14 ms·

The British courts have always been nearly as politically supine as the Russian ones. It's the main reason the Tories are obsessed with escaping ECJ jurisdicti

The British courts have always been nearly as politically supine as the Russian ones. It's the main reason the Tories are obsessed with escaping ECJ jurisdiction, since that court doesn't take orders.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Angostura 9y ago
Which aspects of the legal judgement do you disagree with, specifically?
- coldtea 9y ago
  The aspects where it bends over backwards to align with those in power.
  - matthewmacleod 9y ago
    Right, in other words you have no actual argument. Arms sales to Saudi Arabia are awful, in my opinion, but it categorically not for the courts to decide if the are morally good. That’s a political issue.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >Right, in other words you have no actual argument. On the contrary, I have the only meaningful argument (about the actual thing that matters, whether it should be approved or not) -- and the counter-argument put forward is just about the legality (and even that depends on ..."secret documents" not admitted to the public to judge the case). (Not to mention that courts make moral judgements all the time).
      - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
        "the counter-argument put forward is just about the legality" The courts can decide just on the legality. "(Not to mention that courts make moral judgements all the time)." But they shouldn't - their duty and extent of power is only in interpreting the law, not morality. Now if you want to argue that the law should be different, or have some argument on how the arms sales could/should have been judge illegal, go ahead. You could also argue that the UK government should apply pressure on the arms manufacturers to stop selling to Saudi Arabia, by e.g. denying them government contracts, applying closer scrutiny when it comes to export licences, threatening to change the law (as governments so often like to do when it comes to copyright enforcement), and that their failure to do so shows how much influence and corruption the arms manufacturers hold. Influence that could well be considered traitorous, and result in criminal prosecutions. But that's all conjecture.
        TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
        Relevant stories: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/what-connects-brexit-the-dup-dark-money-and-a-saudi-prince-1.3083586 https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/what-connects-brexit-the-... https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/15/bae.armstrade https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/15/bae.armstrade http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/hackers-trace-isis-twitter-accounts-7010417#ICID=sharebar_facebook http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/h...
        coldtea 9y ago
        >The courts can decide just on the legality. Legality is just a way to enforce what we consider wrong and right -- that is, morality. What you describe (they only consider legality) is a bug not a feature -- and a bug that has been exploited many times, from scammers exploiting loopholes, to Jim Crow laws, to the Nuremberg trials. Courts should (and under good judges do) strive to judge based on the spirit of the law (morality) not the letter (legality). (Not that morality here doesn't mean some prudish values as the word is sometimes casually used -- I refer to the general concept of what's moral (justice) vs what's merely permitted (law)).
        9y ago
    - JulianMorrison 9y ago
      The courts have to rule if it's legal. For a number of reasons, including international human rights law, morality does come into legality. (IANAL, and the above is my understanding.)
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > international human rights law Is this law? Or guidance? For example, the universal declaration of human rights (UDHR) is not legally binding [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
  - Angostura 9y ago
    Did you read it? Which part of the reasoning did you disagree with?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
peteretep 9y ago
> The British courts have always been > nearly as politically supine as the > Russian ones. Citation?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Angostura 9y ago

Which aspects of the legal judgement do you disagree with, specifically?

coldtea 9y ago
The aspects where it bends over backwards to align with those in power.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  Right, in other words you have no actual argument. Arms sales to Saudi Arabia are awful, in my opinion, but it categorically not for the courts to decide if the are morally good. That’s a political issue.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Right, in other words you have no actual argument. On the contrary, I have the only meaningful argument (about the actual thing that matters, whether it should be approved or not) -- and the counter-argument put forward is just about the legality (and even that depends on ..."secret documents" not admitted to the public to judge the case). (Not to mention that courts make moral judgements all the time).
    - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
      "the counter-argument put forward is just about the legality" The courts can decide just on the legality. "(Not to mention that courts make moral judgements all the time)." But they shouldn't - their duty and extent of power is only in interpreting the law, not morality. Now if you want to argue that the law should be different, or have some argument on how the arms sales could/should have been judge illegal, go ahead. You could also argue that the UK government should apply pressure on the arms manufacturers to stop selling to Saudi Arabia, by e.g. denying them government contracts, applying closer scrutiny when it comes to export licences, threatening to change the law (as governments so often like to do when it comes to copyright enforcement), and that their failure to do so shows how much influence and corruption the arms manufacturers hold. Influence that could well be considered traitorous, and result in criminal prosecutions. But that's all conjecture.
      - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
        Relevant stories: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/what-connects-brexit-the-dup-dark-money-and-a-saudi-prince-1.3083586 https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/what-connects-brexit-the-... https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/15/bae.armstrade https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/15/bae.armstrade http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/hackers-trace-isis-twitter-accounts-7010417#ICID=sharebar_facebook http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/h...
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >The courts can decide just on the legality. Legality is just a way to enforce what we consider wrong and right -- that is, morality. What you describe (they only consider legality) is a bug not a feature -- and a bug that has been exploited many times, from scammers exploiting loopholes, to Jim Crow laws, to the Nuremberg trials. Courts should (and under good judges do) strive to judge based on the spirit of the law (morality) not the letter (legality). (Not that morality here doesn't mean some prudish values as the word is sometimes casually used -- I refer to the general concept of what's moral (justice) vs what's merely permitted (law)).
        9y ago
  - JulianMorrison 9y ago
    The courts have to rule if it's legal. For a number of reasons, including international human rights law, morality does come into legality. (IANAL, and the above is my understanding.)
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > international human rights law Is this law? Or guidance? For example, the universal declaration of human rights (UDHR) is not legally binding [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
- Angostura 9y ago
  Did you read it? Which part of the reasoning did you disagree with?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

peteretep 9y ago

> The British courts have always been > nearly as politically supine as the > Russian ones. Citation?