Sanity fights back
I am in a state of shock. The President of the Supreme Court, Lord Phillips, has said something sensible! The Court has ruled that that British troops are not protected by human rights law on the battlefield.
The Court had been asked to decide if British military personnel, who are already covered by the Human Rights Act while on bases abroad, were also protected when they set foot outside the camp gates. Two lower courts had decided they were thus protected, a mad decision which would have all but paralysed the conduct of warfare.
But now by a six to three majority the highest levels of the judiciary, which hitherto have wielded ‘human rights’ as a judicial battering ram against western civilisation, have for once upheld the latter against the former.
Is this a mirage?
Maybe not, since there have been other recent signs that the judges may be emerging from their civilisational trance. The (always sensible) Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge has suggested that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is threatening to ‘assume an unspoken priority over common law’ and called upon English judges to rely on English common law precedents instead of always looking to Europe for guidance.
The Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger has warned foreign judges to show a ‘more acute appreciation’ of the independence of Britain’s legal systems. And even the very radical former Law Lord, Lord Hoffmann, has accused the Strasbourg court of seeking to impose uniform laws across all Europe.
Have the wigs finally twigged that they have been helping to shove the UK over the cliff?
Meanwhile folk who, unlike the higher English judiciary, can generally be relied upon to have their feet firmly on the ground have been continuing to shore up the defences. The influential Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home has an extremely sharply worded and astute piece in the Times today, warning of the potentially dire consequences for the Tories of their Faustian pact with the LibDems. Since the Times now charges for on-line access, you can read Tim’s own summary of his arguments here (including a paragraph that was cut from the Times). Here’s an extract from the published piece:
Some in the Conservative leader’s circle believe that it is better for the British Government to have a combined House of Commons majority of 70 than have a Tory Prime Minister, elected with a wafer-thin majority, held to ransom by a few nutcase backbenchers arguing for irresponsible cuts in taxes. (Nutcase is their description, not mine.)
The coalitionists’ arguments only hold water in the short run. We cannot be certain that the Liberal Democrats’ left wing will eventually kill off the coalition but we do know that Conservative MPs—however nutty —would never vote against their government in a motion of confidence. So Mr Cameron has been forced to trade the security of a full Parliament in office for the short-term convenience of being able to ignore his backbench awkward squad. Just as his austerity programme is at its least popular he risks paying the ultimate price of his failure to win an outright majority—being voted out of office.
The architects of the woeful Tory election campaign may be genuine in their Damascene conversion to coalition government but it is also extremely convenient for them. They have not had to face up to the fact that they added a measly 3 per cent to the Tory share of the national vote at a time when Labour was led by an extraordinarily unpopular leader and when the economy was at its weakest for a generation. Thirty-seven Tory MPs and peers may have lost the opportunity to move from the opposition frontbenches to ministerial office, but every one of David Cameron’s principal advisers has followed him into Downing Street.
Tory activists and donors deserve a full inquest into why Conservative HQ lost the unlosable election and the opportunity to govern against a divided opposition—the dream political situation that helped Margaret Thatcher to secure re-election in 1983 and 1987. The lessons need to be learnt and absorbed. They may need to be applied long before 2015 if, as is likely, this coalition is sunk by the enormous pressures that lie ahead.
Next up in the defence-of-civilisation trenches is an extremely flattering review of my new book by Chas Newkey-Burden. Chas, a doughty defender of Israel and thus of truth and decency, has also written a touching and heartfelt explanation here of why he feels so passionately about Israel and the anti-Jewish feeling that has so deformed the western world.
And finally, to help cheer us all up here is a sign that New York City gets it.
Sanity is fighting back.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (14)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
1 Ignore the European Court and deport Abu Qatada tonight - Douglas Murray
2 The danger for the Lib Dems - James Forsyth
3 We must be honest about honour killings - William Maxwell
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power', published by Encounter.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
THE PRESENT FINDER
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
RUFFS Bespoke Signet rings
62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
EDDIE
June 30th, 2010 5:57pmJust you Wait till the European Court of Human Rights hears of all this
Edward Beaman-Hodgkiss
June 30th, 2010 6:11pmI hope I might be given permission to share another essay based on a passionate defence of Israel. It was written a few years ago but is as relevant as ever.
http://politicsandpoetry.com/2009/01/why-i-strongly-support-israel/
Edward McLaughlin
June 30th, 2010 6:51pmPerhaps - but let's not presume - their Lordships have begun to twig the fact that we have now long passed the stage at which such PC insidiousness dissembles only the lives of the lower orders; and have entered the further stage which encroaches upon their own charmed existence.
Leo
June 30th, 2010 7:45pmAt last a posting on the British Establishment’s leading disgrace i.e. Lord Phillips!! Now President of Britain’s half-baked Supreme Court etc, etc…
It can be argued that Britain has no written constitution and therefore has no safeguards to deal with threats of the potential step-by-step insinuation of Sharia Law into Britain, which is incompatible with British notions of sovereignty, fairness, equal treatment of non-Muslims, women and gays.
It can be argued that this is due to common law, which lets judges effectively legislate and create "case law". This is simply undemocratic. A judge has no mandate to legislate. Furthermore the non-existing constitution or constitutional court means that fundamental human rights are not necessarily.
This situation can be contrasted with the USA. Arguably, in the USA this situation can never happen because America has a constitution (which neither affirms or rejects Sharia) and that America has no system of common law.
Whilst I am no expert on the American Legal System, I can’t help wondering if that is really true. Firstly, regarding the controversy surrounding abortion, Americans constantly refer to Supreme Court Decision, Roe v Wade. If that isn’t Common Law, i.e. legislation created by judges, then what is, please tell me? I understood that the American Law Association makes an annual pilgrimage to Runnymede (where the Magna Carter was signed.) The American Legal System shares some common roots with the British.
Can anyone help me out here? Even under the American Constitution, judges legislate from the bar i.e. Common Law.
Is this not right?
gareth
June 30th, 2010 8:16pmLet's hope so!
Mel - do you ever think 'have I changed or has the world changed?'
It's hard to be objective about MY subjectivity.......but when you look at how easy an old-style slick corruptocrat like Obama, who took record breaking donations from GoldmanSachs, GE, BigOil etc... (far far in excess of all the republicans) to move forward the corporatist agenda of Regulation, Regulation, Regulation (which effectively kills smaller companies/competition off) and so create a more pliant feudal/unionized workforce - for the big corporate fatcats.....its worrying. When the media goes the next step and actually generates an image of an honest outsider to politics - whose political career was financed by small donations from ordinary folks and who intends to bring change.....it's frightening.
If you think 20 years ago we had Maggie and Ronnie vindicating in a most complete style old-fashioned values and sound economics - and look at the easy, easy, easy slide into the vaguely Orwellian world of spin,lies corruption and trillions of debt - the future may well imperceptibly change once more into something more akin to science fiction.
The demonization of Israel is almost science fiction to me at least - you couldn't make it up!!
But I am a sceptic - and the quality of some journalists and writings these days - like you for instance Mel - is stunning and reminds me of eternal values and better times - that may come - and it would be a sin indeed to give up hope.
Tiberius
June 30th, 2010 9:16pmLike many who dislike the Cameroon Tories, Tim Montgomery clings to the notion that there was a lever waiting to be pulled, which would have delivered a Tory majority government. The accusation is that the Tories' campaign was incompetent because they failed to find that lever when it was right in front of their noses.
There was no such thing. The rules of engagement governing the 2010 general election made the campaign a battle of incremental gains which could have delivered a majority, but which was always unlikely.
The required UNS; the political scene in Scotland; the number of voters who clung on to Labour as the party which would deliver another five-year long duvet day, all conspired (with other events) to deny the Tories a majority.
Equally fallacious is the charge by some that the Tories "blew" a 15 point lead (or 20 or 25 depending on how much they wish to exaggerate the size). Let us not forget that mid-term dissatisfaction with New Labour even gave William Hague a lead at the time of the fuel blockade, a lead which evaporated well before the election.
In this week's magazine, James Forsyth has provided an analysis of where the Tories should go in 2015. George Osborne's capabilities really should be recognized by Tim. His failure to comprehend the circumstances of the 2010 general election campaign is mystifying.
John Holland
June 30th, 2010 9:45pmGareth- you're so right about the corrupt Obama taking the Big Corporate Buck. The contrast with the Republicans, who have to get by solely on the meagre contributions of poor old ladies who work in hardware stores in the mid-west and pennies found in the dirt by idealistic orphans couldn't be more stark.
I've just donated my family's weekly food budget to the poor folk down at the Ol' Republican shack and I've offered to hand draw some bill stickers for next election.
Miranda Rose Smith
July 1st, 2010 7:36amTwo lower courts had decided they were thus protected, a mad decision which would have all but paralysed the conduct of warfare.
I don't understand. If the BRITISH troops are protected by the Human Rights Act, isn't that a ruling on the conduct of the
AFGHANIS? Nobody expects the Afghanis to care or listen!!!!
Hayward
July 1st, 2010 1:44pmGareth,
"...Ronnie vindicating in a most complete style old-fashioned values and sound economics "
In regard to the fiscal legacy of Ronald Reagan. "The Gipper", shortly after taking office, lamented "runaway deficits" that were then approaching $80 billion, or about 2.5 percent of gross domestic product.
Within only two years, however, his policies had succeeded in enlarging the deficit to more than $200 billion, or 6 percent of GDP. In fact under the "fiscally responsible" I think the term "fiscally laughable" Republicans more apt, from when Reagan took office, the national debt stood at $995 billion and by the end of Bush1’s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion.
Reagan was a “B” grade movie actor, a probably senile President, but he was a sheer genius at rewarding his friends by saddling other people with debts.
Michael White
July 1st, 2010 1:52pmIf this is what happens when judicial authority is passed from the House of Lords, long may it continue!
Michael White
July 1st, 2010 2:01pmYou mean to say that soldiers will not have the right to freedom of expression, nor the right to start a family, nor the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property whilst on a battlefield - whatever next?
George
July 2nd, 2010 3:58amAnd then you read about the directions of Judge George Bathurst-Norman to a jury who then cleared activists of breaking into a factory because they were preventing a more serious crime - Israeli "war crimes" in Gaza - and you realize that all is still not well in the British judiciary.
For more details: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/30/activists-arms-factory-acquitted
stephen maybery
July 2nd, 2010 1:29pmTo do anything to encounter this continuous encroachment from Europe would require something called guts. This is word our lords and masters can not spell, let alone it being a concept they could understand, for if they did our nation would not be slowly sinking under an avalanche of EU generated legalistic bumpf, and our troops would not be sacrificing their lives in Afgahistan in defence of American interests.
Winnie McCrann
July 3rd, 2010 11:30amIt's a great review. Plus reading these kind of things and the comments following them often gives great links to people who are speaking up for Israel or, like me, at last waking up to the issue (thanks to you, in my case, Melanie). I have been meaning to buy Londonistan for a while now, but have decided to buy The World Turned Upside Down First. Today in fact. I can't wait to read it.
Many thanks Melanie, as always. you have a great gift and you use it well, and courageously.
Incidentally Melanie posted something recently, I'm sure (?) on the relationship between Israel and the Bible and how you can't really separate the two. I very much wanted to read this again and haven't been able to find it. If anyone here could help me out, point me to it, I would be very grateful. Thank you.