iGURU!’s – Weekly Review – 29th September 2019 Last week saw the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, rule on the ‘action’ of Britain’s Prime Minister, Mr. Boris Johnson. The ‘act’ upon which the judges ruled on, was the prorogation of Parliament, which resulted in the temporary suspension of Parliament (for further info - click here.) This court decision was a major constitutional decision. Again, it seems that Brexit – a political crisis, that has tormented the people of the United Kingdom - and devastated the country’s political elite, for the past 3 years, not only ‘runs on’ – but continues to reveal and expose the fragile fabric – some would say ‘façade’ of the United Kingdom’s ‘constitutional framework’ - the fragility of its ‘politics’ and its ‘societal structures.’ Further, it has served to highlight the weakness and disunity of its political elite. Brexit has already exposed the wide chasm which can now clearly be seen existing in this 'disunited Kingdom.' This ‘division’ is fundamental – and because of its poor handling – largely due to an inept political class – this ‘divide’ has increased with time. Exposed for all to see on the ‘UK stage,’ is civil disorder, political hatred and social chaos. The curtains have been pulled back – all is revealed – there is nowhere to hide – and so - the show must go on! “But wait! - there seems to be a Knight in shining armour – Glory! Glory! - Enter the Supreme Court!” The Supreme Court, delivered a judgment last week - damning in its content - it was critical of the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Boris Johnson. It ruled that his ‘attempt’ to prorogue parliament / shut it down, was 'unlawful, void and of no effect' (to read the article click here.) “Glory Glory!” – Who would have thought that the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - could wave its magic wand - and cast a spell - to remove the recent weeks of rancor, bitterness, trauma the country has experienced. No - not so simple - that will have to wait – wait until Britannia can find a Consort - and the pair can then rule with dignity once again and restore to its people – hope! Anyway – the Supreme Court’s judgment, was hailed by many, as a - ‘return to the Rule Of Law’ (for Gina Miller's speech - click here) – and the dispatching of a 'wanna be tyrant' (for related article click here,) dressed in parliamentary garb. Viewed in this light – the Supreme Court appears as the saviour of the United Kingdom’s 'democratic rights' - I am sure you get a picture. This reaction was well summed up in an article I read titled - 'Like it or not, Boris Johnson still has two paths to election victory' - commenting on the ‘Remainers’ who were no doubt celebrating this court decision, this article, refers to the 'Duchess of Richmond’s Ball.’ (For the significance of that reference click here.) This event – ‘a Ball before a War’ – highlights the tragedy of a celebration, conducted prior to or in the midst of war. In general, if one takes an impartial view of this matter, it could properly be said that the Supreme Court was praised for its courageous decision – since three other courts had given determinations, two of which conflicted. The High Court of Northern Ireland – High Court of Scotland and the High Court of England gave decisions on the lawfulness of PM Mr. Boris Johnson's actions (click here for link.) So it fell to the Supreme Court, to decide what was the correct legal and constitutional position, with regards to Mr. Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament. The court’s task was a hapless one – since given the vitriolic hatred – which each side has for the other (namely, Brexiter vs Remainer) – you are bound to offend a sizeable portion of the country – whatever you decide. In addition, since 3 previous senior courts have given two conflicting decisions, you cannot simply rely on the ‘legal logic argument’ of your decision – since ‘legal logic’ itself has come to different decisions. In other words, there was no ‘obvious legality' or 'illegality' to Mr. Johnson’s actions. Thus, Brexit revealed a serious constitutional lacuna ‘hole’ / ‘gap’ which the Supreme Court judges had to fill. In brief, the Supreme Court was compelled to ‘create’ / ‘make’ Law in their decision. Why is this understanding important? – It’s important because inevitably ‘Brexiters’ (those who lost) will complain of ‘bias’ on the part of the Supreme Court judges. Indeed, we are seeing this happening already (click here for article.) Brexit has now pitched the judges into the mix. Since the Supreme Court’s decision was of necessity ‘creative lawmaking’ by the judges. It had to be - given the vagaries of the British constitution and the conflicted previous decisions. Given the country’s current Brexit woes – this understanding about the ‘creative lawmaking’ by the judges is important, as the political temperature rises still further – The Judiciary (as an institution) too will now become fully embroiled in the Brexit struggle – which is in reality a struggle for the control of a Nation. Why is this understanding important? – It is important because whilst your everyday citizen in the United Kingdom may not appreciate the niceties and the legal distinctions of ‘legal logic’ – they can ‘intuit’ the ‘creative nature’ of the Supreme Court’s decision - in terms of legitimising or delegitimising political action. In brief, the court has to take a side and will be perceived by the public as having taken a side. As a consequence, they too will become targets in this ongoing ‘constitutional crisis.’ The public, are able to ‘intuit’ this ‘creative lawmaking’ (taking of sides?) because they are currently existing in extraordinary political and social circumstances. These circumstances are a situation, caused by the failings of their political elite, into which they have been led. They are therefore, understandably not so ‘trusting’ – more ‘suspicious’ - and therefore, more ‘politically sensitised’ to the actions of the political elite, whether those acts be ‘bureaucratic,’ ‘parliamentary,’ ‘executive,’ or ‘judicial,’ in nature. So – some hailed the decision as historic and ‘constitutionally creative’ - however, as can be expected, others accused the judges of 'treachery' – one politician referred to it as a ‘constitutional coup’ (to read article - click here) and so the torturous progress of Brexit continues. Up until now the people have been marshaled into two camps – Brexit or Remain – this has morphed into the ‘People versus Parliament’ – these are no mere academic matters, since it is clear that a number of MP’s do genuinely fear acts of physical violence from members of the public. In an article titled - 'Boris Johnson seeks to divide and conquer with his incendiary rhetoric' the author Andrew Rawnsley writes -“I have never known a time when so many parliamentarians live in fear that something terrible will happen to them or their loved ones.” Andrew Rawnsley continues in this article regarding the current political process and inevitable forthcoming political election - that this election will be - “…the nastiest contest in Britain’s modern history.” The latest development now – is the pitching of the ‘People against the Judiciary’ – again, it is quite clear that ‘Brexiters’ will find it easy to see the Supreme Court decision as one of ‘Remainers’ on the bench (in the guise of judges) trying to thwart the ‘Will of the People’ – clearly expressed in the Brexit referendum of 2016 (for the article - ‘There is only one law: there must be no Brexit'– click here.) Put simply, they would view the judiciary as part of the establishment ‘Stop Brexit Campaign.’ Are the Supreme Court judges ‘Liberators’ or ‘Traitors?’ - Such incendiary language is now commonly used, in the UK rational discussion about the Brexit issue. This - is the issue that fascinates me. I am always cautious when my attention is directed to ‘high profile,’ ‘issues,’ ‘campaigns’ – ‘causes’ – you know - the type of community action - where celebrities abound! However, I’ve often found that if you poke about a little – and try to look beyond the veneer of hype – what one often sees can shock you. And so – it was with this in mind that I considered the position of those Supreme Court judges, who delivered their judgment. Let’s not just look at this Boris Johnson ruling – how about we take a look - at what is really happening - with regards to the ‘Rule Of Law’ in the 'court system' of the United Kindgom. Brexit - is gonna get messier, nastier, noisier – and its going to claim more establishment scalps. The judiciary, have now been pitched into this ‘constitutional crisis’ - and like the politicians before them – they will emerge discredited, because behind the hype of ‘Rule Of Law,’ the legal system as it currently operates within the United Kingdom, offers no such service. Away from the hype of such high profile cases – an analysis of what is really going on in the legal system in the United Kingdom - will reveal that over the last 2 decades or so, the populous as a result of various legal reforms, have been increasingly deprived of access to the courts and therefore justice. These changes – 'bureaucratic' and 'subtle' in their nature, have meant that for most ordinary people, access to the courts is something they cannot afford - and therefore it becomes virtually impossible to enforce one’s rights in almost every sphere of individual, social and community life. Most individuals find it almost impossible to access justice in areas as diverse as - personal injury – employment – housing – discrimination – police and crime etc etc – I could go on. Given all of that, there can be no ‘Rule Of Law’ in the United Kingdom. In addition, to what I have recounted above in terms of denial of access through lack of funds – there is also a deliberate denial of access to justice in two important other respects. The first, is the denial of 'physical accessibility' to the courts. For example, in a majority of court buildings one cannot simply walk into a courtroom, sit in a public gallery and observe a case. For all practical purposes, that has gone. In most instances having been processed through initial security, member of the public are questioned about what they are doing in court, typically asked ‘which case your in?’ If your reply is that you want to sit in on a case to observe, your access is not guaranteed and in many instances, you will not be permitted to enter a court, through the application of various ‘bureaucratic rules’ and ‘practices’ by staff. Such restrictions are especially significant, when cases involving community interests are being decided – and litigants (often acting in person) are seeking the support of family, friends and colleagues. Such people are often denied access on the basis of these ‘bureaucratic rules’ and ‘procedures.’ It is virtually impossible to challenge these practices since their origins are usually lost in some distant and administratively Byzantine labyrinth. In this the UK legal system has somehow managed to “out kafka – kafka!” The second is the withdrawal of legal resources, books and materials from community public space - e.g. libraries. Once upon a time, you could go to your local library and any decent local library would have a Law section, whereby you could prepare your own cases. Some of these libraries were very well stocked and became internationally renowned for their Law Library. One such library was Holborn Public Library in London and I recall family friends of my mother recounting, how they had pursued their legal studies part time through accessing the Holborn Public Law Library. Indeed a crop of independence leaders (1950s-60s) – from Africa, the Caribbean and Asia ‘graduated’ – from this Public Law Library – many went on to become not only distinguished lawyers, judges, civil servants, but also, well known independence leaders. What a shame – what a disgrace – to visit Holborn Public Library today. Regarding affordability – financial access – most ordinary people can’t afford lawyers - and a once sufficiently funded public provision (legal aid) has virtually disappeared. The courts are filled with 'Litigant’s in Persons' – ordinary individuals attempting to access justice unrepresented – and most, struggling to cope with the often complicated and bureaucratic administrative rules, which now infests the UK legal system and which has destroyed the basic 'Communal Humanity,' which was often to be found in the Common Law system. So - you decide not to pay for a lawyer (because you can’t afford one) but your problems are only just beginning. There are court fees – they start in the 100’s of pounds region - amazingly these fees are ‘graduated’ (they go up) – meaning the fee you pay the court, depends on the size of claim you are making – and so the fee you pay will go up according to your claim (note you haven’t won your case – you’ve barely started your case, yet you are being treated – i.e. the amount you pay, is valued on the success of a 'prospective case.' Your case is being valued as a 'future financial product.') Mercifully – the limit is capped at £10,000! ($12,288) – yes £10,000 to make a claim! – note the median annual income for a citizen of the UK is £28,400 (this figure is from the financial year ending 2018.) This sum you pay to the court – is euphemistically called “court fees” – These are not court fees – This is a court tax! This is a tax – a tax to access the legal system – This is a tax to obtain Justice! - a Justice Tax. Revolutions – civil tumult and the overthrowing of tyrants – are often caused by 'tax revolts' – one of the causes of the American Revolution, was said to have been the imposition of unjust taxes by the British Crown. In continuation of this discussion on the ‘Rule Of Law’ in the UK courts I have observed - as your case proceeds - you will receive 'intermittent demands' at certain stages of your case. Whilst there is no doubt some obscure procedural, administrative legislative authority that legitimises these demands – to most ordinary citizens – these demands come as a shock – a bolt from the blue – can’t pay? – you’ll have to stop your case. I have heard numerous accounts of homes having to be sold or remortgaged to fund litigation – not to pay for lawyers, but to pay for court's costs! Try to get a hearing in a court before a judge – virtually impossible nowadays - unless of course you’re not human – by that I mean - you’re a 'corporation.' Nowadays you have to write to the court for permission to do almost anything – it is styled an ‘Application’ – but you are it seems in reality, ‘petitioning’ for a ‘favor’ - you’ll get a response in a couple weeks or so – it’s called a 'Court Order' from the court - but it could just as well have been a 'memo' - from some distant branch of the civil service – these are no longer courts they are 'bureaucratic and distant structures.' Most alarmingly, for those who have proficient political understanding, of what is taking place, is that it seems that the United Kingdom Courts are being prepared for – 'Privatisation' – yes 'Privatisation' – the 'Privatisation' of ‘Justice.’ This is not new to Europe – private courts were a feature of European civil society in the Middle Ages ‘Manorial Courts’ where local elites (Lords, Barons) dispensed local justice to those who served them (Serfs.) As the world shifts into a higher gear we are now seeing a 'global neo-liberal economic' philosophy on steroids – 'private Courts' - will again return as a significant structure in this neo-feudalism which some have in store for western societies. The United Kingdom appears to be the testing ground. Where were / are the Lawyers? Where were / are the so called liberal institutions? I could go on – and indeed perhaps at some point through the assistance of affiliates, associated with the Daily Info… (Advocacy Rights UK) we will do a more in depth report on what’s going on in the UK – so here’s the point. The Judiciary have now been pitched into the Brexit debacle – and as the realization of the People increases - and an awareness that things will never be the same again manifests – they will also realize that the Judiciary presided over the stripping down and removal of a fundamental right – namely, a right to access justice – much of which was done quietly through bureaucratic procedural mechanisms. The consequence of this for the Judiciary, is that this realisation will inevitably get 'mixed up' with the 'toxicity of Brexit' – the judges will not come out unscathed. Like the Parliamentarians before them, their failings will be seen and highlighted, as people are able to realise and understand that away from the 'high profile' cases like – the Proroguing of Parliament Case – their interests have not been well served by those who were / are supposed to serve them and uphold for them - the ‘Rule Of Law.’ The significance of what is happening in the courts in relation to Brexit on this matter, is that - I predict that the Brexit woes will engulf the UK legal system – but not along the simple lines of ‘Brexit versus Remain’ – since the denial of access to justice is something ordinary people on both sides experience – and I predict, that this will be the ‘unifying factor’ which shall finally destroy the current political established order in the United Kingdom. REFERENCES TO ARTICLES, VIDEOS ETC To view the contents of this index – click on the subject of interest below. ALPHABETICAL ORDER
B Boris Johnson - A PM who puts himself above the law is a tyrant (25-Sep2019) - Boris Johnson seeks to divide and conquer with his incendiary rhetoric (29-Sep2019) - Like it or not, Boris Johnson still has two paths to election victory Brexit & The Rule Of Law - Brexit in the Supreme Court: when populists attack the rule of law, everyone loses ‘There is only one law: there must be no Brexit' D Duchess Of Richmond Ball - Duchess of Richmond’s ball before Waterloo H High Court Judgments - Scots judges rule parliament suspension unlawful (on Youtube 11-Sep2019) - The UK Supreme Court will not only decide Johnson’s fate, it will declare whether Scotland’s constitutional tradition still matters - 14-Sept2019 - The Independent P Proroguing Parliament -Boris Johnson move to suspend parliament sets up clash with MPs R References to other articles, videos etc related to the article - About Brexit Index U UK - Supreme Court Ruling - Attacking Supreme Court justices for doing their job has nothing to do with your rights - Gina Miller reacts to Supreme Court win against prorogation - Jacob Rees-Mogg brands Supreme Court ruling a 'constitutional coup' as MPs prepare to grill Boris Johnson - Johnson's suspension of parliament unlawful, supreme court rules - Scottish lawyers praise Supreme Court decision against proroguing of Parliament - Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule - UK’s Supreme Court says Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament was unlawful
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
March 2020
Categories |