Sunday, May 28, 2006

Compare And Contrast III

"Many sixties leftists chose to enter the law rather than politics, precisely because they realised that these conventions were a limitless mine, into which they could dig for excuses to push through radical social change. They could never have got these measures past the electorate." - Peter Hitchens.

"I'm fascinated by politics but I've lived 26 years in politics - more than that because I've always been interested. But, you know, you can change the world through the law too and that's the path I've chosen" - Cherie Blair.

5 comments:

Ross F said...

It never ceases to amaze me how the response to "landmark judgements" is always a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the case rather than the suitability of courts of law to invent laws.

Anonymous said...

Just think of all of those radical law students from the mid-sixties - where are they now? Forty years later, how many of them are on the bench, making our laws?

I deliberately said "making" our laws, as they are contemptuous of Parliament's right to make law and the Human Rights Act has given them the means to do what they have always wanted - disregard Parliament and decide what the law is themselves. After all, they are the "experts", aren't they?

The people should be glad that they are governed by experts.

Anonymous said...

Laban is quite right in his observations although this phenomenon should not come as a surprise to anyone who has kept an eye on the legal profession and its cross over with politicians and sundry (generally lefty) pressure groups.

To be honest we have had activist lawyers (and perhaps judges) for years, even centuries. The difference or the issue for the last fifty odd years has been the direction in which they have been dragging the law and which I for one have generally disagreed. One of the reasons I studied law was to get a closer handle on this. It is of course a shame but no surprise that the main stream media have almost completely ignored what has ben going on. My impression is that when lawyers are interviewed by the media (and the same applies to so called "experts") they are not treated with the same scepticsm that others with a vested interest are when they have no more reason to be let off lightly or assumed not to have a bias than anyone else.

Charles Martel said...

"But, you know, you can change the world through the law too and that's the path I've chosen"

yeah - but who the fuck elected you Cherie?

and who the hell gave you a mandate to change the law affecting 60 million people in the UK?

If ever there was an example of a fundemental totalitarian disregard for the principles of democracy it is that statement.

lets re-read it again, shall we? and maybe, it might start sinking in:

"But, you know, you can change the world through the law too and that's the path I've chosen"

thats worthy of a banner graphic. on multiple freedom loving blogs.

Anonymous said...

charles martel - Excellent observation. Cherie stood for Parliament and got rejected - so even her smart-arse statement is a lie. She tried to be an MP and they didn't want her.

This wasn't the "path she chose". It was the path that was forced on her if she was determined to unpick British society, British law, British history, British education and everything that Britain stands for, by the fact that she couldn't get into Parliament and the law was the only route left.

No one elected bigoted, leftie, Gramscian "to change the law". They specifically gave her the thumbs down.

It was not the "path she chose". She is, as usual, lying.

- Anonymousette