Report comment

Anonymous 17:26 - the longer version of Justice Souter's comments at the following location is even more worth listening to--

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/justice-souters-old-warning-finds-new-life-election/

Whilst I expect the judges who issued their decision on Thursday to be able to bear the criticism with equanimity, as a hazard of doing justice in the sound-bite age, the real problem is the way vituperative, polemicist criticism of this kind eats away, in the minds of many of our fellow citizens, at the pillars that hold up our Parliamentary democracy and the democratic freedoms that go with it. Justice Souter points to the threat to democracy that lies in the ignorance (in the US case) of two-thirds of the population about the workings there of the democratic institutions and processes that underpin their democracy, because they are unable to see where responsibility for dealing with problems lies. In that state of ignorance people are wont to hand power to the person who most successfully claims to be able to solve those problem and, that way, democracy dies. His remarks can easily be seen to apply equally across the Atlantic both in this country and other countries (the rise to power of Hitler being the obvious example of how things can go wrong).

Here it is widespread ignorance of the profound importance of an independent judiciary in safeguarding our freedoms against the exercise of arbitrary power that is a serious problem for us. An independent judiciary means that, for each and every one of us, there is the risk that cases may be decided in ways that we personally dislike. But, where the rule of law is a paramount safeguard of our democratic way of life, the ways to deal with such decisions are (i) appeal against them through the courts, and accepting the final decision when it comes, or (ii) persuading Parliament to change the law.

There will always be others who disagree with my views but, when things get serious, there needs to be an independent system for deciding who is right in a civilised, non-violent fashion. In the meantime, the role of judges needs to be respected. By all means criticise their decisions, by firstly understanding them and then challenging them through reasoned argument (as the Government will no doubt do before the Supreme Court), But when the criticism focuses on the judges personally and sidesteps the 'inconvenience' of engaging with the arguments, that is when the institution of justice itself, and its ability to hold those in Government to account under the law, is undermined. And in the long term that is the way to lose the democratic freedoms that we currently enjoy.