Sunday, December 11, 2005

Can't Think Of A Better Word

It’s a while since the Anglican Church was the Tory Party at prayer, but the Law Lords will always be the Lib Dems in fancy dress. Consider the latest bizarre effusion from the bewigged fools. There is a serious debate to be had over the use of torture in time of war, but – contra the MSM – this ruling isn’t about actual torture, so much as potential, possible, theoretical torture.

In establishing that the government must prove that suspects weren’t tortured (or, as I like to think about it, the ‘prove I’m not Judy, Crown Prince of the Miceoids of Pra’tas 5' principle) the judiciary have handed over a blank cheque to the enemy. There’s the obvious logical point that it is impossible to prove a negative, but there are also specific grounds for being suspicious of this ruling. Their Lordships don’t define which countries we can accept evidence from. In fact, they don’t even define torture. – an important consideration in light of the L3’s constant efforts to define torture down. Few people outside the Kool Aid drinking classes would consider this torture.

It’s a good rule of thumb that when the L3 are getting misty-eyed about tradition then they’re up to something. As it happens, their talk of 500 year old traditions can’t possibly be true (Guy Fawkes and all that). Come to think of it, just last month one of their house organs was assuring us that Nazis were tortured by Her Majesty’s Government. Must have slipped their mind. No, the reason why these people are – for the first time in their worthless lives – talking positively about Britain and its traditions, is the same reason why they’re making constant reference to the Liberal Humpty-Dumpty Laws a.k.a. ‘international law’: legally speaking – in the sense of actual British laws – they don’t have a leg to stand on.

Equally, this is not a case of the bench bending the rules to prevent the executive abusing their mandate. Over half the public are in favour of actual, real torture of terrorists. What we have here is a textbook example of ‘legislating from the bench’. There is simply no principle in operation anywhere else in British law that's even halfway analogous to the one their lordships have just dreamed up. Or, to put it another way, terrorists – and only terrorists – will be able to benefit from protections not available to a bloke accused of nicking a bottle of milk out the corner shop.

The L3 were ever so angry when the Sun ran its famous ‘Traitors!’ headline. Well, now, here we have a situation where Liberal judges, in the teeth of opposition from both Parliament and the wider public, have conjured up an absurd principle, one that has apparently eluded all previous generations of judges, and which will have the sole effect of helping terrorists. What word do the Left think we should use to describe these people ?

No comments: