lawmaking as a similacrum, a superficial appearance of what a lawmaker does, while the operative force is not the law’s words but the political menace for which the words are a vehicle.
this clause is intended to allow Govt lawyers to pressure judges to accept that a statute means what politicians say it means, not what it says and its meaning as discerned *in the context of our constitutional tradition*.
In the UK constitution, Parliament is not supreme. The common law is supreme. The common law determines the limits on Parliament’s powers to destroy the ancient liberties of the people.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Good-hearted people want to help. They’ll provide their best help if they *don’t* have to worry about the people they aren’t helping.
Sadness & regret about those they can’t help is *demotivating* and *demoralising* 2/
I know this from years of working in and with front-line NGOs & law firms and listening to some of the smartest people who help them serve their clients. 3/
+ people on here overwhelmed / threatened by complexity, in discussions about covid, gender, Brexit. (Not just one *side* on any of these either.). +
Stenner’s challenge for any of us trying to change minds of others is how to communicate without pushing away all the authoritarian-personality people. +
I'll be live tweeting this for those who can't join, speaking now @JC_Hathaway , the dean of international refugee law. Tune in though, he's fascinating!
Nothing in the Refugee Convention says refugees have to claim asylum in the first country they reach. States can chose how they respect the Convention - refugees can choose their country of asylum - JCH
when the Refugee Convention was being drafted, Australia argued refugees should only used legal routes - so the rest of the states made clear that's wrong in the language of the Convention
‘Legal feminist’ a group / website led by the junior barrister who represented the unsuccessful claimant hopes there’ll be much more litigation by anti-trans people and trans victims of discrimination 2/
I can see why lawyers hope for litigation. AEA took in around £100K from their supporters for legal fees. (The court was told the junior barrister acted for free in this case - so that went to solicitors and the QC) 2/
Now ‘LGBA’ attack NGOs working for LGBTQI+ asylum-seekers, based on claim that someone can’t find published info about persecution in an *unidentified* country.
Most likely explanation: there *isn’t* reliable info to publish about persecution there.
LGBA hasn’t identified the country or missing reliable material or asked NGOs to publish it.
They haven’t done any work. Instead they are trying to undermining credibility of orgs who do. Orgs whose credibility matters for asylum-seekers they claim to care about.
This isn’t how LG allies behave. Real allies would raise problem directly with the - really hard pressed - NGOs who specialise in working for LG asylum-seekers.
Neither original tweeter nor LGBA says they’ve done this. Instead they tweet criticism that can’t be addressed.