ANTI-ENGLISHNESS AT THE HEART OF JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS?

ANTI-ENGLISHNESS AT THE HEART OF JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS?

 

It has been reported that the Judicial Appointments Commission intends to discriminate in favour of probably a female and probably a non-sexually orthodox candidate in the selection for the next “Justice” of the “Supreme Court”.

 

This in a court in which few of any of the sitting “Justices” are ethnically or in national identity terms “White English”, which is in sharp contrast to the general population of the “United Kingdom” in which those identifying as “White English” are over 60% and are therefore the ethnic group that is truly inadequately “represented in the Supreme Court”!

 

Here is our letter:-

 

Dear Sir

 

Re:  Freedom of Information Act Request

 

The English Lobby is a ‘Not for Profit’ Company whose purpose is to campaign for the rights of the English. 

 

We have noted the publicity regarding the intention to appoint a new “Justice” to the “Supreme Court”.  It is said that you intend to “positively discriminate”.  Under the Equality Act 2010 such “positive discrimination” is only legal when you have done the requisite diversity survey and analysis which seems to justify such an otherwise illegal and discriminatory action. 

 

In the circumstances we write to request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of all the information (including the formatting data), the survey and, in particular, we expect to see included in the survey the percentage of white English Justices. 

 

In view of the fact that the 2011 Census showed 60.4% “White English” and not “British” responses and for you to discriminate against “White English” applicants you have to have more than 60.4% of the Justices identifying as “White English” and not “British”.  We therefore want to see whether you have done that analysis and if you have not done the analysis we also request disclosure of any reasons why not.

 

For the avoidance of doubt we would say that our perception is that very few, if any, of the current Justices are “White English” and we therefore also seek disclosure of the Ethnicity and National Identity of each of the Justices currently sitting.

 

To recap we are asking for the following:-

 

1.       A copy of the survey, and in particular the percentage of “White English” Justices;

2.       Disclosure of any reasons for not analysing the “White English” percentage;

3.       Disclosure of Ethnicity and National Identity of each of the Justices currently sitting.

 

We confirm that copies of all documents will answer our request for the above “information”.

 

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act we request that you provide this information within the next 35 days and unless we hear from you to the contrary within the next 7 days, we would indicate that we expect the information to be provided without charge. 

 

Naturally if there is non-compliance with this request, we shall be making an Application for an Order coupled with sanctions to be made by the Information Commissioner.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Here a link to an article writing about this >>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/01/supreme-court-try-boost-diversity-resignation-leaves-one-woman/

 

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? 

The purpose of the creation of the 'Supreme Court' was to entrench Blairism into the Constitution

So now we have had the decision of the “Supreme Court” on Boris Johnson’s proroguing of Parliament.  In which, on very thin grounds, the Supreme Court has dismissed one of the key provisions in our Constitution.  

This is Article 9 in the Bill of Rights which says as follows (the significant bits of which I have underlined):-

“Bill of Rights1688 CHAPTER 2 1 William and Mary Session 2:-

".....That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament...."

To understand why the “Supreme Court” has ruled in this way it is necessary to consider its purpose. 

The purpose behind the creation of both the Judicial Appointments Commission & Supreme Court was to entrench Blairism into the UK’s Constitution.

The members of the Supreme Court are of course also appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission which was specifically and openly set up by Tony Blair and his friend Lord Irvine, his Lord Chancellor, to, as Lord Irvine, put it to “ensure that nobody with Reactionary Views can be appointed or promoted” as a Judge. 

In order to achieve this, the Judicial Appointments Commission has made it clear that, in order to get appointed or promoted as a Judge, you must “demonstrate a life time’s commitment to Equality and Diversity”.  This of course means that every appointment is likely to be of a Left-wing, Multiculturalist, Internationalist, Europhile.

It was as part of this drive that the now Lord Justice Hickinbottom when he was the “Judicial Lead for Diversity” gleefully told the solicitors Law Society Gazette that he suggested “Creating a judicial career fast-track (to) help improve diversity on the bench”

Ever since 2004 the Judicial Appointments Commission has continued to appoint and to promote wherever possible only those who are multi-culturalist activists.

The effect of this can easily be seen if you look at the backgrounds of the eleven Supreme Court “Justices”, as reported in The Slog, as follows:-

“Lady Brenda Hale (Chair) is a lifetime academic and former Law Professor who went straight into being a Judge with no history in commercial law at all. She is a feminist, a great believer in diversity, and a lifelong liberal. I would be amazed if she voted any other way than Remain.

Lord Robert Reed (Deputy) is a Scot who also sits on the EU’s European Court of Human Rights. He was an expert advisor to the EU/Council of Europe Joint Initiative with Turkey. No prizes for guessing where Rabbie’s sympathies lie.

Lord Brian Kerr is the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and the first Catholic ever appointed to that post. In 2014, he had this to say in a lengthy interview:

“The Law has changed enormously since the enactment of the Human Rights Act. The central point about the Act is that it has given judges free access to the rich vein of jurisprudence that is provided by the Strasbourg Court…..we now have the ability to draw on jurisprudence from all over the Council of Europe on matters that critically affect the balance of power between the citizen and the state and I think that that can only be a good thing.”

Draw your own conclusions.

Lord Nicholas Wilson is left of centre and on the record as saying, ““In pursuit of its economic policy, the UK government has recently felt the need to dismantle much of our welfare state, namely social security and the National Health Service.” He is a passionate supporter of the ECHR in Strasbourg. The activist site Divorce & the City is currently preparing to impeach Lord Wilson for alleged corruption and ‘pro State’ bias. He is, reputedly, not a fan of Boris Johnson or Brexit.

Lord Robert Carnwath is an unknown quantity who appears never to have expressed an opinion about anything, except he sits on the advisory council of the English School in Poland.

Lord Patrick Hodge is another Scot. He was a civil servant in the 1970s, and then Counsel to the Department of Energy from 1989 to 1991, and to the Inland Revenue from 1991 to 1996. Ergo, chummy with the unelected State, 99.99% of whom are anti-Brexit. I’d imagine he’s also a wow at parties.

Lady Jill Black is unique in the Supreme Court in not having been to Oxbridge. You can see from this just how inclusive the Court is, and thus totally in touch with the average person.

Lord David Lloyd-Jones is another scholar who wound up a judge. He was a Fellow of Downing College, Cambridge from 1975 to 1991. From 1999 to 2005, he was a visiting professor at City University, London, and was then put onto The Bench. He has always specialised in international  and EU law. Only two months ago, in a Supreme Court hearing involving Kuoni Travel, Lloyd-Jones ruled that EU Law had primacy in the case. He gave the judgement in Welsh, which was a first. Highly unlikely to have voted to leave a Union in whose law he specialises, one could reasonably argue.

Lady Mary Arden became a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in 2011, and sits as a judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg blah blah yawn etc. In 2015 she published a book about the impact of the EU and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on the domestic law of the UK. In his preface to the book, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales noted:

Not a Leaver then, we suspect. This is all getting terribly predictable, isn’t it?

Lord David Kitchin coxed the team that won the 1975 Boat Race for Cambridge. More pertinently, he has for many years been a strong advocate of more harmonisation of the Law between EU jurisdictions. In May this year, he gave an interview offering the following opinion in relation to patent law, in which he is a specialist:

“The situation is improving and that is because there is now much more discussion and communication between judges in different countries. Judges now meet regularly to discuss these and other difficult issues. We consider each other’s judgments; all of us attach importance to the decisions of the Technical Boards of Appeal and the Enlarged Boards of Appeal at the European Patent Convention….there might not be jurisdiction to make references to the EU Court of Justice in these cases, or any cases after Brexit.”

And so this would be a bad thing, wouldn’t i? Get real: Lord Kitchin is a Good European who lectures about legal alignment in the EU.

Lord Philip Sales really is a case of leaving the best until last. Sales has had something of a meteoric rise: he is the youngest of the Supreme Court judges, and was a practising barrister at 11 King’s Bench Walk – according to The Guardian ‘a network of old boys and cronies’ that enabled him to be appointed First Counsel at the Treasury…a department of State with a long and grubby history of undying support for the EU. The recommendation that he be appointed came from Lord Irvine and Tony Blair’s old chambers.

Philip Sales is New Labour through and through. In 2016, he was a member of the Court of Appeal which ruled that 130,000 Labour members who joined the party after 12 January 2016 would not be able to vote in the leadership contest. This overruled the previous High Court decision to allow the 130,000 disenfranchised Labour Party members to vote in the 2016 Labour Party leadership election. In short, it was a bid by the Blairites to keep Corbyn out.

Finally, he was one of the three judges forming the High Court in proceedings concerning the use of the royal prerogative for the issue of notification in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. His role in this judgment meant that he appeared in an infamous front-cover of the Daily Mail  – Enemies of the People – as a solid-gold Remainer.”

(The original of this useful article can be found here >>> https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/exclusive-why-this-supreme-court-was-never-going-to-find-bojos-proroguation-legal/ )

It is also being said that many of the 11 “Justices” are in receipt of salaries from the EU.  If true then this is a very serious scandal!

I have noticed that Jacob Rees-Mogg and other Conservatives are grumbling about the decision of the Supreme Court, but they have only their own Party to blame! 

It's no use Conservative MPs now complaining about the same europhile multiculturalists whom their Party had appointed to the Supreme Court making Europhile Multiculturalist decisions.

The Conservatives have had nearly 10 years in power to change the Judicial Appointments system but they have chosen not to do so!