A Revolution Indeed

Supreme Court? The title is fiction. It might as well be passing judgement on a bottle of wine


Peter Hitchens
Daily Mail

Actually, there is no such thing as the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. They can call it that if they like, but the title is a fiction. There is nothing supreme about it.  Until we leave the EU, our actual Supreme Court is, as it has been for many years, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

But if we ever manage to escape from the EU, then Parliament is a far higher court than this self-important assembly of lawyers in suits.

Keen observers of the ridiculous hearings of the past few days will have noticed the bare, almost republican room in which the court meets, less grand than some council committees I have attended.
The judges – and the lawyers appearing before them – do not wear the traditional robes and wigs which say so loudly that those who don them are serving the law, and are not just politicians or bureaucrats.

The nasty thing has been grafted on to our free constitution by Blairite revolutionaries – many of them Left-wing lawyers.   They had long planned a slow-motion putsch against conservative Britain. For this tiny, self-important group of men and women realised that they had an astonishing power.

They were allowed to decide what the law meant. And nobody could challenge them.  This was bad enough when they took advantage of the vague wording of ‘Human Rights’ charters. They used this to invent all kinds of rights for those members of society they favoured and wished to help.  In the same way, they abolished the former freedoms of those who had been in charge before.

Personally, I think Al Johnson’s action was a shabby trick (though it failed to work). But the idea that the courts should have anything to say about proroguing Parliament is absurd.  No need to storm the Bastille or capture the barracks and the railway station. Just issue a judgment, and abolish the morals and customs of ten generations in an afternoon.

For example, like it or not, state schools are going to teach children about homosexuality. This is now the law.

That use of the law to change our culture and morals was revolutionary enough. That brilliant mind, and former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, recently warned this would ‘entrench a broad range of liberal principles’ in the foundations of the State. Democracy would then be almost powerless to remove or limit them.  He then accused his fellow lawyers of being so sure they were right that they claimed a monopoly on deciding how the country should be governed.

Encouraging Victory in the UK

Gay Marriage Cake

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Christian Bakers

Victoria Friedman
Breitbart News

Bakery owners Amy and Daniel McArthur, who own 'Ashers' in Belfast, speak to the media outside the Supreme Court after winning their appeal against a gay rights campaigner who took the business to court after they refused to make a cake, promoting same-sex marriage.

The UK’s Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Northern Irish Christian bakers who declined to bake and decorate a cake with a pro-gay marriage message, with owners heralding the decision as a victory for free speech.

Britain’s highest court ruled Wednesday morning that it was not discriminatory for Ashers Bakery, run by Daniel and Amy McArthur, to refuse to produce the cake with the slogan “Support Gay Marriage” because it was the message of the case that they objected to, not the sexual orientation of the customer, the BBC reports.

President of the Supreme Court Lady Hale said of the decision arrived at by the five justices that the McArthurs “would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation”.

“Their objection was to the message on the cake, not to the personal characteristics of [customer, Gareth] Lee.  Accordingly, this court holds that there was no discrimination on the ground of the sexual orientation of Mr Lee,” Lady Hale ruled.

“We are grateful to the judges and especially to God. We are particularly pleased the Supreme Court judges emphatically accepted what we’ve said all along. We did not turn down the order because of the person who made it but because of the message itself,” Mr McArthur said outside of London’s High Court following the ruling.