Home spun Spin & the house arrests of Azkaban.

by iosaf Thu May 10, 2007 12:40

Tony Blair will step down on the 1573º anniversary of the death of Cyril of Alexandria, Patriarch of the Christian Church one of those known as "Doctor of the Church" and the only who has the "seal of Fathers".

Cyril died on the 7th of June 444 common era.

Spend time with Leo - let Cherie do the work and earn enough cash for you to get a seat in the Lords Tony. your RTS! t-shirt is in the post.

Thanks for making Paisley and McGuinness smile in the same room and creating a society where Father Ted could make Brits laugh without taking the piss out of us. You're a bad bastard all the same.
Get that eye seen to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_of_Alexandria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6639945.stm

by iosaf Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:57

links to Cypriot & EU reunification issues :-
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=69439
and Cherie's well known conflicting interests problem
http://unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=27&si=1529764&issue_id=13438
It also links to the "British and Chums takeover the EU" which lets be honest was more disappointing then the Luxembourg, Netherlands or even Bertie EU presidency", only a few days to go and its Mister "I know how to confict interests" Berlusconi in charge.
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=70565

by iosaf Thu Nov 17, 2005 13:51

The Telegraph (conservative english daily) lists Mrs Blair's "cashing in" on her husbands job.
http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/17/ncherie17.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/17/ixportaltop.html

by iosaf Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:50

Cherie gave a "keynote" speech on rights tuesday as the 19th Sultan Azlan Shah law lecture, and this is the version which was edited and used by The Guardian this morning as its "comment article".

So far I have not been able to find the unedited version.

Cherie Booth- "now we need judges more than ever"

Nowhere has the importance of independent judges policing a constitution of principle become clearer than in the context of the threat and reality of terrorism. I say this in the month that London experienced a series of bomb blasts, killing and maiming many innocent civilians. Nothing I say here makes light of these horrific acts of violence, or of the responsibility imposed on governments to keep the public safe, or of the dangerous task performed by the police and intelligence services. At the same time, it is all too easy to respond in a way that undermines commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions and cheapens our right to call ourselves a civilised nation.

The choice of options in response belongs to the executive or legislature. But these are not unbridled. As the president of Israel's supreme court put it: "The court's role is to ensure the constitutionality and legality of the fight against terrorism. It must ensure that the war against terrorism is conducted within the framework of the law."

An obvious conflict arises between the need for national security and human rights. Recently the House of Lords has grappled with this conflict when faced with a challenge to indefinite detention of foreigners at Belmarsh prison under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001. The house ruled that such detention was a breach of the European convention on human rights - a landmark decision described by Lady Justice Arden as a "powerful statement by the highest court in the land of what it means to live in a society where the executive is subject to the rule of law".

The public reaction to this decision has not been uniformly favourable. Of course, the public failed to appreciate that the outcome of the case was not driven by what the judges thought or felt about appropriate reaction to a terrorist threat, but rather by what the convention demands. The judiciary now has the important task of reviewing executive action against the benchmark of human rights.

What the case demonstrates is the potential for judges to educate the public about the real meaning of democracy. With every contentious matter that constitutional courts hear, judges have to grapple with opinions held by the public and to respond in a way that teaches citizens and government about the ethical responsibilities of being participants in a true democracy. This is so even when - one might say particularly when - a nation is confronted by the threat of terrorism.

In the Belmarsh case, Lord Bingham addressed this issue powerfully: "I do not accept the distinction which [the attorney general] drew between democratic institutions and the courts. It is of course true that the judges ... are not elected and are not answerable to parliament ... But the function of independent judges charged to interpret and apply the law is universally recognised as a cardinal feature of the modern democratic state, a cornerstone of the rule of law..."

The democratic potential of constitutional courts lies not only in their role as guardians of the weakest, poorest and most marginalised members of society against majoritarian politics. It also lies in the judges' vital role as teachers in a national seminar on meaningful, inclusive democracy in the 21st century. In these troubled times, where terrorism, division and suspicion are the order of the day, this role is perhaps more vital than ever.

There is a trend to cross-constitutional discussion, with judges in Israel inspecting Canadian precedents on minority-rights cases, and the South African constitutional court studying German cases to interpret social and economic rights claims. The international nature of constitutionalised human rights means that domestic judges are engaged in a common exercise. Even as they seek solutions to local problems, they draw on an increasingly interconnected global set of standards. While the world's nations each have responsibilities to their citizens to act against terrorism, the experience of others who face similar threats is of obvious importance.

Sometimes democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its back. None the less, it has the upper hand. Preserving the rule of law and recognition of individual liberties constitutes an important component of its understanding of security. At the end of the day, this strengthens its spirit, and this strength allows it to overcome its difficulties.

Our institutions are under threat; our commitments to our deepest values are under pressure; our acceptance of difference is at a low point. At this time our understanding of the importance of judges in a human-rights age should be at its clearest. And it is at this time that our support for the difficult task that judges have to perform must be at its highest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/comment/story/0,16141,1537443,00.html

by iosaf Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:12

in this morning's Daily Telegraph. That bastion of something or other, is not often seen publishing "woolly liberal" "i was always against the Iraq war you know" pieces.
But it has.

little excerpt:-

"The Iraq war was one political issue that I did have strong views about. I ticked "strongly disagree" from the very beginning - not the beginning of the war, even, but the beginning of the warmongering, back in 2002. I read everything I could about it, written by both extremely Right-wing pro-war people and extremely Left-wing people.

That was President Bush's "Either you're with us - or you're with the terrorists" period, you remember. A black-and-white issue if ever there was one. In Bush terms, I was with the terrorists, I guess. But in my terms, I didn't believe that "the terrorists" were in Iraq in the first place. I couldn't see the point of invading Iraq. Iraq wasn't the problem.

Al-Qa'eda was in Afghanistan. Ansar al-Islam was in Syria. Jawaat-al-something-or-other was in Pakistan. Hizb ut Tahrir was in Uzbekhistan. Takfir wal Hijra was in Egypt. (It means Anathema and Exile, and I have to say that if I was a disaffected "cleanskin" with a yen for murder and a desire to join a Black Hand Gang, that's the group I'd pick; coolest name ever.) "

The author Vikki Woods then goes on to have a prod at Cherie Blair :-

"For example, old Abu Hook-hand should never have been allowed to preach extremism from outside his mosque in London (while guarded by bored coppers from the Met). The girl who insisted on wearing a jilbab instead of perfectly acceptable Muslim-type school uniform should not have been allowed to. Full stop.

Especially when Hizb ut Tahrir, who seem to have spread out a bit from Uzbekhistan and gone to live among our friends in the north, targeted her school, and backed her. And even though that brisk barrister Cherie Booth won her case for her."

The Telegraph do very long links which spoil our format. So to read it all you'd have to cut and paste the 2 following lines.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/16/
do1602.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/16/ixopinion.html

by io Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:29

Cherie Blair has received £30,000stg for a 1.5 hour appearance in Washington as a speaker.
Billed in Washington as the "Trailblazing First Lady of Downing Street" she earned as much as it takes someone in a year to join the top tax bracket in the UK where 88% of the population earn less.
She is better paid as "mrs Blair" than as the QC.
She is worth more as the wife to the ASBO man than as the defender of little muslim girls' hijabs.
Polly Toynbee of the Guardian comments:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1501532,00.html
The supreme irony is she probably spoke about the good work being done for Africa.

by picture book Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:11

-

cherie in her hijab - did not offer any non diplomatic signs of peace

by stenographers.- Thu Mar 10, 2005 20:33

R (on the application of SB) v THE HEADTEACHER AND GOVERNORS OF DENBIGH HIGH SCHOOL (2005)
(Filed: 10/03/2005)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Brooke LJ (V-P), Mummery LJ, Scott Baker LJ
March 2, 2005

Education - Human rights - Freedom of thought conscience and religion - Islamic law - Justification - School exclusions - School uniforms - Proper approach for determining human rights compatibility of school policy - Justification for school dress code for Muslim female pupils - School policy - Discipline - Islamic dress code - Muslim female pupils - Shalwar kameeze - Jilbab - Non secular states - Minority rights - Art. 9 European Convention on Human Rights 1950 - Protocol 1 Art. 2 European Convention on Human Rights 1950

FACTS

The appellant schoolgirl (B) appealed against a decision ([2004] EWHC 1389, [2004] E.L.R. 374) dismissing her application for judicial review of the refusal of the respondent school (D) to allow her to attend the school if she was not willing to comply with school uniform requirements.

B was Muslim and wished to wear a jilbab to school rather than a shalwar kameeze as dictated by D's uniform policy. D's complaints committee decided that the uniform policy satisfied all the requirements of the Islamic dress code and D continued to refuse to allow B to attend school in a jilbab. B maintained that the shalwar kameeze did not comply with the strict requirements of her religion. She lost nearly two years' schooling before a different school accepted her.

ISSUES

(i) Whether the school had unlawfully excluded B.

(ii) Whether the school had denied B her right to manifest her religion and the right of access to education in violation of Art. 9 and Protocol 1 Art. 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950.

HELD (Appeal allowed)

(i) Contrary to the finding of the judge, D undoubtedly did exclude B. It sent her away for disciplinary reasons because she was not willing to comply with the discipline of wearing the prescribed school uniform and she was unable to return to school for the same reason. Education law did not allow a pupil of school age to continue in the limbo in which B found herself. If the statutory procedures and departmental guidance had been followed B's schooling would have been put back on track much more quickly.

(ii) The fact that B's view that Islamic law required her to wear a jilbab was held by a minority of Muslims was nothing to the point in considering the issue whether Art. 9(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 was engaged. B's Art. 9(1) freedom to manifest her religion was limited and, as a matter of Convention law, it was for D, as an emanation of the State, to justify the limitation on her freedom created by its uniform policy and how was enforced. The United Kingdom was not a secular state: (Sahin v Turkey [2004] E.L.R. 520 distinguished). In England and Wales provision was made for religious education and worship in schools. Schools were under a duty to secure that religious education was given to pupils and that each pupil should take part in an act of collective worship every day, unless withdrawn by their parent. D's position was distinctive in the sense that despite its policy of inclusiveness, it permitted girls to wear a headscarf that was likely to identify them as Muslim. D approached the issues from an entirely wrong direction and did not attribute to B's beliefs the weight they deserved. D started from the premise that its uniform policy was there to be obeyed rather than from the premise that B had a right recognised by English law and that the onus lay on it to justify its interference with that right. Accordingly D had unlawfully denied B the right to manifest her religion in violation of Art. 9(1) and denied her access to suitable and appropriate education in violation of Protocol 1 Art. 2 of the Convention.

(iii) The Court of Appeal outlined the appropriate decision-making structure in the circumstances and listed some matters that D, and other schools in a similar position, would need to consider when determining whether such a uniform policy was justified.

Cherie Booth, QC, Carolyn Hamilton and Eleni Mitrophanous (instructed by the Children's Legal Centre) for the appellant. Simon A Birks (instructed by the council solicitor) for the respondent.

by chelsea girls Thu Mar 03, 2005 20:41

yes he is. Smack as you might know is worth give or take a forged sterling note just the same as gold.
If the Aga Khan is worth his weight in gold he's worth his weight in smack as well. Smack though unlike gold isn't traded on open markets, and Mr Greenspan can't warn the US about their defecit quoting any smack economic indicators. we know Bush worries about these things coz he's an ex coke head. And fair play to the fucker he kicked one of the most dificult habits there is. But we were never told if he did smack. We might sort of presume in a Gonzo type way, that somewhere along the line, Mr Bush did get offered on a particularly difficult come down off a few days gnawing at the jawbones a hit of smack.
But we can't say anymore.
We can also say by process of sillyness and soft mathematics and economic indicators, that Mr Bush is worth his weight in smack. Because the Aga Khan can afford to give over 70,000,000 dollars ahead of his tricky divorce to the Begum to France and Mr Bush only gets 600,000 dollars a year for being american wookie number one pressie number 43, we could say -
The Aga Khan is worth his weight and the weight of Bush in Smack.
coz the Aga is a rich aga.
We could go further, we could say without breaching libel or being ott ridiculous that the Aga Khan is worth the whole Blair family, Mr Bush and the twins (but not Jeb coz he's heavyweight) in Brown.

by plastic surgery victim Thu Mar 03, 2005 19:01

is he really worth his weight in smack?

by grown up Thu Mar 03, 2005 18:40

people like the Mc Libel to get such good counselors, and for little boys of whatever culture or faith to realise that little girls are particularly difficult @ that age, but just coz an older girl or woman wears a short skirt doesn't mean she's the whore of babalon. That role has been taken now, by a man.

by Emma Goldperson Thu Mar 03, 2005 17:38

How about fighting for the right of Women to be free from the veil?

by ps- 93-94-95 Thu Mar 03, 2005 13:02

The Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand, London
was built by loads of workers as they were known, many of whom were Irish in the period 1868-1882.
In 1882 the then queen in the doylie Vic, bless her, opened the building, but you will note that the door is always open, and the Shabina is standing in it.

The building was made from 35 million bricks faced with Portland stone, the Royal Courts of Justice are said to contain 1,000 rooms and 3.5 miles of corridors. The stress of building was so great that it caused Street's (the architect who did the "plans" as they were known), early death.

Shabina Begum, has the same surname has the wife of the Aga Khan, who's being screwed by his former model wife, Begum is pronounced "beg - um".
The Aga Khan has announced a 70,000,000€ deal with the French state to support a new museum, keen readers will remember the billionaire long accused of being involved in smack, has chosen France to divorce the Begum in, rather than the UK where he holds "subject-ship"/citizenship".
Use your search engine, or check on google.
The Begum Khan has asked for exactly one half of the Aga Khan's fortune, or she'll spill the beans...

Shabina is wearing an off the peg coat, in a very adolescent shade of lilac, and a fetching wrap around the head and neck hijab which is not quite a burka, and underneath she most doubt is wearing a Fatima's hand, coz most little muslim girls do.

Fair play to her, not many children goto the 88 courts of the Strand and come out, having won a battle for rights against the UK government.

It must have been her lawyer.
If you'd like Cherie Blair QC to represent you in court, please remember she's a very busy woman, she's a devoted mother, an attentive wife, and might not be available to take upyour case, and ahem she doesn't come cheapo either. Cherie is contactable at Number 11 Downing street, where she lives, most people think she took the usual flat in no 10, but neither she nor her husband thought it was big enough so they knocked a hole in the wall and now live in the top stories of the house next door. This would as you realise cause complications were her husband to be placed under house arrest for Terror. Which house would he be house arrested in? The one where he's traditionally thought to live, or the one where Cherie gives him a back rub in?