to be done to deliver the Will of the People. 

What do you think?

IS THE REMAINER CASE BROUGHT IN SCOTLAND LEGALLY VALID IN ENGLAND?

IS THE REMAINER CASE BROUGHT IN SCOTLAND LEGALLY VALID IN ENGLAND?

I should start by saying that I am an English Solicitor and not a Scottish one. 

Scotland has a very different legal system to England. Theirs is based upon Roman Law and not on English Common Law.  I am therefore not qualified to answer this important question as a lawyer – with regard to what approach the Scottish courts will take.

However I would say that the Act of Union 1707 is key to understanding which court has the best claim to jurisdiction over our Parliament.  Have a look here (especially at Article 22) >>> http://rahbarnes.co.uk/union/union-of-1707/union-with-scotland-act-1706/

Then I would suggest also having a look at the Judgment in the Gina Miller case where the  Supreme Court refers to the appeals from Scotland, Wales and from Northern Ireland (in paragraphs 126 to 151) >>> https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf

The combined result of these legal authorities is that the Parliament of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” which was created by the Act of Union 1707 is one in which the Scottish Parliament was merged into the English Parliament.  The (British) Parliament then continued on the same English constitutional basis as before.  Thus it is English constitutional practice which is the applicable constitutional law and not the ancient Scottish one.

This is also made very clear by the whole basis of the rest of the Gina Miller Judgment in which the Supreme Court relied heavily on pre-Union exclusively English legal precedents to explain and to analyse how the (British!) constitution works. 

So I would expect the challenge to Boris Johnson to fail in the Scottish courts to the extent that there is any attempt to rely on Scottish constitutional law.  If it does not fail there then it should fail in the Supreme Court. 

An additional legalistic reason why this case should fail is that it is seeking a declaration on something that at the moment is merely theoretical (or ‘moot’) and is not challenging an actual decision that has been taken.