JLSC, bench being pushed

This view is in keeping with all legal foundation and practice, with the Constitution, with the powers of legal interpretation, with the practice of repair of procedural irregularity in good faith, and with the inherent powers of constituted bodies. It is also common sense.

Four questions arise.

First, democratised reactionism against the bench generally should be abhorred and this Government is showing itself too slow, one way or another, to quell it.

Second, this reactionism against the bench masks certain undeclared motives; and until the true goals are named honestly and the proposed methodology admitted, the actors themselves leave their merit open to question.

The third has three parts, in that the actors themselves are lawyers who have shown themselves unable to recognise that the JLSC can cure the situation; or, they are unwilling to acknowledge it; or, they are unwilling to propose it.

Finally, legalistic activism with an ultimate recourse to the Privy Council is not the way to build our political fabric and is neither democracy nor republicanism.

What it does seem to be is a neo-colonialism by certain minorities and alliances hankering to become “like Europe” and whatever else unknown that they “may or may not” have in mind “at their election.” Also, it has “to victimise” to succeed. In these circumstances we can see that both the JLSC and the bench are being pushed to bow to and condone what should be rejected.

E GALY via email