You are right that the constitution is unwritten, but to overturn the principle of parliamentary sovereignty would violate the most fundamental principle of that constitution.
Hmm, it’s a tricky one. I feel I can’t quite get my expression of my point on this right, possibly because I have no technical legal expertise at all, but I do think there’s something fundamentally wrong (in a legal theory/constitutional sense) with the Government’s actions here.
As I understand it, under our (albeit unwritten) constitution, parliament has a fairly clearly defined role, and the courts/judiciary have a fairly clearly defined and quite separate role, and both are fundamental.
Put crudely: parliament makes the laws, and the courts interpret it from there, especially in terms of whether those laws are applied correctly in an individual instance. They’re two sides of the same coin and it doesn’t make sense to talk of “parliamentary sovereignty” as the most fundamental principle of that constitution. If parliament itself undermines the very constitutional conventions that give the parliament its validity (and therefore its sovereignty) then it can hardly cry foul if another player in the constitutional arrangement stands its ground, so to speak.
Put another way, a court overturning Parliament-made law for violating the constitution would itself be violating the contstitution.
Well, yes, but then aren’t you acknowledging that by definition the constitution is already broken, thanks to parliament?
(prepares for Edgeler schooling on constitutional law)
One must always be prepared for this.
Does anyone know why the redacted parts couldn’t be got by an OIA request?
You can try, but they will likely withhold it as legal advice. That withholding ground is one of the stronger ones, and it would take an exceptionally strong public interest, ...
And isn't that exactly what we have? I mean, you have a constitutional law expert saying: "While the stakes may be small in the immediate case, this is about as big a deal as it gets in terms of our constitution."
Still catching up on this thread so may have also been linked, but if not, here's another one.
...we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.
I quite like this song: a little reminiscent of The Pixies with a touch of Modest Mouse and a sprinkle of Puff the Magic Dragon...
Yes, because we are blessed in the West with a prevailingly liberal culture which tolerates dissenting views – such as those expressed by neo-crusaderist-civilizationists. ;)
Scott makes a good point in response to those of you who were wanting Michael Cox to be dealt with by the Ministry of Truth.
Isn’t such an error [of attribution] a fundamental underpinning of all bigotry?
To my mind bigotry is the active expression of hatred or intolerance of others.
But it’s not like it was just an “oopsie” kind of error. Cox went from describing the repugnant act of an identifiable group that clearly does not represent the views of all Muslims, and then attributed it to “The Muslims”. It seemed clear to me from the overall context that this wasn’t just a one-off instance of poor expression; it was his angle.
[ETA] Hence, I think ‘idle bigotry’ is a reasonable, maybe even generous, description of the column.
As a rough analogy, take the vile acts of an extreme anti-abortionist Christian, and attribute them to ‘The Christians’ – would that be reasonable?
The columnist has shown demonstratable research and with quotations and everything.
Well gosh, I mean, if he’s quoted someone he should be taken seriously.
If it is inherently wrong (as you seem to suggest) to have a debate about political Islam,
How’d you get there?
Cox's post seems to have been deleted.
I think you’re over reacting.
Yes, it wasn't so bad, it was only bigotry.
But I gather Keith and Jonathan Milne had a productive discussion afterwards*, which is a good thing.
*Unfortunately, Keith brought shame on bloggers and data geeks by having his eft-pos bounce at the bar, meaning he had to go begging to the dreaded MSM for a drink. The secret liberal bloggers cabal is considering a formal censure.
Ah, tweets I saw from days ago now have more specific meaning. Not to mention secret cabal's being involved. This is coming together like a Neil Gaiman novel.