Tony Hatfield's Retired Ramblings

Lord Carey's Intervention ver1.01

In September this year, the European Court of  Human Rights (ECtHR) will deal with  cases involving  workers dismissed for  'expressing' their Christian beliefs. According today's Daily Telegraph, Lord Carey has filed a statement in the ECtHR to support the applicants.

 Two of those trooping  to the Strasbourg Court  are Gary McFarlane and Lilian  Ladele.

McFarlane was a Christian  working for Relate. He was dismissed  because he felt 'uncomfortable' giving sex therapy to gay couples. Lilian  Ladele worked for Islington Council as a Registrar. Because of her religious beliefs  she refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies. She was dismissed.

The Ladele case is a good starting point. It was heard by a powerful Court of Appeal. Lord Neuberger the Master of the Rolls said this 

“[I]t appears to me that the fact that Ms Ladele’s refusal to perform civil partnerships was based on her religious view of marriage could not justify the conclusion that Islington should not be allowed to implement its aim to the full, namely that all registrars should perform civil partnerships as part of its Dignity for All policy.  Ms Ladele was employed in a public job and was working for a public authority; she was being required to perform a purely secular task, which was being treated as part of her job; Ms Ladele’s refusal to perform that task involved discriminating against gay people in the course of that job; she was being asked to perform the task because of Islington’s Dignity for All policy, whose laudable aim was to avoid, or at least minimise, discrimination both among Islington’s employees, and as between Islington (and its employees) and those in the community they served; Ms Ladele’s refusal was causing offence to at least two of her gay colleagues; Ms Ladele’s objection was based on her view of marriage, which was not a core part of her religion; and Islington’s requirement in no way prevented her from worshipping as she wished.” 

He went on the make a distinction, often forgotten when looking at Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 9 guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion.  It offers no protection of such a belief’s content in the name only of its religious credentials. In the Ladele case, Lord Neuberger disposed of the discrimination point easily

"the Strasbourg jurisprudence on Article 9, supported the view that Ms Ladele’s desire to have her religious views respected should not be allowed “to override Islington’s concern to ensure that all its registrars manifest equal respect for the homosexual community as for the heterosexual community”.  

Back to the McFarlane case. Lord Carey filed a statement on behalf of McFarlane.

  One of his  grumbles was that he saw the judges as unable to deal with matters of religion. 

'.....I appeal to the Lord Chief Justice to establish a specialist Panel of Judges designated to hear cases engaging religious rights.  Such Judges should have a proven sensitivity and understanding of religious issues and I would be supportive of Judges of all faiths and denominations being allocated to such a Panel.  The Judges engaged in the cases listed above should recuse themselves from further adjudication on such matters as they have made clear their lack of knowledge about the Christian faith.”

  This was dealt with speedily by the Master of the Rolls.

'They administer the law in accordance with the judicial oath: without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.' 

The Court then dealt with  McFarlane's argument that he should be allowed to express his faith by refusing to counsel gays. In other words; should he be allowed to engage in discrimination? 

Imagine there was a sect of Mormonism that still believed  inter racial marriage was wrong and no members could marry outside the faith. Such a belief would certainly be protected by Secion 9 of the ECHR.

Now imagine a member of this faith was employed by Relate as a counsellor. He refused to help  mixed race couples with their sexual problems. Or one  employed by a local council as a regisrar who refused to perform marriages between mixed races?  I suspect few would have any difficulty in supporting the employer in both these cases who, after going through a lengthy dismissal procedure, sacked their employees. 

Put in these terms, and it is precisely  in these  terms the ECtHR will examine the cases in September, it's difficult to see the Strasbourg judges spending too much time on  another of Lord Cary's interventions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm Shocked. I Really am!

This morning, George Gideon Oliver Osborne, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, opened a little brown envelope from HMRC. Inside was a letter containing the information that many of our wealthiest people pay virtually no tax at all.

For someone familiar with the wonderful tax avoidance vehicle of the 'offshore trust', this should have hardly come as a bolt from the blue. Yet we now learn Osborne  was 'shocked' to discover what was going on.

As you can imagine there has been much comment in the blogosphere about the Osborne reaction. But by far the best has been accompanied with that scene from Casablanca in which Captain Renault, played by Claude Rains feigns surprise when he 'discovers' gambling going on in Rick's Bar.

Here it is in all its glory 

 

The European Court of Human Rights usually gets it right?

 

 

Today, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has decided that Abu Hamza and four other alleged terrorists can be extradited for trial the the United States.  The decision is a powerful one, that could not have come as much of a shock to anyone who followed the initial hearing before the court. They were scathing of the Section 3 arguments  by the all the applicants. And today, Joshua Rozenberg's piece in today's Guardian says it all. 

Rozenberg argues that despite the often ill founded criticism of the court its judges 'do live in the real world ', though there are many of our legislators and  media who do not believe that.

The last four decisions affecting the UK do not go all one way. The Hamza  case together with the court's decision supporting  our whole life tariff, when life means life, have gone in the UK's favour.

 The cases of  the  prisoners' votes and the refusal of the court to rubber stamp the extradition to Jordan of Abu Qatada, are decisions that were  right in law.

Much of the debate about these two cases surrounds the commentators unhappiness with the UK's membership of the Council of Europe. The dissatisfied litigant normally does not have the oportunity of walking away from the court. But our membership of the  Council of Europe and of the ECtHR is voluntary. We could walk away. But like the restoration of the death penalty and our withdrawal from the EU, this is not going to happen. 

 

Raoul Moat- the use of taser-did the police follow ACPO guidelines?

'The Police have commenced the operational deployment of the taser. This equipment has been made available to specially trained firearms officers to provide them with a less lethal option in incidents where they are confronted with an armed individual, and the officers and members of the public are at risk of serious injury or death.'

This is what  ACPO advises about the use of tasers. It is an extract is from 'ACPO's Operational Guidance for the use of tasers'. You can find it and download it  here.

It will be relevant to the IPCC investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Raoul Moat in the early hours of Saturday morning, close to the village of Rothbury. 

The offices involved were certainly confronted by an armed individual; it is clear from the reports  and the statements made by the temporary  chief constable of Northumbria Police that during the 'negotiations' no member of the public was at risk. They had all been moved away from the scene.

The IPCC's investigation will therefore concentrate on the threats Moat made to the police.  We have yet to hear about threats of any nature being made at, or before Moat's death.  Threats  made by him days, or even hours, earlier  cannot fulfil this criterion.  

About the use of the taser, Northumbia's temporary chief constable  said this during one of her announcements:

"During this time officers discharged Taser. However this did not prevent his death."

The use of the weapon is not meant to ' prevent his death' it's  used, as an alternative to a lethal weapon  to protect the police or the public when they are threatened by an armed individual.

Update 13th July

It is now being reported that the taser was indeed used in an attempt to 'prevent [moat's] suicide'. It  was  not a type the Home Office had  approved, and I doubt whether this statement from the Home Office would extend the discretion of its use 'to prevent suicide.

"However, legally, police forces have discretion to use any equipment they see fit as long as the use of force is lawful, reasonable and proportionate.

This use is way, way outside that contemplated in  the ACPO guidelines.

Compromise-be blowed

Anyone daft enough to think Cameron is home and clear with his party over his coalition with the LibDems should read this blogpost

A Couple of Questions for Lord Goldsmith

When the former Attorney- General, Lord Goldsmith appears before the Iraq Inquiry tomorrow, I have little doubt that the panel will spend some time on his advice given to the government at the beginning of March 2003. This forms the legal basis that Blair used to invade a sovereign state without either an explicit UN Security Council Resolution or without claiming such action was in self defence.

The important paragraphs are these.

28. Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.

29. However, the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider extremely carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity. 

In paragraph 28, the Attorney ought to expand on exactly what was the negotiating history he had been given, when,  and by whom. And precisely which arguments of the US administration he had heard,  and from whom. As we know  different parts of the US Administration had divergent views . There must be documentary evidence in support of this assertion.

The emphasised sections of paragraph 29 begs the question  whether it was his- the Attorney's -view at the time that Iraq's non-compliance was sufficient to justify invasion. We now know that the Blair government were being asked for the UNMOVIC inspectors to be given further time to continue their inspections. Surprisingly, no  mention of this was made in his advice.

Goldsmith, who attended all the relevant Cabinet meetings, cannot be allowed to claim he did not have sufficient information to come to a view whether the 'latest reporting by UNMOVIC', did not show 'evidence of non- cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq'.

The Attorney would certainly have sought independent opinion of outside counsel on this matter. Goldsmith is not an international law expert. I wonder whether  any member of the Chilcot panel will explore this. Two barristers can, and often, give very different opinons!

Sizer - well and truly sized up

The Revered Stephen Sizer

Today, a story has exploded over the blogosphere.

Late last year, a Christian student blogger, Seismic Shock,  was 'debating' with a fellow Christian, the Rev. Stephen Sizer. The Reverend Sizer's writings appeared on a Holocaust denier and anti Semitic website, AAAGH.

I suspect  the Reverend may believe that his piece on the AAARGH site has vanished, but it's still here via Google cache.

At the end of November, Seismic Shock received a visit from two officers from his local nick. This is what he writes as a guest, over at Harry's Place

At 10am on Sunday 29th November 2009, I received a visit from two policemen regarding my activities in running the Seismic Shock blog. (Does exposing a vicar’s associations with extremists make me a criminal?, I wondered initially). A sergeant from the Horsforth Police related to me that he had received complaints via Surrey Police from Rev Sizer and from Dr Anthony McRoy – a lecturer at the Wales Evangelical School of Theology – who both objected to being associated with terrorists and Holocaust deniers.

He continued.

The sergeant made clear that this was merely an informal chat, in which I agreed to delete my original blog (http://seismicshock.blogspot.com) but maintain my current one (http://seismicshock.wordpress.com). The policeman related to me that his police force had been in contact with the ICT department my previous place of study, and had looked through my files, and that the head of ICT at my university would like to remind me that I should not be using university property in order to associate individuals with terrorists and Holocaust deniers (I am sure other people use university property to make political comments, but nevermind).

I must confess it's hard to think of  Seismic Shock's behaviour as harassment, but like the greedy law firm  Shillings over the Alisher Usmanov affair and the stupidity of Carter-Ruck with Trafigura the daft Sizer forgot about The Streisand Effect.

By now, the Reverend Sizer's dodgy friends are all over the internet, a fact that I suspect his parishioners at the  Christ Curch, the international community church of Virginia Water and beyond  [my emphasis] are not too happy about.

I think it's about time we heard from the The Most Reverend Rowan Williams on this subject. 

New powers given to the Attorney by the Guardian

I often despair at the inaccuracy contained  in some newspapers!

The Attorney General has no power to increase sentences. She has the power to refer the case to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the sentence was 'unduly lenient'.

Is Dr Pangloss really dead?

François-Marie Arouet-Voltaire

Voltaire wrote this letter shortly after the Lisbon earthquake. This “Act of God” killed an estimated 70,000 out of a population of 185,000, many of whom were attending the mass. It occurred on All Saints Day 1755.

Les Délices, November 24, 1755

This is indeed a cruel piece of natural philosophy! We shall find it difficult to discover how the laws of movement operate in such fearful disasters in the best of all possible worlds-- where a hundred thousand ants, our neighbours, are crushed in a second on our ant-heaps, half, dying undoubtedly in inexpressible agonies, beneath débris from which it was impossible to extricate them, families all over Europe reduced to beggary, and the fortunes of a hundred merchants -- Swiss, like yourself -- swallowed up in the ruins of Lisbon. What a game of chance human life is! What will the preachers say -- especially if the Palace of the Inquisition is left standing! I flatter myself that those reverend fathers, the Inquisitors, will have been crushed just like other people. That ought to teach men not to persecute men: for, while a few sanctimonious humbugs are burning a few fanatics, the earth opens and swallows up all alike. I believe it is our mountains which save us from earthquakes.

Tout est pour le mieux indeed.

Blair, the Observer and another deception

I've just finished reading Nick Davies' ' Flat Earth News'.

Ian Hislop called the book 'A must read for anyone worried about journalism-which, on this analysis, should be everyone'. Perhaps this is an example of what Hislop means.

The second last chapter is called, 'The Blinded Observer' and after I'd read this I watched Alastair Campbell's performance before the the Chilcot Enquiry.

Davies gives an account of what appears to be another piece of deliberate deception in the lead up to the Iraq war and the Observers' complicity in it.

In September 2002, after a UK/USA summit,  the Observer reported that ' a resolute Prime Minister' claimed that Saddam had ' stocks of chemical and biological weapons that had not been accounted for; that his weapons of mass destruction would be targeted at British interests; and that ' on nuclear sites, there had been a lot of  activity going on'. The Observer ran this 'without any qualification'.

Davies continues.

'Blair was allowed to corroborate this claim by declaring: 'We only need to look at the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency this morning showing what has been going on at the former nuclear weapons site to realise that'.

Had the Observer checked to see that Blair was telling the truth about this report, they would have found out that there was no such document in existence. 

Davies again.

There was not even a report that the Prime Minister could have misconstrued.There was just no IAEA report at all. There was a story in the New York Times, published the day before the Prime Minister made these remarks, and it did claim that  ' United Nations official said  today that international weapons inspectors had identified several nuclear related sites Iraq where new construction or other unexplained changes had occurred since their last visit nearly four years ago'.

.... that story had been picked up by Reuters and spread round the world. However, even as that was happening, the IAEA was denying it. From their headquarters in Vienna, they issued a statement that could not be clearer: 'With reference to an article published today in the New York Times, the International Atomic Energy Agency would like to state that it has no new information on Iraq's nuclear programme since December 1998 when its inspectors left Iraq'. And yet, twenty four hours later, in spite of that denial, the Prime Minister, with the assistance of the Observer, was adding falsehood to falsehood.

As far as I can see, just like Campbell's failure to correct the lurid press accounts of the 45 minute warning, no one appears to have corrected, what at best was Blair's error. When an error knowingly  goes uncorrected it converts what may  have been a honest mistake into a deliberate falsehood

I do hope Sir Roderic Lyne, by far the toughest questioner on the panel to date, gets his teeth into this when Blair appears.