First of all, as many literary characters (such as Mrs Malaprop) have taught us, it's inherently funny if someone uses the wrong bird.
Even more so, if the person concerned is demanding unquestioning obedience and advocating the strictest educational standards.
In this case, a particular children's classic sprung to mind: Matilda.
(Or, as some headmistresses might call it, Godzilla)
This gif expresses the same sentiment as a series of well known real tweets from the headmistress concerned, in which she argued that schools must always back teachers in the event of complaints by children.
Matilda is, of course, is only part of the tradition of an authoritarian approach to education being mocked and critiqued, sometimes savagely
This anger comes particularly from those who have experienced an authoritarian approach to education and believe strongly that it has damaged them, and/or their children. An appeal to expertise is not going to convince people who have had this experience.
If authority figures who abuse their power (including parents, in Matilda's case) aren't constrained, children are powerless against them - hence Dahl's power fantasy rings particularly true.
And abuse of power, along with arbitrary power, is the point of DAG's excellent post./
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've updated my collection of Brexit litigation re the judgment on the NI protocol - also recently updated re other cases too (Welsh govt challenge to Internal Market Act, EU citizens' status in the UK, Western Sahara group challenge to UK/Morocco FTA): eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/p/litigating-b…
Today's CJEU Advocate General's opinion on benefits for EU citizens with pre-settled status is now available in English - curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
First, it's not solely about EU citizens in the UK, but would apply to EU citizens who have moved between the remaining Member States too.
Secondly, it concerns equal treatment for benefits for those who are lawfully resident on the basis that national law treats them more generously than EU free movement law requires them to as regards lawful residence.
Some points on the Commission's letter to Hungary re its LGBT law
First of all, it's not explicit what the next step would be, although it's implied that the next step would be infringement proceedings against Hungary, if the law enters into force.
On the substance, the letter is carefully drafted. Yes, the EU Charter provides for non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, but the Charter, as confirmed by case law, applies to Member States only where they are implementing EU law.
Hence the need for the Commission to argue that the Hungarian law would affect free movement of services and the EU's e-commerce and audio-visual services Directives.
New judgment: Non-EU countries have standing to sue in the EU courts, where they meet the criteria for other natural or legal persons to have standing: curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/do…
In this case, Venezuela has standing to sue against EU sanctions.
Some points:
- this doesn't mean Venezuela has won its challenge on the merits; this was purely about standing, and the case on the merits remains open
- this isn't limited to foreign policy sanctions, ie UK, US etc could challenge trade measures if they meet standing criteria
Last week's ruling of the EU General Court that one of the cases about British citizens retaining EU citizenship is inadmissible is now public: curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
Ah, this is new information - a *second* case challenging the withdrawal agreement for allegedly "taking away" EU citizenship from UK citizens was *also* dismissed as inadmissible last week - curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
This is the case of Harry Shindler (WWII vet) and others. AND...