Forum Home → Discussion → Other areas of social welfare law → Thread
No you May not
Supreme Court 1 ConDems 0
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/12/visa-ban-spouses-human-rights
In fairness, the visa ban in question was, I think, introduced by Labour.
Supreme Court 1 ConDems 0
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/12/visa-ban-spouses-human-rights
That’s a fair point but it was Theresa Catflap May who brought the appeal. Thus the defeat is, technically, hers.
Good.
I don’t see why this is ‘good’ news for the keep legal aid campaign.
I just think its good that “Catflap May” has lost. How she had the temerity to come out with her anti human rights rubbish last week escapes me.
I think that it’s fuel to the fire for changing the HRA too.
The cat incedent may have looked like a gaffe but maybe it was not.
I wouldn’t like to think what the result of an end the HRA referendum would be. Possibly 16%scrap it, 13% keep it 71% CBA.
The cat incedent may have looked like a gaffe but maybe it was not.
The judgement in question is available here:
1st prizz for misspelling incident to me.
For clarification I did not mean the judgement was a gaffe but the use of the ‘cat reasoning’ was not the ‘gaffe’ it was claimed to be.
Theresa May deserves the flak she gets. That will teach her to play to the Tory conference gallery. Do they ever learn? The judges remarks about the cat were not part of the ratio of the decision and clearly obiter. He was simply indulging himself to a degree and would have been wise to keep his own counsel on the matter. The resulting furore was hardly unpredictable now was it?
In the spouse visa case one gets the impression (admittedly I’ve not read the decision in full) that Judge Brown, dissenting, did so for political reasons as much for legal ones.
my thoughts exactly. and ken clarke is tipped for the chop, for doing the right thing…
Which takes it back to the point of it not being as much a gaffe as one might think?
To me its just a poor judgement.
As a homelessness unit we see a number of runnaways and survivors of domestic violence from forced marriages.
The Labour party introduce a measure with CROSS party support, and the backing of a number of agencies, to help stop the forced marriages of vulnerable young people.
Other European countries have similar measures, some have higher age limits.
The courts in effect ignore the democratic mandate the politicians have and rewrite the law.
To me its a serious abuse of democratic process.
Just Saying…...........
Absolutely.
“The courts in effect ignore the democratic mandate the politicians have and rewrite the law.
To me its a serious abuse of democratic process”.
There is a huge difference between a democratic mandate and mandated democracy. In the former the government of the day is constitutionally elected by the people according to the rule of law and is subject to the rule of law and not the whim of the people.
In the latter the government is comprised of a series of elected officials mandated to carry out a series of specific measures, no more and no less. The democratic mandate, on the other hand, allows the government to carry out its programme which it has broadly outlined to the people in its manifesto, subject to Parliamentary approval. Many of the means used to bring its programme into effect are not before the public at election time.
The role of the courts in this country is primarily threefold. To regulate the way we behave towards each other where statute is silent (the common or judge made law), to interpret statute (civil and criminal) according to long established constitutional principles and principles of statutory interpretation, under the rule of law, and, to hold public authorities to account, also under the rule of law.
Judges are the first to recognize the dangers of judicial activism. Nevertheless our constitution, and in my view rightly so, invites the courts to independently decide very thorny legal issues (and on this point the drafters of obscure legislation must share responsibility if the courts have to step in) and balance the competing interests of different groups of people under the prevailing legislation. The Supreme Court in the spouse visa case was not insensitive to the victims of forced marriage and actually said that the legislative provision was in pursuit of a legitimate aim of a democratic society.
However it had to then go on to decide if the measure was proportionate and on balance it found that it was not. The Court found, in the words of The Guardian, ‘the “very substantial number” of young couples affected “vastly exceeds” the number of forced marriages that may have been prevented’. It went on to say “On any view, the measure was a sledgehammer but the secretary of state has not attempted to identify the size of the nut,”
And there is the crux, as is so often the case. The Secretary of State had not done her homework properly. If she had there might have been a different outcome. And, ultimately, this is the important point. The role of the courts in holding public authorities to account, including the government, is to ensure that they are subject to the law laid down by Parliament and do not ride roughshod over it or go behind its back. Our system is far from perfect and some decisions of the courts can often leave many scratching their heads but take a look around at those countries where the powers of the courts are weak or heavily tilted in favour of the State and then honestly say that that would be a country worth living in if you were not rich or powerful.
All reasonably minded people can sincerely disagree with a decision in any given case and not have their motives impugned. And some decisions can have unwelcome consequences. However, to say that the decision in this case is “a serious abuse of democratic process” is, in my view, going too far.
I disagree.
Its an attempt to post seriously. On the complicated issue of visa and forced marriage.( Your original post was supreme court 1 condems 0.)
Parliament should make laws, the courts should interpret them.
Its the seperation of powers.
This law had cross party support.
The courts should not have intervened.
It is not a question of whether the courts should have intervened. They had no choice once a challenge on the issue of proportionality (the right of the individual to bring as afforded by the law) was brought under the Human Rights Act, as passed by Parliament. That is the courts’ role and they cannot and should not duck it.
The issue of proportionality had to be decided one way or another by the courts once the issue was brought before them. One group’s interests had to be decided at the expense of the other group. That is the way the law works. It was Parliament that gave the courts this power. The courts did not usurp it. We might or might not like the final decision but there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
We also need to be clear here. It was The Forced Marriages Act which had cross party support (in my view quite rightly) and not the blanket ban on spouse visas. That was the unilateral decision of the Home Office.
I disagree.
Its an attempt to post seriously. On the complicated issue of visa and forced marriage.( Your original post was supreme court 1 condems 0.)
Parliament should make laws, the courts should interpret them.
Its the seperation of powers.
This law had cross party support.
The courts should not have intervened.
I bet ‘they’ wish ‘they’ had kept the age of majority as 21 and then this may never have happened….
Lets have a look. A quick Google search.
Denmark: 24
Germany: 21
Netherlands: 21
Austria: 21
UK: 21 (but now unlawful)
Belgium: Planning to introduce 21, but would not apply to EU nationals
EU wide: Brussels recommended 21 to aid integration and deter forced marriages
there are surely fairer (and better) ways to deal with the problem of forced marriages than to punish everybody under 21 who makes the mistake of falling in love!
Thats a fair point, that would be a subject for proper debate.
How far do you want to go with this falling in love business. 18 17 16….....lower? After all the marriage age in some counties for females is 15?
What do you think Jan?
there are surely fairer (and better) ways to deal with the problem of forced marriages than to punish everybody under 21 who makes the mistake of falling in love!
If it is love a few years wait won’t hurt.
If it is love a few years wait won’t hurt.
Arrr…... there is love and there is true love.
Enough to bring a tear to my glass eye.
Still…...
Howabout abolishing all marriages, thereby reducing the divorce rate rather a lot? Just a thought…. *cough*.
... and big savings on the marriage friendly schemes.
If it is love a few years wait won’t hurt.
Arrr…... there is love and there is true love.
Enough to bring a tear to my glass eye.
Still…...
What is love if not true love? Is there false love? This could be a philosophical matter, but maybe it could be defined in law, but only relating to people 21 or over of course.
“What is love if not true love? Is there false love? This could be a philosophical matter, but maybe it could be defined in law, but only relating to people 21 or over of course”.
And there is the love on a two way street, the love hangover, the greater love that no man has that he lay down his life for his friends, the love of a good woman, the love action, the everlasting love, the baby love, the love to love you baby, the love that dare not speak it’s name, the love that won’t shut up…….
(That’s enough loves – Ed)
Not Friday is it?
Is it? I didn’t realize!
Love - Fifteen.
Love - Fifteen.
Is that a proposal for lowering the age of majority?